Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Brownback, Hutchison, and Allen in introducing legislation to re-authorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This legislation marks the beginning of a new age of exploration, and the extension of humanity's quest for knowledge to a manned mission to Mars.

NASA is currently responsible for a number of programs that create greater knowledge about the Earth and the universe around us. As we speak today, the two robots, Spirit and Opportunity, are exploring craters on Mars in search of ancient lake beds. The Hubble telescope continues to show us new discoveries about the universe. NASA satellites also help us to develop a better scientific understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and its response to natural and human-induced changes. NASA is in the process of developing airplanes with morphing wings that will change shape during flight.

Despite all of these wondrous achievements, NASA is an agency in search of a new mission. For many Americans, the Apollo landings remain a moment of inspiration, but also a fading memory of the past. Many space enthusiasts have complained that the manned space program has been stuck in low Earth orbit and harnessed to a costly space station and aging Space Shuttle infrastructure. Just last year, we again witnessed the inherent danger in manned spaceflight, and some questioned the need for such a risky and expensive program.

To his credit, President Bush announced on the day of the Columbia tragedy that ``our journey into space will go on.'' In January, the President offered a bold new space vision and made a firm commitment to return the Space Shuttle to flight, finish construction of the International Space Station, and return astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars. This bill would authorize these activities consistent with the President's overall requested budget amounts, and set the nation firmly on a course for manned exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

However, we also have learned from the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately, NASA's recent history of managing projects, such as the X-33 and X-34, has been full of disappointment and failure. Many Members have seen the wisdom of President Reagan's adage to ``trust, but verify,'' when analyzing NASA's budget numbers. With these lessons in mind, the bill contains a number of provisions to ensure that NASA stays on track.

The bill would require the submission of a baseline technical requirements document and life cycle cost estimate, so that Congress can find out exactly what is required to implement the President's vision and begin to determine its cost. The bill also would require an industrial assessment of the private sector's ability to support manned missions to the Moon and Mars, and a commercialization plan to identify opportunities for the private sector to participate in future missions. Most importantly, the bill would require quarterly life cycle reports on major systems of the new initiative, and include cost-control measures when the cost overruns of these systems exceed 15 percent and 25 percent over the total life cycle cost of the system.

The bill also would codify many of the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). Admiral Gehman and the other board members did an admirable job in thoroughly investigating the causes of this tragic accident. The bill would establish a lessons- learned and best practices program to ensure that NASA does not repeat the mistakes of the past. In addition, the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance is given independent funding and direct line authority over the entire Space Shuttle Safety organization. An Independent Technical Engineering Authority is established within NASA with its own budgetary line to maintain technical standards, be the sole waiver-granting authority for technical standards, and perform other tasks. The bill also would ensure that the Independent Technical Engineering Authority would recertify the Space Shuttle orbiters for operation prior to any operations beyond 2010. The bill would include an assessment of NASA's culture and organization, and an action plan to fix the cultural and organizational problems that the CAIB identified as a major cause of the accident. The men and women of the Columbia gave their lives to further America's knowledge of the Earth and the stars, and we should honor their memory by ensuring that such an accident never occurs again.

In addition, the bill would address the problems concerning the Hubble Space Telescope. As my colleagues know, NASA has indicated that it cannot use the Space Shuttle for another human mission to service this national treasure. Both NASA and the National Academy of Sciences are reviewing options for using robots and other means to save the telescope. Sixty days after the National Academy releases its report, the Administrator would be directed to report to Congress on the future servicing options for Hubble and how much it will cost.

I realize that concerns have been raised regarding some of the cuts that NASA is proposing to pay for the President's exploration vision. In order to pay for this new program, we must realize that there is limited funding and that NASA funding has to be re-allocated. However, this bill should not be construed as supporting each and every proposed reduction. Instead, the bill simply would authorize the funding levels buy the major budget accounts.

Curiosity and a drive to explore have always been quintessential American traits. This has been most evident in the space program, which continues to show great advances in human knowledge. However, we are fully aware of the inherent risks and costs of space exploration, and the need to mitigate them wherever possible. Based on this knowledge, let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and look forward to working with them to ensure passage of this bill this year.

Mr. President, I am voting today in opposition to Senator Dodd's amendment, No. 3313 that would prohibit the Department of Defense from using contractors to carry out certain activities, mostly related to interrogations. While I believe that this amendment would not solve the problems so vividly illustrated by the Abu Ghraib prison abuses, there should be no doubt that the issue it seeks to address is extremely serious. We are all concerned about the grave misconduct of anyone involved in interrogations of Iraqi detainees. The individuals who committed atrocities have marred the reputation of our country and have made the lives of American personnel in Iraq more dangerous and difficult.

It is essential to ensure that there is proper oversight when employing contractors in interrogations or any other military-related function. There must also be clear rules for bringing to justice those who violate our laws or treaty obligations. And, ultimately, I believe that interrogations and other functions should be conducted by uniformed personnel, working directly for the United States government and subject to the web of rules that governs military personnel.

While this should be our ultimate goal, I am concerned that this amendment would bring to a halt a number of critical functions currently carried out by contractors. The reality is that the U.S. armed forces are currently dependent on contractor support to carry out their missions, including interrogations. The Army now has approximately 500 military interrogators, a number far below the number needed to meet our requirements in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Over the next five years, the number of trained interrogators will grow to over 1,200, but in the meantime, we rely on contractors to make up the difference. In addition, over 50 percent of interrogator, interpreter, and analyst positions at Guantanamo Bay are currently filled by contractors. This amendment would cripple intelligence gathering operations there.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib prison did not occur only at the hands of civilian contractors--soldiers have been implicated as well. It is critical to ensure accountability for everyone who may have been involved, and prevent any reoccurrence of such abuses. Throughout the hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee and in my review of the annexes and documents in the Taguba Investigation, I have observed a lack of sustained focus on the basic principles of leadership at Abu Ghraib. While I believe that immediately prohibiting the use of contractors is not the way to proceed, we need to look comprehensively at a number of facets of our military operations, including the long- term use of contractors, failures of leadership, and the overall size of our armed forces.

Mr. President, since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA, became law, many of its detractors have mistakenly argued that it is ineffective and unworkable. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles from the Washington Post, an article from the Wall Street Journal, and an article by Anthony Corrado, a visiting Fellow at The Brookings Institution, be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks. As these articles describe, BCRA is having exactly the effect intended. Furthermore, as Mr. Corrado points out, BCRA did not serve as the death knell for America's political parties; their fundraising remains strong.

Mr. President, the strength of Abraham Lincoln's resolve to restore the Union, whatever the terrible cost to do so, was his unshakeable faith that in America any father's child could come to occupy the same place that his father's child had attained. That uniquely American conviction also inspired Ronald Reagan to reach his great place in our country's history and in the hearts of his countrymen. I doubt Ronald Reagan was much surprised to become President, despite his humble origins. And I know for certain he never took for granted a single day he occupied the office. He believed such an honored privilege was within the reach of any American with principles, industry and talent, and that once attained, it was to be held with great care to preserve for succeeding generations the blessings of liberty that had so enriched his own life. His patriotism, which he expressed eloquently and often in his public remarks, was never affected. He believed every word. Nor was his unfailing good humor and optimism an actor's performance. He lived in a shining city on a hill, and he never forgot it.

I first met President Reagan and his lovely wife, Nancy, not long after I returned from Vietnam. But I knew of him in the years before I regained my liberty, when my fellow prisoners-of-war and I would discuss in tap codes and whispered conversations the Governor of California who was giving such eloquent voice to the convictions we believed we had been sent to war to advance. In the more than 30 years that have passed since I first met him, I have never lived a day that I wasn't grateful for the privilege of the Reagans' friendship, and the strength of his faith in America that inspired my own, and so many others.

His accomplishments in office were historic, and will be long remembered as will the humility, grace and decency with which he achieved them. It was an honor to have known him, and Cindy and I shall miss him very much. We offer our sincerest condolences to Nancy, and to Michael, Patti and Ron, and pray that God grants this good man eternal life, reunites him with his daughter, Maureen, and with all his loved ones who have preceded him.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Low Power Radio Act of 2004. This bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to license Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations and eliminate the requirement that the FCC perform further testing on the economic impact of Low Power FM radio. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect stations that provide radio reading services, which some have suggested are more susceptible to interference than other stations because they are carried on a subcarrier frequency. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Leahy who is a co-sponsor of the bill. I thank him for his support.

This bill would also right a serious wrong. Four years ago, Congress wrongly delayed the full implementation of a new community based radio service called ``Low Power FM'' due to broadcasters' grossly exaggerated claims of interference. The FCC recently found, based on data from an independent engineering study, that the broadcasters' claims of interference are groundless. As required, the FCC sent a report to Congress in February describing the study's results and suggesting legislative actions to further the growth of Low Power FM. This bill would implement these recommendations.

In January 2000, the FCC launched Low Power FM radio service to ``enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting.'' Low Power FM stations are just that--low power radio stations on the FM band that generally reach an audience within a 3.5 mile radius of the station's transmitter. In rural areas, this signal may not reach many people, but it provides rural citizens with another media outlet-- another voice in the market. In urban areas, this signal may reach hundreds of thousands of people and provide not just local content, but very specific neighborhood news and information.

Localism is increasingly important in today's changing media landscape. Rampant ownership consolidation has taken place in the radio industry since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since that time, many Americans have complained that the large media conglomerates fail to serve local communities' interests and seem to use their local station license as a conduit to air national programming. Low Power FM was introduced, in part, to respond to such complaints.

Low Power FM is an affordable broadcasting option for many community organizations because a full power radio station license is extremely expensive and broadcast spectrum is very scarce. In 2003, the average cost to acquire a commercial radio station was more than $2.5 million dollars.

Between May 1999 and May 2000, the Commission received over 3,400 applications for Low Power FM stations from non-commercial educational entities and community organizations. However, before the Commission could act on many of the applications for this new community service, broadcasters frightened legislators into halting the full implementation of Low Power FM. Broadcasters masqueraded their true concerns about competition from a real local radio broadcaster in thinly veiled claims of interference.

Due to the broadcasters' subterfuge, Congress added language to a 2000 appropriations bill requiring the FCC to hire an independent engineering firm to further study broadcasters' claims of interference. Well, the results are in! I am not happy to report that after spending almost two years and over two million dollars, the independent study revealed what the FCC and community groups had said all along: LPFM will do no harm to other broadcasters. The study has stripped the broadcasters of their veiled claims by concluding that Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels would cause virtually no interference to other broadcast stations.

The broadcasters masquerade has now cost American taxpayers over two million dollars. This was two million dollars taken from the FCC's budget that could have been used to further study efficient spectrum use to promote public safety needs, process license applications faster, hire more high quality engineers for the FCC and much more. Perhaps, we should send a bill to the National Association of Broadcasters. Nevertheless, that is the past, and it is time to focus on the future.

That brings us to the future of Low Power FM. The FCC, as required by the appropriations language, has reported the study's findings to Congress and recommends full implementation of Low Power FM. This bill simply follows the FCC's recommendation: begin licensing Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect full power stations that provide radio reading services. It is estimated that about 1.1 million people in the U.S. are blind, and it is important to ensure this helpful radio reading service remains interference free.

The enactment of this bill will immediately make available a number of Low Power FM frequencies. By some estimates, Congress' legislation delaying the full implementation, which mostly affected metropolitan areas, led to the elimination of half the Low Power FM applications filed during 2000.

For example, Congress' action eliminated the LPFM slot in Fresno applied for by El Comite de los Pobres. The group had hoped to address the dearth of local programming for the Latino community by airing bilingual coverage of local issues. New Orleans' Music Business Institute's application

was eliminated as well. The Music Business Institute teaches young people how to get into the music business. The Institute had planned to use the station to help start the musical careers of local artists, and to educate listeners about the city's jazz and blues musical heritage. Let's get these valuable stations on air.

There are some wonderful LPFM stations that are up and running. A recent article published in The Nation called these stations, ``beacons of grassroots democracy.'' The article discussed WRFR in Rockland, Maine: ``Shunning the canned programming approach of Rockland's two Clear Channel stations, WRFR offers an array of local talent, tastes and interests, and was recently named Maine station of the year by a state music association. Although country music, a Maine favorite, is heavily represented, hardly any WRFR deejay restricts himself to a single era, genre or Top-40 play list.'' Started by a local city council member who was concerned about the lack of local media outlets in his town, today, WFRF has over half the city listening. This is what scares broadcasters about LPFM: competition.

In 2000, the Southern Development Foundation established a Low Power FM station in Opelousas, Louisiana, which sponsors agriculture programs, leases land to farmers, raises money for scholarships for needy kids and helps citizens learn to read. The station director told a local community newsletter: ``You've got local radio stations that are owned by larger companies. There should be some programming concerning the music that is from here, and the people from here. But there's not.''

I ask the public and commercial broadcasters to come clean and join us in promoting LPFM. More good radio brings about more radio listening and that's good for all broadcasters. Therefore, in the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Low Power Radio Act of 2004.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Low Power Radio Act of 2004. This bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to license Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations and eliminate the requirement that the FCC perform further testing on the economic impact of Low Power FM radio. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect stations that provide radio reading services, which some have suggested are more susceptible to interference than other stations because they are carried on a subcarrier frequency. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Leahy who is a co-sponsor of the bill. I thank him for his support.

This bill would also right a serious wrong. Four years ago, Congress wrongly delayed the full implementation of a new community based radio service called ``Low Power FM'' due to broadcasters' grossly exaggerated claims of interference. The FCC recently found, based on data from an independent engineering study, that the broadcasters' claims of interference are groundless. As required, the FCC sent a report to Congress in February describing the study's results and suggesting legislative actions to further the growth of Low Power FM. This bill would implement these recommendations.

In January 2000, the FCC launched Low Power FM radio service to ``enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting.'' Low Power FM stations are just that--low power radio stations on the FM band that generally reach an audience within a 3.5 mile radius of the station's transmitter. In rural areas, this signal may not reach many people, but it provides rural citizens with another media outlet-- another voice in the market. In urban areas, this signal may reach hundreds of thousands of people and provide not just local content, but very specific neighborhood news and information.

Localism is increasingly important in today's changing media landscape. Rampant ownership consolidation has taken place in the radio industry since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since that time, many Americans have complained that the large media conglomerates fail to serve local communities' interests and seem to use their local station license as a conduit to air national programming. Low Power FM was introduced, in part, to respond to such complaints.

Low Power FM is an affordable broadcasting option for many community organizations because a full power radio station license is extremely expensive and broadcast spectrum is very scarce. In 2003, the average cost to acquire a commercial radio station was more than $2.5 million dollars.

Between May 1999 and May 2000, the Commission received over 3,400 applications for Low Power FM stations from non-commercial educational entities and community organizations. However, before the Commission could act on many of the applications for this new community service, broadcasters frightened legislators into halting the full implementation of Low Power FM. Broadcasters masqueraded their true concerns about competition from a real local radio broadcaster in thinly veiled claims of interference.

Due to the broadcasters' subterfuge, Congress added language to a 2000 appropriations bill requiring the FCC to hire an independent engineering firm to further study broadcasters' claims of interference. Well, the results are in! I am not happy to report that after spending almost two years and over two million dollars, the independent study revealed what the FCC and community groups had said all along: LPFM will do no harm to other broadcasters. The study has stripped the broadcasters of their veiled claims by concluding that Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels would cause virtually no interference to other broadcast stations.

The broadcasters masquerade has now cost American taxpayers over two million dollars. This was two million dollars taken from the FCC's budget that could have been used to further study efficient spectrum use to promote public safety needs, process license applications faster, hire more high quality engineers for the FCC and much more. Perhaps, we should send a bill to the National Association of Broadcasters. Nevertheless, that is the past, and it is time to focus on the future.

That brings us to the future of Low Power FM. The FCC, as required by the appropriations language, has reported the study's findings to Congress and recommends full implementation of Low Power FM. This bill simply follows the FCC's recommendation: begin licensing Low Power FM stations on third adjacent channels to full power stations without limitations. Additionally, the bill seeks to protect full power stations that provide radio reading services. It is estimated that about 1.1 million people in the U.S. are blind, and it is important to ensure this helpful radio reading service remains interference free.

The enactment of this bill will immediately make available a number of Low Power FM frequencies. By some estimates, Congress' legislation delaying the full implementation, which mostly affected metropolitan areas, led to the elimination of half the Low Power FM applications filed during 2000.

For example, Congress' action eliminated the LPFM slot in Fresno applied for by El Comite de los Pobres. The group had hoped to address the dearth of local programming for the Latino community by airing bilingual coverage of local issues. New Orleans' Music Business Institute's application

was eliminated as well. The Music Business Institute teaches young people how to get into the music business. The Institute had planned to use the station to help start the musical careers of local artists, and to educate listeners about the city's jazz and blues musical heritage. Let's get these valuable stations on air.

There are some wonderful LPFM stations that are up and running. A recent article published in The Nation called these stations, ``beacons of grassroots democracy.'' The article discussed WRFR in Rockland, Maine: ``Shunning the canned programming approach of Rockland's two Clear Channel stations, WRFR offers an array of local talent, tastes and interests, and was recently named Maine station of the year by a state music association. Although country music, a Maine favorite, is heavily represented, hardly any WRFR deejay restricts himself to a single era, genre or Top-40 play list.'' Started by a local city council member who was concerned about the lack of local media outlets in his town, today, WFRF has over half the city listening. This is what scares broadcasters about LPFM: competition.

In 2000, the Southern Development Foundation established a Low Power FM station in Opelousas, Louisiana, which sponsors agriculture programs, leases land to farmers, raises money for scholarships for needy kids and helps citizens learn to read. The station director told a local community newsletter: ``You've got local radio stations that are owned by larger companies. There should be some programming concerning the music that is from here, and the people from here. But there's not.''

I ask the public and commercial broadcasters to come clean and join us in promoting LPFM. More good radio brings about more radio listening and that's good for all broadcasters. Therefore, in the interests of would-be new broadcasters, existing broadcasters, but most of all, the listening public, I urge the enactment of the Low Power Radio Act of 2004.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a special land resource study for the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate whether Federal and State lands adjacent to the monument should be managed as part of the monument, and to provide recommendations for management options.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best served by protection from future development and managed by the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding the Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would resolve the question of future management and whether the monument should be expanded.

The legislation also directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area.

This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a special land resource study for the Walnut Canyon National Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate whether Federal and State lands adjacent to the monument should be managed as part of the monument, and to provide recommendations for management options.

For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the monument would be best served by protection from future development and managed by the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is best for the land surrounding the Walnut Canyon National Monument is by having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study would resolve the question of future management and whether the monument should be expanded.

The legislation also directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources of the study area.

This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and protect the natural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, here we go again. We have now been through this on several occasions in the past. These are tough decisions. I think people realize this could have significant impact on the economies of their States, and of their districts in the case of Members of the House.

But I think we need to again remind people that we are in a situation where the defense spending increases and our requirements to fight the war on terror in general and increased costs of the war in Iraq absolutely mandate that we do everything we can to institute savings for the American taxpayers as far as the expenditure of their tax dollars are concerned.

I don't in any way dispute the fact that when a base is closed it has a very significant and sometimes short-term devastating impact on a State or locality in which that base is located.

I do think it is well to point out that Taxpayers With Common Sense and the Center for Defense Information prepared an independent report which was released in October of 2001. There may be some surprise by those of my colleagues who are citing economic concerns as to why they oppose further base closure rounds. Of the 97 bases closed in four base closure rounds, 88 percent experienced per capita personal income growth as high as 36 percent, and averaging nearly 10 percent; 75 percent experienced gains in average earnings per job; 87 percent had positive employment rates; 68 percent beat the national average; the average job replacement rate of all bases closed is 102 percent; by the beginning of 2001, only 3 of the 97 counties had higher unemployment rates than the BRAC announcement year; and 53 percent had unemployment rates lower than the national average. I think it is important to put it in that economic context.

Far, far more important than that is the fact that we are going through a significant realignment to meet the post-cold-war needs and challenges.

The Department of Defense is well on its way to establishing an integrated commonsense basing strategy that will feed directly into the BRAC process. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is finalizing the decisions in the integrated global presence and basing strategy that will specify who will be coming back and who will be going forward as we transition away from a cold-war posture to a global war on terror posture.

The decisions from the new global lay-down would be precursors to and will greatly influence the BRAC process. It will take both processes acting in a close manner to optimize the deployment of our forces around the world. Delaying BRAC or disrupting the symbiotic relationship between the integrated global presence, basing strategy, and BRAC processes will ultimately minimize our efficiency in the combat effectiveness of our forces in fighting the global war on terrorism.

That is why the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense-- all knowledgeable people who could be viewed as objective outside observers--agree that we have to move forward with this process. We have voted on it before. We will vote on it again, maybe, although I hope not between now and the time that is appointed. I don't think there is any doubt that at this particular time it would be a serious mistake for us to delay.

I add again that the economic benefits associated with base closure are generally very much more positive than negative. I hope my colleagues will understand the views of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the President of the United States, and all others who strongly feel that we need to move forward with this process.

I look forward to seeing a list of the bases in my State when the Senator from Mississippi hands it out. As he handed out a list the last time, he left my State off the list. I hope he corrects that oversight this time.

I would like to commend the bill managers for reaching a bipartisan compromise on this important issue. Recognizing the substantial challenges the current law has posed to many schools and school districts, this bill seeks to strike a very difficult balance between the interests of disabled children and their families and the schools and school districts. However, despite the substantial improvements this legislation makes over current law, issues of concern remain among a number of interested parties, including education groups in Arizona.

I am also concerned about some of the unintended consequences that have arisen as a result of the Federal restrictions placed on school districts concerning the manner in which they are allowed to discipline students with special needs. For example, an Arizona school district recently identified a number of students involved in the sale and distribution of illegal drugs on school property, a very serious incident that placed the other students and the teachers at that school at great risk. All of the students involved in the incident were expelled, with the exception of one student who has a mild disability.

I recognize the Senator from New Hampshire already has worked to include language in this bill to reverse the ``stay put rule,'' which schools, school districts, and the Arizona Superintendent of Education, Tom Horne, have expressed substantial frustration over. I want to commend the sponsor's efforts and hope to work with him to ensure that schools are not prevented from taking action to discipline children as appropriate, including those enrolled in IDEA. I know this issue is also of concern to my colleague from Arizona.

I thank the Senator. IDEA is centered on an individualized approach to educating children with special needs. Disciplining those students whose actions endanger other students and faculty also should be done on an individual basis--a one size-fits-all Federal approach to discipline disregards the individual nature of the actions of the students involved, and is not the best approach.

Another issue that concerns schools and administrators in Arizona is Section 616, regarding monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement. It would allow the Secretary of Education to refer a case to the Department of Justice if the Secretary determines the State has shown a ``significant lack of progress'' or is in ``substantial noncompliance'' or ``egregious noncompliance'' with IDEA. Schools from across Arizona are concerned that the language in this bill is too vague and could lead to excessively burdensome litigation if a State is labeled to be ``significantly noncompliant'' or ``egregiously noncompliant.''

I have also heard substantial concern from groups in Arizona regarding language that may compel states to pay for lawsuits against State or local education entities. I know these concerns also have been expressed to my colleague from Arizona.

I thank the sponsor of this important legislation and greatly appreciate his willingness to ensure that these important issues are addressed as this measure continues through the legislative process.

Mr. President, I am joined on the floor today by my good friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to speak briefly about a recent recommendation by the general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, FEC, to delay the 527 rulemaking another 90 days. Additionally, we would like to express support for an excellent bipartisan proposal by two members of the FEC to resolve the issue of 527 groups spending illegal soft money to influence Federal elections. As my colleagues know, the problem of 527 groups raising and spending soft money has somehow become a very contentious and partisan issue. That is unfortunate, because it need not be, and the Toner/Thomas proposal proves the point.

As my colleagues know, the general counsel of the FEC made a recommendation yesterday to delay the 527 rulemaking which the commission is to rule on tomorrow. This is a terrible idea. There is simply no reason for the commission to continue fiddling while Rome burns. The commissioners need to decide the 527 issue tomorrow, on schedule, without more pointless delays. Everyday, 527 groups whose purpose is to influence the presidential election are breaking the law. They are spending millions of dollars in soft money to influence Federal elections in plain violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which the commission has failed to enforce for a generation. And these groups are now using the FEC inaction to blow a hole in the soft money ban upheld by the Supreme Court.

In the middle of an election cycle, the FEC is considering taking a pass on the most critical issue on its plate. If they do, it will be just one more example of the agency's utter inability to enforce election law. My colleague, Trent Lott, recently said he was considering hearings on FEC reform, and if this absurd delay happens, I think we may be talking about hearings sooner rather than later. The FEC is responsible for the start of soft money in the first place. They must not get away with it again.

This is particularly galling because the main reason the general counsel office gives for its delay--the size and complexity of the rulemaking, and the possible impact on 501(c) organizations--is a canard. There is an excellent, bipartisan proposal on the table from Commissioners Toner and Thomas that would deal with the 527s in a simple, straightforward way. With their proposal, the commission has the perfect opportunity to prove they can uphold the election laws that were passed by Congress more than 25 years ago, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. It may sound a little odd to be excited at the prospect of a Federal agency properly upholding existing law, but in the case of the FEC, it would be something of a new phenomenon.

There is absolutely nothing in the general counsel's rationale for delaying action here that justifies refusing to act now to fix the FEC's absurd allocation regulations that are being used to spend 98 percent soft money to influence the presidential election. The general counsel's recommendation provides no excuse for failing to act tomorrow on the portion of the Toner/Thomas proposal that would fix the allocation rules and correct the FEC's mistake in adopting them, a mistake made clear by the Supreme Court decision McConnell v. FEC. The only conclusion that can be reached if action to correct the allocation rules is rejected by the FEC is that the commission wants to protect and license the illegal use by 527 groups of soft money to finance partisan voter mobilization efforts to influence the 2004 presidential election.

The bipartisan proposal by Commissioner Michael Toner, a Republican, and Commissioner Scott Thomas, a Democrat provides a clear, effective and immediate solution to the soft money problems that have arisen with these 527 groups. The FEC is supposed to meet tomorrow to consider this proposal, and I strongly urge them to adopt the proposal and seize this opportunity to enforce the law.

First, I note that their proposal would explicitly apply only to 527 political committees, and not to 501(c) nonprofit groups, which should take care of the concerns of those in the nonprofit community that the FEC would overreach, and affect their own important work. That is simply no longer an issue, and the commission can act tomorrow, rather than waiting around until a more convenient moment to enforce the law.

The Toner/Thomas proposal deals with what we believe to be the two main problems with the 527 groups. First, their plan would fix the commission's absurd allocation rules, which control the mix of soft and hard money these groups can spend. Under the current rules, 527s can simply claim that they're involved in both Federal and State elections, even though they're obviously and admittedly clearly working for the sole purpose of defeating or electing a presidential candidate. That claim, and the absurd FEC rules that currently exist, has led one such 527 group to use 98 percent soft money for their partisan vote mobilization activities to influence the presidential election and only 2 percent hard money. That is an obvious circumvention of the longstanding Federal Election Campaign Act, FECA, as well as the new ban on soft money in Federal elections, and a hole in the dike that absolutely must be plugged.

The Toner/Thomas plan would deal with this by simply requiring groups involved in partisan voter mobilization activities in Federal elections to use a minimum of 50 percent hard money to pay for those activities. that straightforward, easy to understand rule will have the effect of substantially limiting the amount of soft money a 527 group can use on these activities, and I believe it is an effective way to deal with the problem at this time.

The second issue the two commissioners' plan would address is the use of soft money by these 527 groups to run attack ads attacking and promoting presidential candidates. These groups are claiming that they are exempt from the normal Federal rules prohibiting the use of soft money to fund such ads because they are not political committees under FEC rules. In essence, these political organizations are claiming that as long as their ads do not use words like ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' they can spend as much soft money as they please attacking and promoting Federal candidates.

That argument is simply absurd, even though the FEC's failure to properly enforce the law has allowed it to gain currency over the years. In order to qualify for their 527 tax status, these organizations have to meet the IRS test of being groups that are ``organized and operated primarily'' to influence elections. And under the Federal

Election Campaign Act, which has been around since 1974, groups that have a primary purpose of influencing Federal elections and raise or spend $1,000 to do so have to register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws. 527 political groups have sprung up in this election with the clear and sole purpose of influencing the presidential election. Under existing laws and Supreme Court rulings these groups can run whatever ads they want--but they have to register as Federal political committees and they do have to abide by the same Federal campaign finance rules as all other political committees and candidates have to play by, and pay for those ads with hard money.

The Toner/Thomas proposal clears up this issue by correctly deeming any organization operating as a political group under section 527 of the tax code to have a ``major purpose'' of influencing Federal elections, unless the group falls within certain specified exemptions. This common-sense approach simply corrects the FEC failure to properly interpret the law in the past as it applies to 527 groups. It makes it clear that 527 political groups that have a major purpose to influence Federal elections and spend more than $1,000 to influence a Federal election have to comply with Federal campaign finance rules, regardless of whether their communications contain express advocacy.

Again, we have a golden opportunity here to fix an emerging problem before it gets out of hand. The Commission should take this rare opportunity to show they can do their job in a bipartisan way. They should approve the Toner/Thomas proposal on Thursday.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Illinois, Senator Fitzgerald, and several other members of the Senate in sponsoring S. 2059, the Mutual Fund Reform Act of 2004.

Mutual funds traditionally have been seen as safe havens for long- term investments. This perception of mutual funds as secure investment vehicles has certainly contributed to the industry's grow. Two decades ago, the mutual fund industry was relatively small; only a small percentage of Americans invested in mutual funds, and the assets of the industry were $115 billion. Today, the mutual fund industry has $7.5 trillion in assets, over 90 million investors, and more than 10,000 funds.

Unfortunately, as the industry has grown, some mutual fund managers and boards of directors have ignored their most basic role as fiduciaries. Recent State and Federal investigations have revealed trading irregularities at several of funds, including many that are well known. These scandals have shed light on the disregard shown by many mutual fund managers and directors for the individuals who invest their hard-earned money in mutual funds. They have also drawn attention to inflated mutual fund fees that often are not in the best interests of mutual fund shareholders and too frequently are not properly disclosed to such shareholders.

The Mutual Fund Reform Act would improve the integrity of the mutual fund industry by restoring investors' trust in the mutual fund managers and boards that are responsible for investing much of our citizens' household, college, and retirement savings. Most importantly, the act would strengthen the governance of mutual funds by, among other things, ensuring that mutual fund company boards would be truly independent and empowered. In addition, the act would establish disclosure requirements designed to provide mutual fund investors with a clearer picture of fund management and fund fees.

I thank Senator Fitzgerald for introducing this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in order to further encourage investor confidence in the mutual fund industry and in our capital markets.

I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, the amendment is rather straightforward. It strikes the energy tax provisions in this bill which are estimated to cost nearly $18 billion. I read from an April 19 article from the Washington Post:

Congress's task seemed simple enough: Repeal an illegal $5

billion-a-year export subsidy and replace it with some modest

tax breaks to ease the pain on United States exporters.

This article is entitled ``Special-Interest Add-Ons Weigh Down Tax- Cut Bill.''

But out of that imperative has emerged one of the most

complex, special-interest-riddled corporate tax bills in

years, lawmakers, Senate aides and lobbyists say. The 930-

page epic is packed with $170 billion in tax cuts aimed at

cruise-ship operators, NASCAR track owners, bow-and-arrow

makers, and Oldsmobile dealers, to name a few. There is even

a $94 million break for a single hotel in Sioux City, Iowa.

Even one of the tax lobbyists involved in drafting it

conceded the bill ``has risen to a new level of sleaze.''

I agree with that lobbyist. This has risen to a new level of sleaze.

The lobbyist goes on to say:

``I said a few months ago, any lobbyist worth his salt has

something in this bill,'' said the lobbyist, who would only

speak on condition of anonymity. ``Now you see what I'm

talking about.''

The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, May 5, in an article entitled ``Export Tax Follies:''

But instead of solving the problem, congressmen are

engaging in one of their epic tax-bidding wars . . .

including a $482 million sop to the insurance company, $189

million in ``transitional assistance'' for Oldsmobile

dealers, and an $8 million tax break for makers of children's

bow and arrows.

Not only that . . . $15 billion in energy tax breaks were

thrown in as an added sweetener. The Senate couldn't pass the

energy bill as a stand alone measure, so he's looking for any

shipwrecks that will sail this year. The measure includes an

overhaul of tax treatment for ethanol and subsidies for

``clean'' fuels. . . .

Mr. President, there is an abundance of media coverage of this legislation. It reaches, as the lobbyist said, in my view, a new level of sleaze.

We have to consider what we are doing. We had a $170 billion tax break, which really is $170 billion that will not go into the U.S. Treasury. So Alan Greenspan, last week, says the greatest threat to our Nation's economy is the deficit, and that a free lunch you don't have to pay for hasn't been invented yet. Yet here we are with $170 billion worth of tax breaks, tacking on to it $18 billion in tax breaks on an energy bill that this body could not pass.

It is remarkable, with a half trillion deficit, and we are enacting new tax credits, for--guess who--the oil and gas industry in America which, the last time I checked, is doing pretty well.

The majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle just voted against an extension of the unemployment benefits for Americans who remain unemployed and haven't profited by this reemerging and strengthening economy. My God, we won't give them an extension of their unemployment benefits. But if the ethanol people of Archer Daniels Midland need it, by God, we will give it to them. Mr. President, $170 billion in tax credits but no extension of unemployment benefits for people who have been out of work, it is a remarkable commentary.

Out of all the provisions that have been added to this bill since it was first brought to the floor of the Senate on March 3, I find the energy tax title the most egregious. That is why I am offering this amendment to strike it. What do these provisions have to do with the underlying bill? Nothing. What do they have to do with ensuring that tariffs that have been placed on our Nation's manufacturers since March 1 are lifted? The answer is nothing.

I understand how sweet this is--how sweet this is--for these lobbyists who are doing so well here in Washington. But if the Senate is to consider an energy tax incentive bill or an energy authorizing bill, we should be following regular order, bringing legislation to the Senate floor, and debating it in its own right. Instead, a 319-page energy tax title was incorporated without a vote.

The proponents of this bill contend it is ``revenue neutral'' and that all the tax cuts in the bill are paid for with offsets. How many times have we played that game? How many times have we used the same old offsets on the same old bills, and somehow, with all these offsets, we now have a half-trillion-dollar deficit? It is hard to imagine. For example, 66 provisions of offsets are identical to provisions that were included in the highway bill. So we are using the same offsets for the highway bill, the same offsets for the energy bill. And as some more pork

comes rolling in here--squealing in here--we will probably use those same offsets again. I understand the duplicative offsets total about $5 billion. Of course, if these bills ever get to conference and conference agreements are reached, only one measure could include these offsets.

Again, the amendment I am offering would strike title VIII of the pending bill.

By the way, I have no illusion as to how this vote is going to turn out. The Senator from Michigan just came up to me and said: Well, don't take away my tax break. I want to take away every tax break, I say to the Senator from Michigan.

The oil and gas subsidies are estimated to cost about $5 billion and are illustrative of what TIME magazine referred to as the great energy scam on the American taxpayers. This graphic is from an investigative report on synthetic fuel credits which appeared in the October 2003 issue of TIME magazine. While synthetic fuel credits are only one indefensible part of this energy tax title, the entire oil and gas subtitle is a shameless scam that benefits the already enormously profitable oil and gas industries with little or no benefit to the American public.

I would like to highlight a few provisions that defy both fiscal and common sense. First, there is about $835 million provided to wealthy oil and gas corporations to write off the cost of looking for domestic oil and gas reserves. As if the oil and gas companies do not have sufficient incentives or resources of their own, we are going to make the taxpayers pay for the basic cost of doing business. This provision sweetens the already generous tax treatment and would allow businesses to recoup their costs for both successful and unsuccessful projects. So failure will be as financially sweet as success.

I suppose some of my colleagues may maintain that providing this opportunity for greater riches to oil and gas corporations could result in more supply for the American public. Well, the Energy Information Administration reports that such claims are not backed by the facts. According to a February 2004 EIA report, these subsidies do not impact supply. The EIA report states:

The tax provision is expected to have a negligible impact

on oil and gas production because . . . year-to-year cash

flow can be at least 35 times larger than the tax value and

consequently the provision is unlikely to appreciably sway

drilling decisions.

In other words, these companies are too rich to pay attention to a paltry $835 million.

Another provision of this bill, which is perhaps even more egregious than picking up the tab for oil and gas exploration, would provide nearly $2 billion for the extension and modification of tax credits for producing fuel from a nonconventional source. ``Nonconventional'' is the operative word when we talk about synthetic fuels. There is nothing conventional about this so-called fuel, a creation of Congress in 1980. Now that this tax credit scam has been exposed by not only TIME but by our own IRS, Congress has no excuse to perpetuate this expensive hoax, which has cost the taxpayers $4 billion since 1999.

If there is anyone who does not know how synthetic fuel is made, the process conjures up images of Rumplestiltskin turning straw into gold, except in this case it is not turning something into anything different. But this is not a fairytale.

Here is how the process goes. First, you start with coal, and then, since IRS rules require a chemical change to occur, you must spray the coal with something other than water--usually it is diesel fuel or pine tar--and, magically, you now have a ``synthetic fuel,'' which sounds better than ``sprinkled'' coal, I guess. The company then sells the coal to a user, such as a powerplant, for a slightly lower cost than untreated--or unsprinkled--coal and claims a huge tax credit for ``manufacturing a synthetic fuel.'' If anyone missed a step of this miraculous process, it is coal, to sprayed coal, to gold.

I would like to show you how golden this tax credit can be. This graphic shows the reduced tax rate of one multinational hotel corporation that also produces synthetic fuel. This corporation is not the biggest beneficiary of the synthetic shelter, but it is illustrative of the point that one does not need to be in the oil or gas business to strike it rich with synthetic fuels.

The IRS has struggled mightily with this tax shelter that grows ever more expansive and expensive. It has undertaken two formal reviews of synthetic fuel production and testing facilities and concluded that there is not any synthetic fuel being produced. This remarkable finding is presented in a November 2003 IRS bulletin, and I quote:

The Service believes that the processes approved under its

long-standing ruling (that a synthetic fuel must differ

significantly in chemical composition from the substance used

to produce it) do not produce the level of chemical change

required.

Incredibly it goes on to say:

Nevertheless, the Service continues to recognize that many

taxpayers and their investors have relied on its long-

standing ruling to make investments.

So basically the IRS is going to give this lucrative hoax a ``wink and a nod'' while it waits for Congress to end this sham, which is very unlikely.

Another objectional provision would provide subsidies for the highly profitable gas production method called coalbed methane. According to the Department of Energy, coalbed methane accounted for 57 percent of the growth in U.S. natural gas production between 1990 and 1999. Coalbed methane wells are proliferating in western coalfields and wherever else coalbeds exist, without a tax incentive.

As you can see from these tables, the number of wells drilled in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming has skyrocketed. The tremendous growth in production from 1993 to 2002, with 10,718 wells in this Wyoming field, occurred without a tax credit, and the BLM expects that another 40,000 new wells will be drilled in this area over the next decade. So I think it is clear that this industry has not been waiting around for taxpayer dollars.

If any of my colleagues believe that by making a very profitable industry even more profitable, these tax breaks will help increase gas supply and bring down prices, they are wrong. According to the Congressional Research Service:

[V]irtually all of the added gas output (from coalbed

methane) has substituted for domestic conventional gas rather

than imported petroleum, meaning that the credit has

basically not achieved its underlying policy objective of

enhancing energy security.

In other words, the gas industry has turned from conventional production to coalbed methane with its higher margin of profitability without an increase in total supply.

Additionally, the Congressional Research Service found:

that from an economic perspective, the Sec. 29 credits

compound distortions in the energy markets rather than

correcting for preexisting distortions due to pollution, oil

import dependence, ``excessive'' market risk, and other

factors.

Therefore, one must ask, what is the American public actually receiving from these tax incentives? Economic distortions which translate into higher gas prices. I am certain my colleagues do not want to perpetuate the perverse price effect of this tax credit.

In the Western U.S., most lands operate on the doctrine of ``split estates'' with different owners of the surface property rights and underlying mineral rights. As the number of coalbed methane wells has skyrocketed, the conflicts with thousands of property owners has intensified. That is due to the extensive environmental damage caused by coalbed methane production, which involves pumping massive volumes of groundwater to release the methane held by hydraulic pressure.

Clean coal. The energy tax title would provide an estimated $1.6 billion for the so-called clean coal program. Since 1984, the Department of Energy has already invested $1.8 billion in the clean coal program to ``explore technologies,'' making it the largest environmental technology development effort the Federal Government has ever conducted. But we cannot stop there. This bill would provide an additional $1.6 billion toward the development of still more clean coal technologies. Before we require the taxpayers to pay even more for this program, should we not first consider what we have received in return for the first $1.8 billion?

According to the Department of Energy, the $1.8 billion worth of investments went to Bechtel, Westinghouse, General Electric, Texaco, and other companies that produced technology patents and products that have been

sold around the world, generating billions of dollars for these companies. Besides the enormous profits these companies made by using taxpayer dollars for their research and development, serious deficiencies in the program explain why a new project has not been added in the last 5 years, and why this program should not be funded again.

One of the primary goals of the clean coal program was to produce technologies that scrub emissions from powerplants that result in cleaner air. However, according to a 2001 GAO report, new technologies produced from the $1.8 billion allocated for new clean air technologies have ``limited potential for achieving nationwide emission reductions when used at existing coal-burning facilities.''

The clean coal program management shows more deficiencies. The GAO reports many of the clean coal technology demonstration programs have shown severe problems in meeting costs, schedule, and performance goals.

Biomass. Nestled within the provisions of this bill is one of the more ironic and bizarre U.S. policies to be considered. Under the false guise of exploring environmentally friendly alternative energy sources, this bill extends and expands a subsidy offered to facilities that burn animal droppings. I realize a handful of States are facing legitimate environmental challenges stemming from massive amounts of poultry manure and need to find a way to manage the toxic substances that are a byproduct of these droppings. I favor determining the most effective method of addressing this environmental concern within the proper land management context. However, it would be ironic indeed if, in ordinary to satisfy the need for a clean, renewable energy source, the Senate passes legislation subsidizing the burning of animal droppings, a process which has been found to emit toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic.

No less green an organization than Friends of the Earth opposes burning these droppings as an energy source because the process ``cause[s] serious environment and community health problems.'' Moreover, EPA studies have suggested these facilities have the potential to cause more air pollution than a coal plant. On top of all this, these facilities drive up prices on natural fertilizers used on American farms, actually detracting from an environmentally friendly farming process that requires no Government subsidy.

Why on earth are we wasting valuable money on such a ridiculous, irrational program, especially when such dire financial and energy needs are facing this country today?

Another interesting provision concerns the proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline. There is a good deal of support for this new pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 States, but to what extent are we willing to mortgage the Federal budget to help ensure its reality? The energy tax title would provide a huge subsidy to the natural gas companies proposing the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. In the case of a drop in the price of natural gas, the energy title establishes a price floor--how many manufacturers in America would like to have a price floor for their product?--of $1.35 per thousand cubic feet. If the market price falls below that amount, the Federal Government would have to pay the difference to the private companies for a maximum benefit of 52 cents per thousand cubic feet. The credit would be in effect for the next 25 years. Even the conferees on the energy conference committee refused to include this provision in its final agreement on H.R. 6, which, considering the wasteful special interest giveaways included, should make one wonder about the merits of this provision.

I could go on and on about this bill. I could cite many examples, such as dog-track owners and all the other provisions. But this is probably the most egregious we have and it is quite remarkable. It is a very unfortunate way of doing business, because if we establish this precedent of tacking on anything we want to legislation that is totally irrelevant, then I fear the process has broken down even more badly than I first suspected.

Let me again put this in the context of the environment in which we exist today. This bill, which was designed to provide $5 billion in order to satisfy our European friends' concerns, has now grown into a $170 billion ``Christmas tree'' of goodies for every conceivable special interest. When we are running multitrillion-dollar surpluses, I guess you could argue it wasn't such a bad idea.

Last week Alan Greenspan said the greatest danger to America's economy is these burgeoning multitrillion-dollar deficits. We have never enacted tax cuts while we are in a war. If one thing has been made abundantly clear, it is the cost of the Iraq war is going to be incredibly high--far higher than we ever anticipated. Around here, it is business as usual--well, it is not business as usual; this is probably about the worst I have seen.

I won't say the worst because I probably could think of something. It is as bad as anything I have ever seen. We have no fiscal discipline in this body, and our kids are going to pay a very high price for it. When the bow-and-arrow manufacturers and all of the other things that are stuffed into this, such as horse and dog-track owners, and all of the others--cars, automobiles, Oldsmobiles, all of these things are now amassing. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we continue to be increasingly reliant on the men and women of our Reserve forces and National Guard. In fact, 40 percent of all the ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are composed of National Guard and Reserve forces as well as nearly all of the ground forces in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai. Many of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines leave behind friends, families, and careers to defend our Nation. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of policy makers to ensure we look after the needs of our patriots.

Many reservists that are called to active duty end up making less money with the military than they did in their civilian job. This drop in pay has placed a hardship on many of the men and women serving in the Reserve components who are called to active duty. When the military calls reservists and guardsmen to active duty, the last thing our Nation wants is to hurt the reservist's families as a result. This amendment is designed to address this problem by allowing private companies to pay the difference between the servicemember's Reserve pay and his civilian pay. If the employer chooses to pay this benefit, the Federal Government will give the company a tax credit of 50 percent of the difference in pay, up to $3,000.

Our Nation's reservists and guardsmen are an amazing resource of experience, knowledge and dedication. If we are going to continue to rely on our citizen soldiers, we must make sure that they receive their fair share of benefits and that their families are provided for in their absence. I will always support responsible legislation that accomplishes this important goal.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Dodd and DeWine and my other colleagues in introducing the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, which will reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. This program, which is also know as the FIRE Grant program, addresses a critical need by ensuring that our Nation's firefighters have adequate funding for training and equipment to deal with the many hazards that they face.

As Chairman of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, I am familiar with the success of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. Funding under the FIRE grant program is provided directly to local jurisdictions. Applications undergo a competitive, merit-based process, which helps to ensure that funding is spent responsibily and productively. The grant program includes a matching requirement to ensure that the local community is committed to spending the grant. It also includes a ``maintenance of expenditures'' provision to ensure that the grant will supplement, not replace, local firefighting funds. In addition, the program ensures that new technology that is bought with FIRE Grant funds meet standards set by voluntary consensus organizations, so that local fire departments will buy effective equipment.

For Fiscal Year 2004, the program received over 20,000 applications from local fire departments across the country. These requests totaled approximately $2.3 billion. The program also received around 20,000 applications in 2001, 2002, and 2003, which clearly demonstrates the need and importance of this program to the firefighting community.

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant program recipients use such funds to help meet their basic needs. The uses for these grants include: personal protection and firefighting equipment;

training; firefighting vehicles; fire prevention campaigns; fire code enforcement; and arson detection and prevention. I would like to emphasize that these grants are dedicated to improving the local response to ``all-hazards,'' including natural disasters, structural fires, and acts of terrorism.

I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, and urge the Senate to support passage of this legislation this year. As we have witnessed recently, our Nation's fire services face a myriad of threats, and we should work to ensure that they are adequately trained and equipped to meet them.