Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am going to be very brief. For many of us who knew Tom Daschle and know Tom Daschle, we never thought this day would come. We never thought Tom would really be defeated in an election. I thought a lot about that. Why? I mean, this man is such a good man. He is such a good friend. He is a good leader. I do not know anyone who cares more about their State and who has worked harder.

He talked about the State's energy sufficiency, and it was Tom Daschle's sheer will of support to develop an ethanol industry for the State. I know because I tangled with him year after year because from a California perspective this was not such a good idea; from a South Dakota perspective, it was. For Tom, his State always came first.

I thought he was unbeatable. He is for the little people. I remember being in the State. I remember hearing him talk about the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and the state of the people in Pine Ridge and how deeply he felt. When he feels very deeply, his voice gets that quaver and it drops low.

This is a very hard day for many of us. As I went down the aisle to embrace Tom, two people said this really is a tough business. And, in fact, it is a tough business.

I also want to say that Tom Daschle was a great leader for our caucus. Many of us on many days watched him convince, cajole, push, and bring us together when we had to be together. We watched him on the Senate floor in the middle of the night, early in the morning, late in the day, always gracious, always patient, always articulate. We never had to worry about Tom Daschle's integrity or his credibility.

I still wonder, how could he be beat? This is such a good man, such a good leader, such a good State representative. For me and my husband he was a personal friend. When Dick was in Washington, early in the morning he would run with Tom and they would talk about all kinds of things. The run was always a good one and my husband would come home and always say what a great guy Tom Daschle is.

I think for all of us we wish him all the best. For me, I do not believe this man has reached his potential yet. I think he still has enormous gifts to give to this Nation, to his State, and I believe he will, perhaps in a different way. Perhaps we will see him come back in a different form. For Tom Daschle, these 10 years were very special years and for us we were so privileged because we had an opportunity to be led by a good man, by a great friend, and by a great leader.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Miscellaneous Tariff bill, in particular a provision granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Armenia.

Armenia is a critical U.S. ally in the Caucus region and PNTR will significantly strengthen bilateral relations and spur economic growth and prosperity in Armenia. It allows Armenian products continued access to the U.S. market at low tariff rates and will go a long ways towards offsetting the impact of Turkish and Azeri blockades that cost Armenia as much as $720 million annually.

Simply put, this means jobs and rising living standards for Armenians who want to stay in their country and create a better tomorrow for their children. Armenians have worked so hard to overcome the horrors of the past to build a country based on values Americans and Armenians both share: freedom, democracy, open markets, respect for human rights and the rule of law. We should stand behind those efforts.

I am proud to represent over a half million Armenian Americans in California. They are a strong, vibrant community who have enriched the culture of our State and participated in every aspect of its civic life.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting PNTR for Armenia.

Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience support this request to raise the national debt limit to $8.1 trillion. Rather than raising the debt limit by $800 billion, we should be taking concrete steps to lower our budget deficit and reduce our national debt.

If today's increase is adopted, President Bush will have raised the Nation's debt limit by more than $2 trillion. In other words, just 4 years into the job he has raised the debt limit more than any President in U.S. history.

The Federal budget deficit reached a record $422 billion for fiscal year 2004, according to the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

Over the next 10 years the President's budget will create $2.3 trillion in additional debt for our Nation. This is a stunning turnaround from 4 years ago, when the budget showed: a $127 billion budget surplus, and a projected 10-year surplus of $5.7 trillion.

This is a mind-numbing $8.0 trillion turnaround in just 4 years.

Given these numbers, it is not surprising that the debt limit has been raised twice in the past 2 years--by $450 billion in 2002 and by $984 billion in 2003.

At the same time he is raising the debt limit, President Bush is promising to ``cut the deficit in half over the next five years.'' But his numbers don't add up and he has provided no clear path to achieve this goal.

In contrast, in 1998, following nearly 30 years of deficits and a 17- fold increase in Federal debt from $365.8 billion to $6.4 trillion, we paid off $448 billion of the Nation's publicly held debt.

For the first time in more than a generation, some of the funds which would have gone to pay interest on the debt were instead spent actually paying down the debt.

I see no similar path being offered by President Bush and now deficits and interest costs are growing once again. Net interest payments on the Federal debt will increase sharply, from $159 billion in 2004 to nearly $350 billion by 2014.

Not surprisingly, when this Nation runs a budget deficit, the government must borrow money from other sources to balance its books.

What would surprise many, however, is that we largely borrow this money from foreign countries--like China and South Korea. And the degree to which this administration has borrowed from foreign nations is shocking.

Over the past 4 years, the U.S. has increased its borrowing from Japan to the tune of $700 billion; by $167 billion from China, $130 billion from Great Britain, and $60 billion from South Korea.

When President Bush came to office we owed $1 trillion to foreign countries. We now owe more than $1.8 trillion. We are ceding control of our Nation's destiny for a quick payoff to wealthy taxpayers and this debt limit increase bill simply enables that disturbing behavior.

The Committee for Economic Development, an independent, nonpartisan organization of 250 business and education leaders, estimates that if we stay on our current course, the deficit will rise from 3.5 percent of GDP today to: 6.2 percent of GDP in 2020, and 21.1 percent of GDP in 2040.

Deficit growth of this nature would absolutely crush any hope this Nation has of addressing so many of our pressing problems, like better homeland security, shoring up Social Security, and fully funding No Child Left Behind. Deficits do matter, and unless we face up to them, they could seriously harm our Nation's economy. Here is why first, deficits mean increased spending on interest instead of priorities.

In the short term, deficits can help stimulate the economy or pay for emergency spending. But in the long term, they limit our Nation's ability to fund much needed priorities. This means less money for education, less money for environmental protection, and less money for health care.

Second, deficits lead to interest rate increases. We have been fortunate in recent years: interest rates and inflation have remained low. But as we have seen in the past few months, as the economy picks up, the downward pressure on interest rates are being relieved and the impact of deficits are starting to be felt. This is adding huge expenses to variable home mortgages and auto loans.

An increase of just 1 percent adds $2,000 per year to the cost of a $200,000 home mortgage. This is more than the majority of American taxpayers received from the President's latest tax cut.

Third, deficits prevent us from addressing the looming Social Security and Medicare crises. This is an issue that we can not continue to avoid. The retirement of the baby boomers will place a tremendous strain on our social safety net. In fact, if we do not address the problem, the Medicare trust fund

will go broke by the year 2019, and the Social Security trust fund by 2052.

Our Nation was poised to deal with these crises at the end of the Clinton administration.

Not only have we failed to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but we are also tapping the Social Security trust fund to pay our bills--to the tune of $164 billion last year alone.

So what do we do? One possibility is to simply continue along our current path and pass our problems on to our children and grandchildren. In fact, the debt limit increase that we are debating today enables the President to borrow from future generations and sends the message that we are unable to muster the political will necessary to pay today's obligations today.

So I strongly believe that the time has come to chart a different course, and make the tough choices that the President and this budget resolution avoid making.

We must adopt a balanced approach to both taxes and spending and return to a program of fiscal sanity.

This is what we did when I first came to the Senate over a decade ago. At that time, a small, bipartisan group of Senators came together to get our fiscal house in order: Democrats worked to bring spending under control; and Republicans pledged not to push for additional tax cuts.

Today, we must come together again to address the deficit and restore our Nation's economic security.

On taxes, I believe that we must move to make our Tax Code more equitable, not make the President's tax cuts permanent. To make the President's cuts permanent at a time when the Nation is running historically high budget deficits represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

The Tax Policy Institute estimates the cost of making these tax cuts permanent would cost $1.8 trillion over 10 years--$1.8 trillion at just the time that baby boomers will start retiring and Social Security and Medicare need to be stabilized.

The tragedy of our current circumstance is that, given the surpluses he inherited, President Bush should have the resources available to devote additional spending to healthcare, education, and the environment. But the wrong policies, at the wrong time, combined with the war on terror, escalating the 2001 tax cuts, and then extending many of them, have contributed toward the largest budget deficit and largest national debt in the country's history. And now, the fact of the matter is that we are going to need to tighten our belts and bring spending under control.

I have no problem holding the line on spending, but believe that it must be done in the context of a more responsible approach to tax policy.

Finally, we need to take a good, hard look at Social Security and Medicare, and start addressing some of the deeper structural problems with these programs now--before they fall into crisis.

These are not easy answers. But holding off on additional tax cuts, bringing spending under control, and dealing with Social Security and Medicare is the only path to long term fiscal order, a balanced budget, and a healthy and vibrant economy.

Mr. President, I will vote against this FSC/ETI conference report and I want to explain why.

The original purpose of this legislation was simple and clear--to bring the United States into compliance with a World Trade Organization, WTO, ruling which said that portions of our Federal Tax Code run counter to international trade regulations.

It is critical that we fix this problem, or U.S. companies will face increased European tariffs, costing U.S. jobs.

This conference report, however, goes far beyond the simple legislative fix needed to bring the U.S. into compliance with the WTO ruling.

In fact, the cost of bringing the U.S. into compliance with the WTO is $49 billion, while the cost of the final bill is $145 billion. The difference is $96 billion in benefits to special interests paid for with certain revenue fixes that should be used to balance the budget.

In fact, this bill provides billions of dollars in benefits to special interests at a time of unprecedented budget deficits. Let me give you a few examples cited in Thursday's Washington Post, ``Conferees Agree on Corporate Tax Bill'':

NASCAR racetrack owners get a provision to write off $101

million worth of improvements over ten years.

Foreign gamblers at U.S. horse and dog racing tracks would

no longer have to pay taxes on their winnings upfront. This

is estimated to be worth $27 million.

Home Depot would secure a temporary suspension of tariffs

it owes for imported Chinese ceiling fans. This is estimated

to be worth $44 million.

At a time when we are facing unprecedented Federal deficits and a mounting debt, it is simply unconscionable to approve this giveaway to special interests. Although the 10-year cost is offset, these offsets could well be used to bring down the deficit.

Policymakers should be taking steps to reduce the deficit and improve the economy, not eroding it further by doling out tax breaks to special interests. But one industry was singled out for penalty in this bill. I cannot accept that--and that industry happens to be the film industry.

In fact, this final conference report will cost the motion picture industry $5 billion over the next 10 years--because they will have to make changes in the way they account for revenues.

The film industry employs 750,000 people nationwide, and the major motion picture studios are publicly owned and pay annual dividends to shareholders.

Rather than allowing the industry to account for its activities on a product line-by-product line basis as was done in the Senate bill, this conference report means that the industry will have to adopt unified accounting.

For example, the Disney film called The Alamo was produced in the United States and did not perform as well as expected.

Under the final conference report, the losses from The Alamo are lumped with all other company revenues--TV, DVD sales, theme parks, merchandise, and music. This is known as unified accounting.

In the Senate version of the bill, Disney would have been able to account for this loss within its film division, separate from its other divisions. This is known as product line-by-product line accounting.

If you assume a $50 million loss, requiring unified accounting will cost the studio an additional $2.6 million in additional taxes.

If you assume a $75 million loss, requiring unified accounting will cost the studio an additional $3.9 million in additional taxes.

So the bottom line is that unified accounting will mean that Disney, and other entertainment companies, will have to pay significantly more in taxes as much as $5 billion over the next 10 years.

I cannot believe that we would in effect raise taxes on an industry that does so much to help our economy.

This simple accounting change would have significantly helped reduce the impact from this legislation.

But in the end, this provision was stripped from the final conference report.

What is worse are reports that this was not due to the merits of the provision, but out of base, political concerns.

A story in yesterday's edition of Roll Call, ``Studios Take Hit in Tax Bill'', asserts that lawmakers stripped the Senate film amendment in retribution for the film industry's decision to hire a Democrat--a former Cabinet Secretary in fact--to head its trade association.

Let me quote from the article:

One GOP Lobbyist for the industry said:

The Glickman thing is going to cost them. No Republican

will fight for the movie industry.

Another Republican Lobbyist added:

They were not overly helpful to Republicans, so Republicans

don't want to be overly helpful to them.

Ordinarily, I do not believe much of what I read on many days and so there would be reason perhaps to dismiss this.

But I also know that the word has been put out on K Street that only Republicans are welcome as lobbyists so this article takes on new credibility.

This is especially egregious given the fact that the film industry was not even involved in the unfair trade practices that led the WTO to declare that U.S. international tax rules were unfair.

I have the opinions of two former U.S. Trade Representatives--one Republican and one Democrat--Carla Hills and Mickey Kantor--which make the case.

Carla Hills wrote:

Having previously served as [U.S. Trade Representative], I

would like to share with you my views regarding the

consistency of your amendment with applicable trade law The

[General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] does not apply to

`audiovisual services' and does not include any general

prohibition against export contingent subsides.

Mickey Kantor wrote:

Audiovisual services are . . . not within the purview of

the WTO FSC/TTI decisions In my view the adoption of [your

amendment] . . . would not violate or contravene the WTO

rulings in the FSC/ETI case.

As one can see, two former U.S. Trade Representatives agree that the entertainment industry was not involved in the unfair trade practices.

However, the entertainment industry is being singled out for a tax increase in this bill in order to pay for tax cuts going to multinational firms that hold their profits overseas in order to avoid paying taxes.

The bill allows many of these companies having profits overseas to repatriate these billion at a 5.25 percent tax rate.

These are the multinational firms which now will be allowed to bring those foreign-earned profits back to the United States at one half the rate that the poorest American's are required to pay on their income under this bill. This is not fair and equal treatment.

I cannot believe that the other House would utilize political vengeance to disadvantage a sector of American business, while so advantaging other sectors.

Another major flaw with this bill is that it removes the Senate language permitting long-sought FDA regulation of tobacco. The Senate voted overwhelmingly--78 to 15--in favor of a carefully crafted amendment to allow FDA regulation of tobacco.

This amendment linked FDA regulation with a 5-year, $12 billion buyout of tobacco growers. Regulatory authority over tobacco would have allowed the FDA to begin to reduce the addictive and carcinogenic elements of these products. It would have made a difference and, over the long run, it, alone, could have saved millions of lives.

Despite the broad, bipartisan support for this provision, the House rejected a proposal by Senator Kennedy to provide an additional $2 billion for tobacco growers as long as it was linked with FDA regulation of tobacco. Even Philip Morris supports FDA regulation of tobacco. Let me quote from two letters

from senior executives from Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris.

Steven Parrish, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Altria Group wrote that the provision on FDA regulation of tobacco ``is the result of many difficult choices and compromises by all those involved, and it reflects a balance of the perspectives of many stakeholders. We believe the bill embraces the core principles that are necessary to provide the Food and Drug Administration with comprehensive, meaningful and effective regulatory authority over tobacco products.

Together with our domestic tobacco operating company, Philip Morris USA, we enthusiastically support passage of your bill in its entirety.''

John Scruggs, vice president, Government Affairs, Altria Group wrote separately that the provision on FDA regulation of tobacco ``address[es] nearly all'' of the ``issues relating to retailers'' and we should ``disregard the strident and unfounded arguments of those who refuse to look to the future and the need for change in the tobacco industry.''

Congress had the opportunity to finally allow the FDA to regulate tobacco--but it failed to do so. This is deeply disappointing and shows the true colors of the House Republicans.

You may ask, what would FDA regulation of tobacco do to help stop smoking and prevent these premature deaths? FDA regulation of tobacco would do two important things.

First, it would control the deceptive and manipulative advertising used by cigarette companies. Young people across the country are bombarded every day with deceptive advertising and misleading claims made by cigarette manufacturers.

The tobacco industry spends $11 billion on marketing their products. Their latest campaign involves cigarettes that come in fruit flavors and bright colors to target adolescents and women. The cigarettes are given names such as California Dreams, Midnight Madness and Kauai Kolada. The cartons are a different shape and size so as to be hidden from unsuspecting parents and teachers.

And the manufacturer describes them by saying: `Each is as enchanting and mysterious as the darkest night. And, live in color with California Dreams `cigarettes in color' for your individual taste and attitude.' This is truly a new low. These slogans, these flavors, and these colored wrappers cannot hide the fact that cigarettes kill more than 400,000 American each year--and that's the second reason that FDA regulation is so important.

FDA regulation, over time, would ratchet down the carcinogenic and addicting ingredients of tobacco products. Just think how many fewer Americans--young people, old people would avoid the addiction.

Today, 42 million Americans today are addicted to cigarettes and other tobacco products. A number of these will end up with lung disease and many of them will die.

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer--and the number one cause of lung cancer is smoking. Today and every day, 4,000 children under the age of 18 will try smoking for the first time, 2,000 of these children will become regular smokers, and 1,300 will die prematurely because of smoking.

The bottom line is this: Congress had the opportunity to take a major step forward in improving the health of America's children. But the Republican members of the House chose the tobacco industry over our children--and they should be held accountable for that choice.

There is one more item that did not make it into this bill, which I find deeply troubling. The Senate language to protect overtime rights was removed from the bill. This means that millions of American workers may very well lose long-guaranteed job overtime protection. This is a setback for the American worker.

There are a number of items contained within this conference report that I do support. This bill will provide an expansion of the production tax credit for renewable energy including open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, and solar energy; a provision to eliminate the preferential treatment for ethanol-blended gasoline. Without this provision, California would lose $2.7 billion in highway funds over the next 5 years; and a provision that removes a business tax deduction for the purchase of gas-guzzling SUVs.

These provisions do not make up for the rest of the bill. I think we all would have supported a straight fix to the WTO ruling, but this bill goes too far. It fixes the WTO problem, but then it contains all these other giveaways.

So what was a $49 billion problem to solve becomes a $145 billion bill. This is just plain wrong. I hope in the future that we can remedy some of the shortcomings of this bill, but on balance, this is a deeply flawed billed which I simply cannot support.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a ``Roll Call'' article, to which I referred, and three letters dealing with different provisions of the FSC/EIT bill.

A September 22, 2004 report by the Citizens of Tax Justice and the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy reveals that 82 of the 275 (30 percent) large and profitable, Fortune 500 companies studied paid no tax on federal income or received rebates from the Treasury in at least one year from 2001 to 2003.

In the years they paid no income tax, these 82 companies reported $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. Moreover, instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate required, these companies received tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury totaling $12.6 billion. These rebates meant that the companies made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.

Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the 3 years, included: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by Secretary of the Treasury Snow. General Electric topped the corporate tax breaks recipients with $9.5 billion in tax breaks over 3 years.

The average effective rate for the 275 Fortune 500 companies was only 17.2 percent in 2002-2003, though the corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

How is this happening? Accelerated depreciation. Legislation adopted in 2002 and 2003 vastly increased corporate write-offs for ``accelerated depreciation'' and made it easier for corporations to use their excess tax subsidies to generate tax-rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, at a 3-year cost of $175 billion.

Offshore tax sheltering. Over the past decade, corporations and their accounting firms have become increasingly aggressive in seeking ways to shift their profits, on paper, into offshore tax havens, in order to avoid their tax obligations. Corporate offshore tax sheltering is estimated to cost the U.S. Treasury anywhere from $30 to $70 billion a year.

Senator Levin has been aggressive in trying to close these loopholes and some of his ideas were adopted in the Senate version of the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) bill.

Stock options. Of the 275 corporations studied, 269 received stock- option tax benefits during the 2001-2003 periods, which lowered their taxes by a total of $32 billion over three years. Microsoft had the largest tax savings with $5 billion.

Tax credits. The federal tax code provides tax credits for companies that engage in research, exporting, hiring low-wage workers, affordable housing, and enhanced coals usage. For example, Bank of America cut its taxes by $590 million over 2001-2003 by purchasing affordable-housing tax credits.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the conferees on the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations bill have reached agreement, and I would like to say a few words about the bill.

The conference report includes important funding for the reconstruction efforts in States affected by recent hurricanes and assistance for agricultural producers suffering from drought and other natural disasters.

First, let me address the military construction portion of the agreement. While the President's budget request was $9.55 billion, only 2.5 percent over last year's enacted level, the conference report provides $10 billion for military construction and family housing programs for fiscal year 2005.

These new facilities are crucial to the well being of our troops, especially at a time when our active and Reserve forces are, along with their families, being asked to make enormous sacrifices for our country.

The conference report also provides $11.6 billion in disaster assistance, including $8.8 billion for hurricane-related relief which is designated as emergency spending and $2.8 billion in assistance for agricultural producers suffering through drought and other natural disasters, which is offset by a cap on spending for the Conservation Security Program.

I think we all recognize the importance of this assistance package, but I am disappointed that the majority insisted on treating emergencies in different part of the Nation unequally.

Drought relief for farmers in the Midwest and across the Nation is no less important than hurricane relief in the Southeast and should not have required an offset from the Conservation Security Program.

Offsetting this funding hobbles the effectiveness of one of the most important environmental programs in the Department of Agriculture.

I was also concerned that the package requested by the President leapfrogged Federal Highway Administration assistance for damage done by the hurricanes ahead of the backlog of projects required to repair damage from past disasters.

However, this concern was addressed by an agreement to fully fund the backlogged emergency relief program in the pending omnibus bill.

Chairman Hutchison indicated at the conference that Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist have committed to fully fund the States that need this assistance, and I appreciate their help on this issue.

There are currently $752 million in projects that have not been funded, even though they have already qualified for emergency relief.

California alone has over $240 million in projects that have not been funded. I appreciate Chairman Young's willingness to rectify this situation and look forward to the emergency relief funding program being funded in the omnibus.

The conference agreement also includes Senator Stevens' provision on the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline.

Senator Stevens has worked for the past few years to authorize funding for this pipeline, and I am pleased that we could get this done for the senior Senator from Alaska.

The provision authorizes the construction of a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, AK, to the lower 48, with a dedicated supply of natural gas to California.

The provision provides Federal loan guarantees to whatever entity builds/ decides to build the pipeline, as Senator Stevens requested.

The demand for natural gas in this country is growing exponentially, particularly in my State of California. Natural gas prices have risen dramatically over the past several years, from $2 per thousand cubic feet in 1998 to over $7 just this week.

We need more natural gas, and I hope that Senator Stevens' provision to bring Alaska natural gas down to the lower 48 states and particularly California will help meet that demand.

Mr. President, while I would have preferred to pass the Military Construction bill without the contentious issues surrounding this disaster assistance package, I support this conference report and hope my colleagues will do the same.

Finally, I want to thank Senator Hutchison for the manner in which she handled this process. I have long admired her integrity and her leadership in reaching this agreement was outstanding.

Mr. President, this is a good bill. It has had some hiccups along the way. One of them, of course, was the House put in the disaster relief package and had the signatures and would have eventually rolled us in conference.

However, Senator Hutchison said that we would have another conference, that she would not do this, and she kept her word. That is a very big thing in this body, that if you give your word, keep your word, and she did. I am very grateful for that.

Because of this conference we were able to receive an amendment from the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, on drought relief. It was defeated, but then we were able to pass the bill without rancor and without a sense that in the dark of night the Democratic side had been done in.

I am very proud to say that I think it is a good bill. I want to give Senator Hutchison credit for that. She kept her word. That is a very big item.

I thank Senator Hutchison, and I appreciate the time.

Mr. President, I too wish to thank the Senator from Washington for raising this critically important issue. Indeed, no State has been more disadvantaged than my own by the decision to target the available emergency relief funding in this bill largely if not exclusively to the recent hurricanes. That decision was not made by the conferees on the military construction portion of the bill. Rather, it was made by the full committee leadership. As such, I am grateful to the subcommittee chairman, Senator Hutchison, for working with her own leadership and Chairman Young in gaining their assurance that these outstanding emergency relief claims will be fully funded in this year's omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased today that the Senate will accept by voice vote the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations Conference Report.

The conference report includes important funding for the reconstruction efforts in States affected by recent hurricanes and assistance for agricultural producers suffering from drought and other natural disasters.

First let me address the military construction portion of the agreement. While the President's budget request was $9.55 billion, only 2.5 percent over last year's enacted level, the conference report provides $10 billion for military construction and family housing programs for fiscal year 2005.

These new facilities are crucial to the well being of our troops, especially at a time when our active and reserve forces are, along with their families, being asked to make enormous sacrifices for our country.

The conference report also provides $11.6 billion in disaster assistance, including $8.8 billion for hurricane-related relief which is designated as emergency spending and $2.8 billion in assistance for agricultural producers suffering through drought and other natural disasters, which is offset by a cap on spending for the Conservation Security Program.

I think we all recognize the importance of this assistance package, but I am disappointed that the majority insisted on treating emergencies in different parts of the Nation unequally.

Drought relief for farmers in the Midwest and across the Nation is no less important than hurricane relief in the Southeast and should not have required an offset from the Conservation Security Program.

Offsetting this funding hobbles the effectiveness of one of the most important environmental programs in the Department of Agriculture.

I was also concerned that the package requested by the President leapfrogged Federal Highway Administration assistance for damage done by the hurricanes ahead of the backlog of projects required to repair damage from past disasters.

However, this concern was by an agreement to fully fund the backlogged emergency relief program in the pending omnibus bill.

Chairman Hutchison indicated at the conference that Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist have committed to fully fund the States that need this assistance, and I appreciate their help on this issue.

There are currently $752 million in projects that have not been funded, even though they have already qualified for emergency relief.

California alone has over $240 million in projects that have not been funded. I appreciate Chairman Young's willingness to rectify this situation and look forward to the emergency relief funding program being funded in the omnibus.

The conference agreement also includes Senator Stevens' provision on the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline.

Senator Stevens has worked for the past few years to authorize funding for this pipeline, and I am pleased that we could get this done for the senior Senator from Alaska.

The provision authorizes the construction of a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, AK, to the lower 48, with a dedicated supply of natural gas to California.

The provision provides Federal loan guarantees to whatever entity decides to build the pipeline, as Senator Stevens requested.

The demand for natural gas in this country is growing exponentially, particularly in my State of California. Natural gas prices have risen dramatically over the past several years, from $2 per thousand cubic feet in 1998 to over $7 just this week.

We need more natural gas, and I hope that Senator Stevens' provision to bring Alaska natural gas down to the lower 48 States and particularly California will help meet that demand.

While I would have preferred to pass the Military Construction conference report without the contentious issues surrounding this disaster assistance package, I support this conference report and I am pleased that my colleagues have agreed to accept it.

Finally, I thank Senator Hutchison for the manner in which she handled this process. I have long admired her integrity and her leadership in reaching this agreement was outstanding.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his very eloquent presentation. I agree with him 100 percent. I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his presentation.

As the senior Senator from California, a lifelong Californian, I will make a few remarks about Chris Reeve.

I remember when I saw Chris Reeve in ``Superman.'' He was 25 years old. He was amazing. We now learn he did some of his own stunts. And then what followed was the ``5th of July,'' and I remember ``Somewhere in Time.'' We saw this tall, handsome actor, seemingly invulnerable.

I remember the film footage when he went over that jump on a horse. We learned that he had severed a vertebra high in his neck which canceled out all speech and rendered him quadriplegic for the rest of his life.

As many know, it is rare that an individual survives more than 2 years with this form of injury. Yet he survived for 9 years. I remember listening to a CNN interview with Paula Zahn over stem cells. He said: When somebody lies still and doesn't move anything for a matter of days, cannot even scratch their nose, let them talk to me about stem cell research.

In fact, this is a catastrophic injury presenting him with a catastrophic problem. So many people suffer from many of these injuries and from catastrophic disease, all of which may well be helped if we go eagerly, enthusiastically, and scientifically into stem cell research. That is the challenge. Parkinson, diabetes, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries all can be helped.

Yet Christopher Reeve, who could not move, made amazing progress--not a recovery but progress--and would appear here before hearings and hold press conferences and urge us to move forward with a stem cell bill.

I had the pleasure of introducing the first stem cell bill in this Senate. There are five Members--the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch; the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy; the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter; the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin--who are cosponsors of the major stem cell bill. We will be back. We will reintroduce it as one of our first bills in January in this new session. I will be asking my colleagues to rename this bill the Christopher Reeve National Stem Cell Act.

I want all of America, through this bill, to know Chris Reeve's last 9 years on Earth were not, in fact, in vain, that we will produce a bill that will, in fact, put America on the scientific horizons of research for catastrophic and disabling diseases and injuries. If we do not, I believe other States will follow with what California is doing.

California has on the ballot a proposition. It is known as proposition 71. It would produce $3 billion in bond funds to allow California to plunge ahead to produce stem cell research. Now, other States will follow if we do not move with a national bill. So I hope we will.

Mr. President, ten years ago this fall, President Bill Clinton signed the California Desert Protection Act into law, preserving 7.7 million acres of stunning landscape for generations to come.

With the passage of this legislation, the largest parks and wilderness bill to impact the lower 48 States was enacted, thereby establishing Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Park and the Mojave National Preserve.

Protecting these beautiful lands stands as one of my proudest legislative accomplishments to this day.

The California Desert is home to remarkable archaeology, beauty and wildlife--some of the last remaining dinosaur tracks, Native American petroglyphs, abundant spring wildflowers, and threatened species including the bighorn sheep and the desert tortoise, an animal known to live for as many as 100 years.

And each of the parks created by the act has its own unique beauty. Joshua Tree, encompassing parts of both the Mojave Desert and the Colorado Desert, contains magnificent rock formations and forests which blanket the high country throughout the park. The abundant yellow creosote bushes of the eastern side of the park are mirrored by the rugged Joshua Trees to the west.

The Death Valley landscape, marked by a diverse range of salt playas, alpine forests, and jagged rocks, is a land of extremes--one of the hottest, driest, and lowest places on Earth. At Dante's View, a visitor may look down into Badwater, the lowest place in the western hemisphere and, on a clear day, look west to Mt. Whitney, the highest point in the lower 48 States.

Mojave National Preserve, with its granite, limestone, and metamorphic rocks, has a remarkable geological diversity, as well as the largest Joshua Tree forest in the world. Many of the preserve's peaks are a vivid pink at the top, the result of a volcanic explosion more than 18 million years ago in Arizona that sent deposits flying through the air and flowing across the land to the Mojave Desert.

The California Desert Protection Act ensured that these lands would be preserved for years to come. In total, the act raised the protection level for 9 million acres of parks and wilderness.

Since 2000 the wilderness area has been expanded even further with the purchase of nearly 600,000 acres of land primarily in and around the Mojave National Preserve. The transaction, the largest conservation acquisition of private lands in U.S. history, combined Federal Land and Water Conservation

Fund appropriations with funding from the Wildlands Conservancy to buy discounted land owned by the Catellus Development Corporation.

This expansion protected 200,000 acres of critical habitat for the endangered desert tortoise, 150,000 acres for bighorn sheep, the largest cactus gardens in the world at Bigelow Cholla Gardens and rights-of-way for 165 trails and access roads leading to 3.7 million additional acres of land used for hunting, hiking and camping.

Visitors have taken advantage of these abundant recreation and research opportunities in the California Desert. Last year, 2.8 million people traveled to Joshua Tree and Death Valley national parks and the Mojave National Preserve. In turn, these visitors provided an economic boost of approximately $100 million at nearby hotels, restaurants, and other local businesses.

Now, as we celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the California Desert Protection Act, the preservation of our national park system has never been more important. Population growth, especially in the western United States, is placing increased pressure on our public lands. That is why it was so critical that we acted 10 years ago and why it is urgent that we continue to preserve our Nation's natural treasures today.

Unfortunately, there is much evidence that our national parks are not receiving the funding or attention they deserve. A recent survey of 12 national parks by the Coalition of Concerned National Park Service Retirees found that six parks had either reduced or planned to reduce visitor center hours or days of operation. The survey also found that all twelve parks had recently cut full-time or seasonal staff positions.

One of the parks surveyed, Death Valley, reduced its law enforcement positions from 23 several years ago to 15 at the time of the study. More than 600 miles of backcountry roads are inadequately secured leaving natural resources, wildlife and visitors less safe.

Meanwhile, the backlog of maintenance projects in our parks has grown to a range of $4 billion to $6.8 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office. Throughout our national park system, roads, bridges, and historic structures are falling into disrepair, trails and campgrounds are poorly maintained, and visitor centers are becoming outdated.

Additionally, a recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency designated eight national parks, including Joshua Tree, as containing excessively high levels of ozone. It is alarming to know that the air at some of our national parks is harmful, especially since the problem of poor air quality in these regions was identified for action under the Clean Air Act in 1977.

Our national parks are America's natural treasures. They make the beauty of our Nation accessible to all Americans and, indeed, visitors from around the world. We have a responsibility to preserve these places for the enjoyment of generations to come.

Enacting the California Desert Protection Act was an important step toward that end. Now, we must continue to work to ensure that the parks we have already established, and those we may yet protect, have the resources they need.

I would like to join the Senator from Idaho in calling attention to the very significant contribution that Japan is making in Iraq. As a Senator from California, I am privileged to represent thousands of Japanese-Americans who I know will be proud and pleased to learn about Japan's critical role in Iraq.

Beyond the impressive figures on force deployment, which the Senator from Idaho has so clearly outlined, it should be noted that Japan's financial commitment to Iraq, and to working closely with the United States in Iraq, is equally significant. At last year's Madrid International Donors Conference on Reconstruction of Iraq, Japan announced a financial assistance package totaling up to $5 billion. The package includes both $1.5 billion in grants and $3.5 billion in loans. In addition, Japan will host the Third Meeting of the Donors' Committee of the International Reconstruction Fund for Iraq this month.

Japan has also made a very significant effort to provide cultural assistance for Iraq. One of the documents submitted by Senator Craig provides the details on this undertaking. I was especially struck by Japan's reference to its own experience of reconstruction after World War II and the need to ensure that the unifying forces, like those of a shared culture and athletic tradition, are nurtured to help the Iraqi people reestablish their own identity.

It is also important to remember that Japan's commitment to Iraq was severely tested during a hostage crisis this year. Fortunately, that crisis was resolved favorably. Here's what Prime Minister Koizumi said on April 22 on that subject:

This hostage taking has not undermined Japan's firm resolve

to engage in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in

Iraq. It is precisely because the situation in Iraq makes the

activities of ordinary individuals impossible that the Self-

Defense Forces have been dispatched to engage in humanitarian

and reconstruction assistance in Iraq.

Mr. President, these facts underscore the very important point made by the Senator from Idaho. The United States is fortunate to have Japan as a close ally. I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. President, today with my colleague, Senator Kyl, I commemorate Domestic Violence Awareness Month and pay tribute to the millions of victims of domestic violence in the United States: both those who daily face fear and pain at the hands of the ones they love, and those who have had the courage to seek help.

Domestic violence causes far more pain than the visible marks of bruises and scars. It is devastating to be abused by someone that you love and think loves you in return. It is estimated that approximately 3 million incidents of domestic violence are reported each year in the United States. Tragically, domestic violence remains a pervasive threat to the fabric of America's families and the well-being of America's future.

Around the world, one out of three women is abused by their domestic partner or another member of their family. This means that each of us probably knows at least one victim of domestic abuse.

It is primarily a crime against women, who account for approximately 85 percent of domestic abuse victims each year. Indeed, nearly one- third of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, and each year as many as 324,000 women experience domestic violence during their pregnancy. It is truly heartbreaking to hear these victims' stories and to know that so many women and even some men face this pain on a regular basis.

Domestic violence does not only happen to adults. Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend, and approximately one in five female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. And these are only the cases that are reported.

Additionally, many children are caught in the middle, witnessing abuse or being abused themselves. Domestic violence is witnessed by between 3.3 and 10 million children every year. And, studies show that half of all men who frequently assault their wives also frequently abuse their children. The emotional impact of this abuse during childhood can have a devastating effect on the rest of a person's life.

Domestic abuse creates a cycle of violence. Children who are abused or witness abuse are at a higher risk of abusing their own family and significant others as an adult as well as long-term physical and mental health problems, including alcohol and substance abuse. It is evident that these abuse victims follow the example they learned in childhood and continue the cycle of violence when they are adults.

Statistics can show the wide scope of domestic violence, but numbers cannot demonstrate how frightening domestic violence is to a victim. I have read stories of many victims, both men and women, whose lives are changed forever by the fear and pain they feel as a result of their partner's violent behavior.

Let me talk about just one story I read recently. At first glance, Pam Butler appeared to have the perfect life. She grew up in a stable, loving family in Palo Alto, CA. That stability was shattered when she met Michael Braga.

Michael Braga was a charismatic but troubled man who quickly romanced Pam Butler. He began to control every aspect of her life: limiting her contact with friends and family, controlling her money and living space and chipping away at her self-confidence. This behavior quickly escalated into violence. Pam was beaten unconscious on several occasions. She painfully learned to hide the signs of the beatings because she was ashamed to be in such a horrible situation.

After several beatings caused re-injury to an old skull fracture, Pam Butler realized that staying in the relationship could kill her. She enlisted the help of Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney Joyce Allegro.

I am pleased to report that Mr. Braga was arrested and prosecuted. Following his trial, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison, one of the longest sentences for domestic violence passed down in California history.

As a result of her experiences with domestic violence, Pam Butler has devoted many hours to assisting other victims. She is the Domestic Violence Victim Advocate for the County of Santa Clara's Social Services Agency. She has also spoken about domestic violence across the United States. Her story is an inspiration to every person who has been a victim of domestic violence.

Another heartbreaking story is that of Michele, a Chicago woman who had been abused just as her mother and grandmother had before her. Michele's father hit and insulted her throughout her upbringing. Unfortunately, Michele was not able to break the cycle of violence and fell into the same trap as her mother and grandmother.

Her first husband beat her, cheated on her, called her insulting names and controlled her ability to come and go from her house. Although she was well-read and bright, Michele did not believe she had the ability to escape this horrible situation.

Ultimately, her husband left her and her children, and she continued the cycle of violence with other abusive men. Eventually, she and her children found themselves homeless. Only then did she realize that she could get help. Michele now encourages other victims to seek help and speak out against domestic violence.

It is vital that we act to stop the cycle of domestic violence. To this end, last April the Senate passed the Victims' Rights Act by a vote of 96 to 1. I am proud to have been a long-time supporter and cosponsor of this important legislation. The act amends the federal criminal code to expand the rights of victims, especially the protection of victims of domestic violence, during the course of an alleged offender's trial and imprisonment.

This is landmark legislation in its ability to ensure the rights of all victims, but it is especially important for victims of domestic abuse. The Victims' Rights Act assures victims the right to be reasonably protected from the accused. It guarantees the right to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime, as well as any release or escape of the accused offender. And it protects the victim's right to be treated with fairness and with respect for his or her dignity and privacy.

The Victims' Rights Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation that I have had the privilege of supporting during my 12 years in the Senate. It is currently before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and I strongly encourage the House to take it up soon.

In closing, I am grateful for the opportunity to honor the victims of domestic violence and to call for an end to the cycle of violence. It is my sincere hope that we will all know peace and security in our own homes.

Madam President, my comments are related to amendment No. 3718, as modified, which the chairman said is at the desk. I will not have to ask for the amendment to be modified. This amendment has been previously debated. I have spoken on the floor twice about it. It was set aside at my request.

The amendment clarifies the relationship of the FBI to the new national intelligence director. It ensures that national intelligence programs include the FBI's intelligence activities. I had hoped that the amendment could be disposed of yesterday, but apparently that could not happen and, thus, the amendment is before us today.

I thank Senators Lieberman, Collins, Roberts, and Gregg, all of whose staff worked hard to improve the original amendment. The result is, in essence, a compromise that accomplishes our fundamental goal, which is to ensure that the intelligence functions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation are both reorganized and, secondly, effective and coordinated in the intelligence community.

The original amendment has been modified to that effect. It is my understanding that the amendment, as modified, is acceptable to both sides.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few minutes on an unrelated matter, pertaining to a bill the House of Representatives just passed.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose S. 878, or at least the version the House of Representatives just passed today. Essentially, what the House did was to poison a worthy bill, a bill that was meant to alleviate the crisis of an overwhelming workload under which the Federal judiciary is struggling. The House did so by adding language to split the Ninth Circuit into three circuits. In doing so, the House has essentially taken the new judges as hostages to a starkly partisan and controversial ploy.

I will not go along with such bullying tactics, and I am placing a hold on that bill today. It is with great regret, and with greater frustration, that I place this hold.

I will take a few minutes to explain why we so desperately need the new Federal judges S. 878 would provide, and then I want to make clear why I am so opposed to the language the House of Representatives has added to split the Ninth Circuit.

According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, the average caseload for every Federal district judge in the country is now 523 cases per judge. In 1999, the average was 480 cases. So it has increased 9 percent in 4 years. But that only tells part of the story. Of the four Federal district courts in California, my home State, three of them handled more cases per judge than the national average: the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 544 cases; Southern District of California, 611 cases; the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District, 734 cases per judge, 40 percent more than the national average.

So it is this burden that needed to be remedied, and in this bill there were 51 district court judges. It was an important bill.

This situation extends far beyond California. For example, the district court for Nebraska, represented by my colleague Chuck Hagel, who has been working on this issue with me, has 627 cases per judge, almost 20 percent more than the average. Other courts with exceedingly high caseloads are in Iowa and Arizona.

The version of the Senate bill that the House Judiciary Committee amended would have added 51 new Federal district court judges, 32 of them permanent, 15 temporary judges whose seats would expire when they retire, and 4 seats that would be converted from temporary to permanent. That version of the bill would also have added 11 judges to the circuits of the Court of Appeals. All of these additions came at the recommendation of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States. According to their 2003 report, the need for new judges is real and growing.

They go on to state:

Since 1991, the number of criminal case filings has

increased 45 percent and the number of criminal defendants is

35 percent higher.

Then it continued on with the statistics. When the judges tell us that they need more judges to supervise criminal trials, to secure our borders, and to crack down on deadly firearms, it is our obligation to listen and to act, because these judges are the linchpin of our justice system. Just as we need soldiers to help win the war on terror, we need enough judges to keep safe at home.

Instead of moving forward to simply add judges, which is what we need, the House essentially sabotaged the bill by adding an amendment to split the Ninth Circuit into these three new circuits.

This is not the time or the place for such an action. I am very much aware of arguments in favor of splitting the Ninth Circuit. In the Senate Judiciary Committee we have been debating this for years and, as I said at the Senate hearing on the issue earlier this year, I welcome the hearing and look at it with a much more open mind than I have in the past. I am sensitive to the fact that the Ninth Circuit had a 13- percent increase in caseload in a single year.

However, this is only one side of the argument. We have testimony from the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, whom I respect greatly, who informs me that the size is not an obstacle to efficiency. We have letters from the State Bar Associations of California, Arizona, and Hawaii opposing a circuit split. I have a letter from Governor Schwarzenegger of California opposing a split of the Ninth Circuit. I have letters from eight judges in the Ninth Circuit opposing a circuit split, and also a letter from Senator Sessions saying that he has received letters from 15 Ninth Circuit judges opposing a split.

Suffice it to say that reasonable minds can differ on whether the Ninth Circuit should be split. What reasonable minds, I think, have to agree on is this is no way to undertake such a momentous change in our Nation's history. I suspect what is happening is that opponents of the Ninth Circuit are trying to take a bill that we need, add new judges, and make the Congress accept the split to the Ninth Circuit as the price.

The fact of the matter is the split they propose will not equalize the caseload. There will still be a disproportionate caseload with the methodology used in the split followed by the House decision voted on this morning. Under the House bill, the new Ninth Circuit, with California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, would have 407 cases per circuit judge. That is much more than the new Twelfth Circuit, of Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana, which would have 280 cases per circuit judge. It is also much more than the new Thirteenth Circuit, of Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, which would have 279 cases per judge. So the House bill does not solve the problem of an even split of cases between the circuits.

What we found as we looked at this over the years is that an even split cannot happen unless California is split in half, because the State, and ergo the

number of cases, is simply too large. This has always been the dilemma.

Additionally, this legislation causes major new costs. The Administrative Office of the Courts states that the startup costs for a three-way split that the House today demanded would ring up $131.3 million to make that particular split.

Despite the need for new judges, I cannot accept this ploy. This is the time for new Federal judges. It is not the time to split the Ninth Circuit. I think the House of Representatives has harmfully cemented one weighty issue to the other and it is not going to work.

So, regretfully, I must place a hold on this bill. I hope Members who are concerned about this will listen, and I hope it is not too late to work out some solution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee. I have indicated I am withdrawing one amendment, No. 3719, which clarifies the tactical intelligence part of the bill. I don't believe that is necessary. It has been withdrawn. I am also withdrawing amendment No. 3715 to strike the prohibition on co- location.

At this time I call up and then set aside amendment No. 3718.

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

I reiterate my strong support for this bill and the balance that has been struck by the committee in the drafting of this bill. It strikes the right balance. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor.

In my remarks on Monday, I mentioned I was going to be submitting an amendment concerning the relationship between the FBI foreign intelligence functions and the national intelligence director. I thank both the majority and the ranking member staff for working with my staff to work out this amendment. It will be worked out and it will be the chairman's intent to present this amendment for unanimous consent.

However, I will clearly state the intent of the amendment. The FBI functions as part of the intelligence community in the gathering, analyzing, and disseminating of information about the plans, intentions, and capabilities of our foreign enemies, including, most importantly, counter-terrorists. That effort, in my view, should be under the overall supervision of the national intelligence director.

Let me be clear, though, this amendment does not mean the national intelligence director should run or control operations inside the United States. When the FBI, under the operational control of the FBI director and the Attorney General, works as a foreign intelligence agency, it should do so as part of that community under the general guidance of the national intelligence director.

An excellent example of this issue is now part of the extensive record of structural intelligence failure prior to the September 11 attacks, the way the intelligence community handled, or I should say mishandled, the so-called Phoenix document information and the Moussaoui information. Here we had in two different places FBI agents acquiring factual information which is of clear foreign intelligence value: that foreign individuals, associated with foreign terrorist organizations, may have been learning to fly passenger planes. At the very same time, the rest of the intelligence community had information that al-Qaida was preparing to strike against the United States and also that there had been past consideration of the use of airplanes in an attack methodology.

Putting together these two disparate pieces of information is the business of an effective intelligence community. But it did not happen, in part, I believe, because the FBI part of the communication was not linked up with the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency parts of the community.

The bill before the Senate goes far toward remedying this by placing the FBI foreign intelligence elements under the overall supervision of the national intelligence director. I am concerned the bill presently contains ambiguities that, if left in, will cause confusion in the future. That is because the bill incorporates, with no change, current law which defines the role of the FBI intelligence activities. However, that law is confusing, it is internally inconsistent, and I believe it is the source of many of the problems which beset the FBI as part of the intelligence community.

This amendment does three basic things to fix this. I want the record to reflect that. It clarifies critical definitions in the law. It makes a small alteration in the current law to make clear that the term of art ``counterintelligence'' is a subset of foreign intelligence, not an alternative to foreign intelligence.

Second, it makes clear that when the FBI is engaged in law enforcement, it is not part of the national intelligence program or under the NID supervision, but removes the word ``counterintelligence'' from this so-called carve-out language. This is critical because this language in existing law was the confusing foundation upon which much of the wall between the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community was built.

This amendment creates a directorate of intelligence in the FBI. As written presently, the bill places the activities of the Office of Intelligence of the FBI clearly within the national intelligence program. This is good, but because the Office of Intelligence has no statutory basis, it could be rendered useless in the future if that office is removed or changed by a future FBI director.

This amendment renames the office the Directorate of Intelligence and gives it a clear basis in law.

Finally, this amendment introduces some clarifying language to ensure that the section governing ``FBI improvements'' is read to ensure that these improvements come as part of a larger, coordinated effort, led by the national intelligence director to improve the standards and practices of the entire intelligence community.

It does this by ensuring that the FBI Director's improvement program is

guided by the national intelligence director. And it defines a ``certified intelligence officer''--that is a term introduced for the first time in the underlying bill--to make sure that ``certification'' means meeting intelligence community standards, developed by the national intelligence director.

The bottom line is that the FBI's intelligence functions must be part of a larger effort, guided by a strong leader, and linked carefully with all the other agencies and Departments in the intelligence community.

There are still two parts of this amendment that are being worked out by staff. I appreciate their hard work very much and thank them. I also would like to thank the chair and the ranking member for their cooperation. I am very hopeful this amendment can later be adopted by unanimous consent.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3718 be set aside for the present time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this month our Nation celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. To commemorate the anniversary of this landmark legislation, I want to take a few moments to highlight the historic importance of this law, and remind us of some of the work remaining to be done.

When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Wilderness Act into law on September 3, 1964, it became our unambiguous national policy ``to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.''

The legislation empowered those of us in Congress, with the ultimate approval of the President, to designate Federal lands for protection as part of our national wilderness preservation system. It was a tremendous accomplishment, immediately placing some 1.2 million acres of wilderness in 13 areas on national forest lands throughout my home State of California under statutory protection. And it protected another 8 million acres of land in other States.

But that was only the start. Over the ensuing four decades, Californians have welcomed acts of Congress that have expanded most of those initial areas. Today, those original 13 wilderness areas have grown to 1.7 million acres of wilderness firmly protected by statute.

The Wilderness Act also required that numerous other areas of Federal land be studied, with local public hearings, leading to Presidential recommendations for additional wilderness areas. Congress has enacted those proposals in California, beginning with the great San Rafael Wilderness near Santa Barbara in 1969--the first area added to the national wilderness system after the Wilderness Act became law.

Another early study focused on the 50,000-acre Ventana Primitive Area in the mountains along the central California coast above Big Sur--an area the U.S. Forest Service preserved in the 1930s. The study led Congress to establish the 98,000-acre Ventana Wilderness in 1969, with the leadership, among others, of California Senator Thomas Kuchel.

Since that time we have revisited this area in four additional laws, most recently when we passed and President George W. Bush signed a law in late 2002 further expanding this wilderness. As a result, the Ventana Wilderness now covers 240,000 acres.

Beyond the original Wilderness Act study areas, our California delegation has listened carefully to the diverse voices of the people of California. Year after year, we receive proposals for wilderness protection that come to us from ordinary citizens and organizations in our State, most often working in close consultation with the Federal land managing agencies involved and our State government.

Many of these proposals have been enacted, particularly for lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. As a result of all this work, California now boasts 130 wilderness areas comprising 14 million acres.

These California wilderness areas offer a diverse spectrum of landscapes and ecosystems, recreational opportunities and scenic vistas, from the high peaks and forested valleys of the Sierra, to the extraordinarily wild deserts that Senator Alan Cranston and I fought to protect in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994--one of my proudest achievements for the people of California.

In celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act, I particularly stress that the work of preserving California's wilderness heritage has always been a bipartisan endeavor. In our State, we enjoy wilderness areas found in the congressional districts of both Democrats and Republicans, protected in laws signed by every President since this program began 40 years ago--Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

The act itself became law after 8 years of congressional debate. Endorsed by the Eisenhower administration and the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the act was shaped by practical-minded people, mostly westerners. It is, as Senator Kuchel said during those Senate debates, ``reasonable . . . not extreme in any degree.''

Senator Kuchel insisted that the law not conflict with State water rights and that the act respect existing mining claims and established grazing uses. At the same time, Senator Kuchel reminded his colleagues that protecting wilderness watersheds is key to abundant, clean water supplies--the lifeblood of California's ranching and agricultural sector, our thriving cities and towns, and the economic well-being of our entire Nation.

Still, there is more wilderness to be protected and more work to be done. These days, Federal lands that deserve a fair look by Congress are, in some cases, under threat from other kinds of use that are inconsistent with the preservation of wilderness. This is the kind of careful balancing Congress undertakes as we make these decisions.

This Congress has a great opportunity to preserve even more stunning wilderness by completing action on the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act that I have cosponsored with my colleague Senator Barbara Boxer. This bill has the strong and effective support of Representative Mike Thompson, in whose district every acre of its proposed wilderness areas is situated, and the support of numerous cosponsors, including California Representatives from both sides of the aisle.

Among the 300,000 acres this priority bill would protect is the 42,000-acre King Range Wilderness, a wild expanse on our California ``lost coast'' south of Eureka. Many of the proposals in this bill are based on agency recommendations or proposals by local citizens like the Humboldt County nurse who has been working to save the King Range for 20 years. These areas enjoy strong support, as wilderness, from local business owners in the area, from hunting and fishing enthusiasts, from dedicated backpackers to young parents hiking or backpacking to introduce their children or their grandchildren to nature at its most wild.

Similarly worthy, bipartisan proposals await action for wilderness sponsored by our colleagues from New Mexico and Washington. And no less worthy is the proposed wilderness area designation for an area on the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Rico--a wilderness area proposed by the U.S. Forest Service more than three decades ago.

As we consider these wilderness proposals, we can generally rely upon existing standards and interpretations of the Wilderness Act. Thanks to our predecessors we have a wealth of guidance in the legislative history of the Wilderness Act and the more than 100 laws Congress has enacted since to protect additional lands.

Now, as we celebrate the 40th year of the Wilderness Act, the preservation of our wilderness has never been more important. Population growth, especially in the Western United States, is placing increased pressure on our public lands. That is why it was so critical that our leaders acted 40 years ago and why it is urgent that we continue to preserve our Nation's natural treasures today.

John Muir once said, ``Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul alike.''

For 40 years, the Wilderness Act has entrusted Congress and the American people with the means to preserve that beauty.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished ranking member.

Let me begin by thanking the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Maine, the ranking member, Senator Lieberman, and the Governmental Affairs Committee for a very good bill. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, one who has been for the concept of a strong, independent director of national intelligence for 3 years now, I was surprised to see the strong quality of the product that came out, because this committee has actually entered into some of the nitty-gritty and tried to come up with solutions that would stand the test of time. I thank them for their work. It has been excellent work, and it puts a product before the Senate that we can all be proud to discuss. It contains no poison pills. It is a straight bill. It deals with the subject at hand in a very meaningful way.

As I mentioned, I have believed for sometime now that the way in which our intelligence community is structured is really fundamentally flawed. It is unsuited for the 21st century, when we are not talking about intelligence agencies of large powers but we are talking about asymmetric terror.

In the context of intelligence, we have seen three comprehensive investigations into recent failures of the intelligence community. Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Rockefeller have mentioned many of them. Certainly, there was the joint inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into the attacks of September 11. There was the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, resulting in a 300-page report that we recently completed, which investigated and reported on the intelligence, the findings, and the recommendations--all related to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Then, of course, there was the 9/11 Commission, which investigated the attacks on 9/11, a very comprehensive report and review, which has, frankly, brought most of the decisionmakers, as well as the

country, into alignment with the concept that we do need a strong national director of intelligence.

In each of these cases there were explicit and implicit findings that touched on how our intelligence community could fail so badly. Issues of funding, of education, of risk taking, and, frankly, of plain incompetence surfaced. Even today, there is still denial that many of the findings of weapons of mass destruction were simply wrong, deeply flawed, or bad. This will need to be remedied.

In my view, these failings were symptoms of a failed structure; again, of a structure that was built for the last century's conflicts and unsuited to this new war of asymmetric terror.

I believe the most important steps needed to address these structural failings revolve around the office of the Director of Central Intelligence, known as the ``DCI.''

Up to this point, there has been a nominal head but a head of the Intelligence Community without the necessary authority. That post carries two handicaps. Those are built into its structure and, I believe, lead that structure to fail.

First, the individual serving as DCI has two basic, incompatible jobs: leader of the intelligence community, which includes 15 often fractious Agencies and Departments, and in that role is the principal intelligence adviser also to the President; and leader of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is, of course, only one of the 15 agencies which make up that big fractious community.

These two jobs are not compatible. They each take up far too much time. They each require a laser-like focus on its own unique mission. Worse yet, they can be in direct conflict, because the needs of the intelligence community in terms of mission, resources, and strategy may not be exactly what is wanted by the Central Intelligence Agency. The problem is that the Intelligence Community and the Central Intelligence Agency both need and deserve full-time leaders. That, of course, is the heart of the argument for this bill.

Secondly, even under the current structure, the DCI lacks basic tools needed to run any large institution in Washington. And what are they? Budget, personnel, and statutory authority.

Under current law, the DCI nominally is charged with administering the money and people who make up the intelligence community and for formulating a budget presented to us in the Congress.

Today, in reality, the DCI has little control of much of that budget, with more than 80 percent actually controlled by the Secretary of Defense. He is unable to move personnel, or shift strategic focus, in an effective way. One chilling example was revealed by the investigations into 9/11, where DCI Tenet issued an order declaring war on al-Qaida in 1999, only to find in 2001 that few outside the CIA even heard about it, much less listened to it.

The solution to the second problem is to ensure that the position of intelligence community director is provided with real budget authority, real personnel authority, and real authority to set strategy and policy, and this bill does that. I am very thankful for that.

The bill before us today builds on these earlier efforts and I strongly believe accomplishes the basic and necessary goals.

The bill creates a national intelligence director, separate from the CIA Director. The bill invests this director with meaningful budget authority, effective personnel authority, and the ability to set strategy for the entire intelligence community. And it ensures that the national intelligence director can set priorities for intelligence collection and analysis, and manage tasking across all 15 agencies to ensure that it gets done and done right.

One of the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings in our report was that the collection and analysis that went into the compilation of the national intelligence estimate was deeply flawed, and that there were differences of opinion between agencies, whether it was aluminum tubes, where the Energy Department's intelligence and the CIA's differed, or whether it was with the unmanned aerial vehicles, where the intelligence agencies of the Air Force and the CIA differed, or whether it had to do with biological mobile labs, where the Secretary of State went out before the United Nations with deeply flawed intelligence. But the analysis and collection of that intelligence had deep flaws, which made it bad intelligence.

This bill provides the national intelligence director also with a general counsel, inspector general, chief financial officer, human resources officer, and chief information officer, who together can ensure that effective organization and guidance can flow through the entire community. That is a good thing.

I will support the bill because I believe it accomplishes the task at hand: making necessary changes to our intelligence community structure.

That said, I believe there is some room for improvement. I want to take a few minutes to talk about that, and I want to offer to continue to work with my colleagues to improve this bill during this next week. Let me give you some of the things I am concerned about.

First, I am concerned that the bill leaves ambiguous the relationship between the new national intelligence director and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Let me give you some specifics. The bill incorporates, with no change, current law, which defines the role of the FBI's intelligence activities into this new bill. However, the current law is confusing, it is internally inconsistent, and it is a source of many of the problems that beset the FBI as a part of the intelligence community. I believe we must clarify this to do three things: First, we have to make it absolutely clear that counterintelligence investigations that involve the ``plans, intentions and capabilities'' of foreign nations and organizations, including terrorist groups, are part of the National Intelligence Program and thus under the overall supervision of the National Intelligence Director. This bill does not yet do that. For instance, the investigation of suspicious individuals taking flight lessons prior to September 11, which resulted in the ill-fated Phoenix memo, should clearly be a part of the intelligence community's responsibilities.

Second, we should establish in law the FBI's Office of Intelligence. The office of intelligence is created on page 7, with a mention under the programs of the bill. But it is not further defined anywhere in the bill. I suggest that it be defined on page 127, line 20, of the bill, and that it be defined to make it crystal clear that within the FBI this office is the source of authority and guidance for the intelligence activities of the FBI.

Third, we should recognize in law that old, rigid divisions between law enforcement and intelligence make no sense. This can be accomplished by clarifying the definition section of the bill to remove the old ``carve out'' for ``counterintelligence and law enforcement'' activities within the FBI.

For example, an FBI investigation into the activities of individuals suspected of illegally providing funds to overseas terrorist groups is both a law enforcement investigation and an intelligence effort.

So I hope to offer an amendment, and would like to work with both Senators, the chairman and the ranking member, to clarify these definitions and remove the poorly worded ``carve out'' for ``counterintelligence'' investigations; to ensure that the Office of Intelligence is defined in law, with clear responsibility for foreign intelligence; and to ensure that the new ``National Intelligence Director'' plays a guiding role in the FBI's efforts to improve its ability to function as an intelligence agency.

Next, I am concerned that the bill leaves a similar ambiguity in the relationship between the authorities of the National Intelligence Director and the Secretary of Defense. This problem flows from the fact that the bill refers to ``tactical'' military intelligence, but does not define it. I believe we can remove a potential source of contention between the director of national intelligence and the Secretary of Defense by incorporating a set of definitions, so everyone knows exactly what is tactical intelligence and, thus, outside the scope of the National Intelligence Director's review. So we have that language and I would like to pass it by the chairman and ranking member before I offer it, which would includes a clarifying definition.

Finally, I must say--and this I have gone back and forth on--I remain troubled that under this bill the Director serves at the pleasure of the President. When I introduced my first bill in 2002, the Director served at the pleasure of the President. When I introduced the second one in 2003, the director served at the pleasure of the President. Then I began to think about policy and intelligence and recognized that the two should remain separate, and I recognized that it is necessary to give this new National Intelligence Director some separation from the President's policies, or the Congress's policies. The only way to do this is with a term. I know that the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, offered in committee a 5-year term. I believe he was not successful in pressing his case at that time. I have thought about a 10-year term.

I remember the Casey days. I do not think we want to go back to those days, but I also think we need to keep policy and intelligence separated. So I hope Senator Lautenberg will offer his amendment, and I will support it if he does.

Before I end, I want to say a few words about practical considerations related to the bill.

It is my understanding that the House of Representatives may pass out a bill containing extremely controversial provisions unrelated to intelligence reform. I am concerned that this is a thinly veiled effort to introduce ``poison pills'' into desperately needed legislation. One House Member even referred to having Democrats ``over a barrel'' in a description of this strategy. This is no strategy at all. I think if this were to happen, and I certainly hope it does not happen, Americans are going to see right through it.

The Senate, in this bill, has set the tone, and the tone is a well- considered, well-crafted bill which deals solely with the issue at hand. In my view, that is what should be passed by both parties and both bodies.

I am hopeful that our leadership--the majority and the minority leaders--will be able to make every effort to resist this. I think to get into PATRIOT Act items--this is under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. We have held several hearings. We will hold more oversight hearings. There are 156 sections of the PATRIOT Act; 16 of them sunset in December of next year. We will do our due diligence, and I say that as someone who has supported the PATRIOT Act, supported those 16 sections, and made some of the amendments.

It is extraordinarily important that we be able to work in a careful method of oversight responsibility. I think something coming from the House which pushes in this direction would not be welcome.

In conclusion, I, once again, compliment Senators Collins and Lieberman and the Governmental Affairs Committee for a job well done. I think we can pass this bill, and I hope we continue--I was going to say an ``aroma of bipartisanship.'' I am not sure ``aroma'' is the right way to say this, but in the bipartisanship model both the chairman and the ranking member have set forward. If we do, I think we deliver for the people of this Nation a very fine work product.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for tax cuts for the American middle class.

This bill will do the following: extend the $1,000 per child tax credit through 2010; eliminate the marriage penalty through 2010; extend the expanded 10 percent income tax bracket through 2010; provide one additional year of protection against the alternative minimum tax; and extend through 2005 business tax credits that recently expired or will soon expire.

Although I am disappointed that we could not provide tax incentives to additional energy related industries, such as open-loop biomass, many of these expiring business tax credits will benefit California companies; such as the research and development tax credit and the tax credit for electricity produced from wind energy.

But, the primary reason I support this bill is that it provides tax relief to the average American. These are the people who need the most relief. They are the ones most likely to spend their tax savings. And it is these expenditures that will assist in getting this economy off the ground.

I am supporting this conference report with a mixture of relief--that we recognize that the middle class deserves continued tax relief--and with concern as well, since we are in effect borrowing the money from our children and grandchildren to provide the tax breaks.

For the past 3 years this Government has gone on a fiscal spending spree of unprecedented proportions--cutting taxes and increasing spending at such a rate that we now see the largest deficits in this Nation's history.

This year alone we are expecting a budget deficit of more than $420 billion

and a cumulative deficit of more than $2.3 trillion over the next ten years.

In contrast, President Clinton left office with a $236 billion surplus and a projected cumulative surplus of $5.7 trillion from 2001- 2010. This year's deficit represents a $658 billion turnaround from 2000.

Last year, I introduced a bill that would rollback the President's 2001 tax cut for those who earn more than $311,000. By rolling back the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 38.6 percent on income, capital gains and dividends, we would generate $107 billion over the next 5 years according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And if we had adopted my proposal as an amendment to this legislation we would pay for more than 73 percent of this tax break.

It is particularly distressing to me that this proposal, and others like it, have been defeated every time they have been offered.

This Congress and President must restore fiscal sanity to our budget and that includes the need for every citizen to share the burden.

Recent reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Brookings Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have all described the bleak long-term budget outlook--one that this Congress cannot solve without taking decisive action to reduce our long term deficits.

In a recent study from the Congressional Budget Office, the agency warns that the burden of the Federal debt will have a corrosive effect on the economy. The debt will slow the economy and is unlikely to bring the Nation's long-term fiscal position into balance.

While I support this tax cut bill because it provides similar tax relief to the middle class that the President gave to the wealthiest American families in 2003, we need to take a very hard look at whether we can afford any additional tax cuts that are not supported by offsets.

As we all know, for every dollar we borrow, we incur interest and last year we paid a lot of interest. In fiscal year 2003 we spent more than $318 billion in interest on the National debt. Every dollar spent to pay for interest is a dollar not spent to pay for education, defense, infrastructure improvements, job development, or homeland security.

Additionally, the President's 2004 deficit will place us even further away from the important goal of addressing the looming crises in both Social Security and Medicare. And when the baby boomers begin to retire in 2010, we will be facing even more difficult fiscal times.

In 2003, we spent $1.2 trillion on Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs. By 2009, we will be spending $1.6 trillion, 57 percent of the budget. And in 2014, we will be spending $2.1 trillion or 59 percent.

We have all heard Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan call on Congress to restrain the growth of the Federal budget deficit by adopting budget controls that would apply to new taxes as well as new spending. Mr. Greenspan has told the Senate Budget Committee that imposing such controls is ``an essential element to restoring fiscal sanity.''

Let us remember, that in 1998, following nearly 30 years of deficits and a 17-fold increase in Federal debt from $365.8 billion to $6.4 trillion, bipartisan cooperation brought the budget back into balance once again. For the first time in more than a generation, some of the funds which would have gone to pay interest on the debt were instead spent actually paying down the debt.

Now, deficits and interest costs are growing once again.

Finally, while I am supporting the tax cut legislation now before us because it recognizes the importance of helping the middle class, I believe it is critical that Congress restore fiscal discipline by paying for future spending increases and tax cuts.