Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate International Women's Day, which is celebrated around the world on March 8. For nearly a century, women's groups worldwide have paused on this day to celebrate the achievements and contributions of women around the globe. This day is also an opportunity to reflect on the challenges that women continue to face in their daily lives.

Despite the progress women have made in many countries, women worldwide continue to confront discrimination, violence and even slavery. In central Africa and, specifically, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, sexual violence has increasingly been used as a weapon against women and girls. These horrific acts cannot be tolerated, and those responsible for these atrocities must be held accountable. At the same time, the international community must reach out to help provide medical and psycho-social support to women and girls affected by these horrors, and must work vigorously with civil society and local authorities to prevent these abuses in the future.

Sadly, these violent acts are not isolated instances. Rather, they are indicative of the violence occurring against women in many conflict zones. Experts note that women and girls are most affected by violence, economic instability, and displacement associated with warfare. At home, in flight or in refugee camps, they are frequently threatened by rape and sexual exploitation. Far too many victims of domestic violence and of human trafficking. In some countries, women fall victim to ``honor killings,'' a deplorable practice whereby women are murdered by male relatives for actions that are perceived to bring dishonor to the family. Other countries tolerate the burning of thousands of brides a year due to insufficient dowries.

While I am pleased that the United States has begun to address the global HIV/AIDS crisis, the pandemic continues to exact a terrible human toll on communities around the world, and in sub-Saharan Africa, it is having a particularly devastating effect on women. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have had the opportunity to travel to numerous countries in Africa and see firsthand the devastating toll that HIV/ AIDS and other infectious diseases are taking on the people of this continent. According to United Nations reports, over 25 million adults and children in Africa are infected with the HIV virus, the majority of them in sub-Saharan Africa.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in which women are infected with the virus at a higher rate than men. UNAIDS, the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, reports that women make up an estimated 58 percent of the HIV-positive adult population in this region, as compared to 50 percent worldwide. Young women and girls are especially at risk. The United Nations reports that in this region 6 to 11 percent of girls age 15-24 are infected with HIV, whereas infection among boys of the same age group is 3 to 6 percent. International efforts to fight AIDS will not succeed unless we make a sustained and serious effort to address the factors that make women and girls so vulnerable to exposure. This means more than talking about legal rights, and more than talking about economic empowerment. It means that we must take action.

Despite these difficulties for women, encouraging signs of women's progress are also in evidence around the world. In Western and Central Africa, international courts are holding those responsible for crimes against humanity, including the use of rape as a weapon of war, accountable for their actions

In Mexico, indigenous women, who once lived in the shadows of a deeply patriarchal society, are increasing their influence in local communities. These women are increasingly buying small businesses and owning their own land, taking an aggressive stance against domestic violence and contributing to decision-making in their communities.

In Afghanistan, women are finally back in school. The new Afghan Constitution, approved on January 4, 2004, provides equal rights and duties under

the law to women and includes special provisions to encourage women's access to education and government. Restoring human rights, and, in particular, women's rights, is key to Afghanistan's successful reconstruction and transition to democracy.

Women of all cultures are being recognized on an international stage for their contributions. Notably, Shiri Edadi won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to promote democracy and human rights in Iran, particularly for women and children.

The U.S. Senate can work toward protecting women's rights and improving the status of women domestically and internationally by acting upon the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW. CEDAW is a comprehensive treaty on women's human rights addressing almost all forms of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, marriage and family, health care, politics and law. It has been over two decades since the United States signed this treaty, and it still awaits consideration before the Senate. Once again, I urge the Committee on Foreign Relations to take up this treaty and allow the Senate the opportunity to offer its advice and consent on this important convention.

International Women's Day celebrates the progress women have made in the face of adversity and pays tribute to women fighting against discrimination and other injustices. This year, Congress recognized Dorothy Height for her tremendous work for women's rights. Ms. Height, who fought against racism and violence toward African Americans, also battled for women's full and equal employment, increased educational opportunities, and institutions for women in the United States. This year, she was awarded a congressional gold medal for her contributions to our nation.

Women have made tremendous strides in the last century. In the United States, more and more women are attending college and earning post- graduate degrees. Worldwide, women are becoming increasingly active in the political process--more women are being elected to office and appointed to positions of power than ever before. In the year 2000, 11 countries were led by women.

While I recognize that women in the U.S. continue to make great advances, work remains to narrow the wage disparity between men and women. Although some progress has been made in narrowing the gender wage-gap since Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act in 1963, unfair wage disparities continue. I am proud to support legislative efforts to correct his discrepancy. In addition, I encourage the Senate to consider legislation to reauthorize the TANF program. I believe that any welfare reauthorization bill that passes the Senate should help to ensure that we are not just reducing the welfare rolls, but are also helping current and former TANF recipients break the cycle of poverty.

Unfortunately, violence against women is still all too prevalent in our country. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among women of child-bearing age. One out of every six American women have been victims of a rape or an attempted rape. Many rapes go unreported, and more than half of the women attacked know their assailant. We must continue to adequately fund state and local programs, including support shelters for women suffering from violent abuse in their homes. These safe havens deserve strong support and funding for the invaluable work they provide for women and communities around the country.

As we honor women and celebrate their accomplishments and contributions, we must recognize that there is still much more to be done in the struggle for gender equity. Discrimination and violence against women continue to exist at home and abroad. The United States and the rest of the international community must reaffirm their commitment to promote gender equality and human rights around the world.

Mr. President, first, I want to offer my congratulations to our Budget Committee Chairman, Senator Don Nickles, for his efforts to craft a budget. He has announced that he will retire from this body at the end of his current term, and so this will be his last budget resolution, and his work on the Budget Committee and in this body deserve recognition. Though I oppose the budget resolution he produced in committee, and that was approved by this body, I have nothing but the greatest respect for the author of that document.

Let me also note that the resolution passed by the Senate is an improvement on the disastrous budget the President proposed, and I credit Chairman Nickles with a great deal of that improvement. In particular, I want to commend him for including at least some of the expected cost of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in his mark. Though it is still far short of what our best estimates tell us will be needed, it is a great improvement to the ``head in the sand'' approach adopted in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal. I regret the committee did not support my amendment to more adequately and honestly budget for our operations, and I very much hope that as it comes out of conference, the final version of the budget resolution will adopt the approach I have advocated--forthright budgeting that pays for our operations instead of shoving the cost onto future generations.

I regret that this theme of ``buy now pay later'' pervades this budget, as it has for the past 3 years. This resolution heads our budget in the wrong direction. As our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Conrad, has noted, when compared with current policies as represented in the CBO baseline and as adjusted by taking out last year's supplemental appropriation for our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. this budget resolution further worsens the budget bottom line. Budget deficits will be greater, and Government debt will be larger under this budget.

That means that this budget further adds to the burden our children and grandchildren already bear because of the fiscal recklessness of the past three years.

In one important respect, this resolution is a significant improvement over the version reported out of committee, because it restores some of the budget enforcement we so desperately need as we face massive budget deficits for years to come. I was pleased that the Senate approved my amendment to reinstate the discipline of the PAYGO rule which requires that all new mandatory spending and all new tax cuts be offset or be subject to a point of order. As it came out of committee, this resolution maintained the far weaker rules embedded in last year's budget resolution, inviting further damage to the budget, and further debt to be heaped on the backs of future generations. With the adoption of my amendment, the Senate has taken an important step toward turning around the rapidly deteriorating budget position.

This resolution is also an improvement over the original mark offered by the chairman because of an amendment adopted in committee that facilitates the reimportation of FDA-approved prescription medicines that I was proud to join with Senator Stabenow in offering. Our amendment will not only save money for those who rely on those medicines, but it also will reduce our budget deficits and save taxpayers billions of dollars.

And I should note that this resolution does not rely on revenues raised by drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, and I want to express my thanks to the chairman for responding to the appeal a number of us made with respect to this issue. I was prepared to fight to remove such language, and I think the chairman was wise not to rely on revenue assumptions that have always been questionable, and that were at risk of being removed from the resolution.

The resolution was also improved on the floor when the body adopted an amendment offered by Senator Baucus which stripped the reconciliation instruction that would have severely limited consideration of the issues surrounding the proposed significant reshaping of Medicaid. The President's proposed changes to that program would put thousands of Wisconsin's most vulnerable residents at risk, and the Baucus amendment will make it harder for Congress and the White House to gut this essential safety net.

I regret the body did not adopt amendments offered by the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, and by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, that would have provided needed support for our first responders, who are on the front lines in our fight against terrorism. The administration did not include adequate support in its budget, nor did the resolution as it came out of committee, and the Senate failed to correct that defect when it rejected those amendments. This is an area of funding as critical to the security of our country as any other, and while I was pleased to support another amendment in this area, offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, to provide a portion of the resources that are needed, I very much hope further improvement can be made before Congress takes final action on the resolution.

I was also disappointed that the Senate did not act to improve the measure by returning to the ``polluter pays'' policy that served us so well for many years. I was pleased to join with the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, in offering an amendment to do just that, and I regret that this sensible policy was rejected.

While the Senate failed to add that provision, it did adopt an amendment I strongly supported, to increase funding to support state compliance with Federal clean water standards. The goal of that deficit neutral amendment is to provide $3.2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $2.0 billion for the Safe Drinking Water Act Revolving Fund, both vitally important programs that were not adequately funded by the President in his budget submission.

As I noted earlier, this budget heads us down the wrong fiscal path. If we are ever to climb out of the deficit ditch again, we need to start now. Unfortunately, this resolution, though an improvement on what the President proposed, still leaves us worse off than merely extending current policies.

We must do better than that if we are to avoid heaping even more debt onto the already enormous burden our children and grandchildren must bear.

Mr. President, I was very happy to learn this week that Wisconsin will be one of 12 new States to receive funding for a full- time Weapon of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team--WMD-CST--this year and I want to congratulate the Wisconsin National Guard for their efforts to secure a full-time team. These teams, made up of members of the National Guard, play a vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating the new threat we face in the 21st century. During the 2002 Baseball All-Star Game in Milwaukee, WI had to call in Minnesota's civil support team because Wisconsin did not yet have a full-time team. I am pleased that Wisconsin will now have its own capability to quickly respond and protect its citizens from possible terrorist threats.

I have worked for years now to assure that all states and territories have at least one of these teams and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for helping me in this endeavor. We have had great success. The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 made it law that all states and territories have at least one WMD-CST and Congress authorized and appropriated the funds to establish 12 of the 23 teams during fiscal year 2004. Now we must make sure that the last 11 teams are funded in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, I thank the managers for making it possible for me to offer this amendment at this time. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer this amendment with Senators Chafee, Baucus, Cantwell, Carper, and Graham.

This amendment is very straightforward. It would simply reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule that has been such an effective restraint on the fiscal appetites of Congress and the White House.

The last 3 years have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs, and that is balancing the Nation's fiscal boxes. We are all familiar with the history. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office actually projected in the 10 years thereafter, Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. A little more than 3 years later, we are now, unfortunately, staring at almost a mirror image of that 10-year, $5 trillion surplus. Instead of healthy surpluses, under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits.

We must stop running deficits because they cause the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.

We have to stop running deficits because every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits.

When the Government in this generation chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with debts they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. That is not right.

This is also why I am offering this amendment to fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. This amendment would simply return us to the rules by which Congress played for the decade of the 1990s. It would eliminate the exceptions to pay-as-you-go included in last year's resolution that exempt new tax cuts and new mandatory spending included in a budget resolution. The reason we have to get rid of these exceptions is these exceptions facilitate more damage to the Federal bottom line.

I recognize there are some who prefer to provide some exemptions for certain tax and spending policies. In particular, the argument has been made that we ought to exempt the extension of the 10-percent bracket, the child care tax credit, and the marriage penalty provisions. The argument is that these, and possibly other policies, are so worthy that they should not be subjected to pay as you go.

Let me offer what I think are two valid responses to this. First, while there are certainly worthy tax provisions included in the assumptions underlying this resolution, including those I just listed, as the chairman of the committee has pointed out very effectively in the Senate, no budget resolution can actually specify which taxes must be cut and which must be raised. The resolution can set forth levels of tax cuts, but it cannot specify which taxes are cut. It follows that the resolution cannot specify which tax cuts should be exempt from budget enforcement. It can exempt some level of tax cuts from that enforcement, as indeed this resolution does.

But a budget resolution cannot specify which specific tax cuts are to be exempt from budget enforcement. So we have no guarantee at all that these popular and worthy tax cuts I just mentioned, those three, would end up being the ones that would benefit from this exemption that exempts tax cuts from the normal pay-as-you-go requirement on which we have to get the 60 votes to waive the rule.

The second reason, for the specific tax cuts I mentioned earlier--the 10-

percent bracket, the child tax credit, and the marriage penalty provision--I am absolutely sure there will be far more than 60 votes to waive any point of order against those provisions. I even wonder if anyone will propose to put us in a position where we have to waive a point of order. Someone will have to actually raise a point of order. These three sorts of tax cuts have such strong support that it is not, in my view, a serious or genuine objection that the pay-as-you-go rule will prevent them from being extended and continuing.

Reinstating the pay-as-you-go rule makes it harder for this body to make the deficit worse. It does not prohibit these tax cuts. It does not make it impossible to have a tax cut. It just makes it a little harder. That is as it should be. Given our current budget position, we ought to make it harder to make the deficit worse. If new tax cuts or new mandatory spending is not to be offset, then they ought to be only the most worthy of policies, not just anything that can get a majority vote. They ought to be policies that can achieve the 60 votes needed to waive a point of order.

It is very simple. That is what this amendment would do. It is the least we should do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound budgeting. We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We must continue the discipline of the budget process.

This is one of those situations where after you have been here a while, you can actually speak from experience. I can speak from experience of having watched in this body. As I came in 1993, we had the largest deficit in American history. Were it not for these budget rules, if it were not for the pay-as-you-go rules, I am certain the parties would not have come together as we did over those years to achieve what almost no one thought was possible--a very solid surplus. Without these rules, the discipline goes away. Without these rules, we are back to the behavior of the 1980s, which my constituents so thoroughly condemn: Unlimited tax cuts on unlimited spending, the blank checks that were written that put this Nation in its worst deficit to date.

We now have a much worse deficit. We now have the largest deficit in American history. It is incumbent upon this body to go back to what we know worked, to what we know put the parties in a healthy competition, to see which party could be more fiscally responsible. We desperately need to return to that discipline now.

That is why I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment that will return the pay-as-you-go rules in full.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, does the Senator from North Dakota want more time off the amendment?

Mr. President, I appreciate not only the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma but his leadership on the Budget Committee. I enjoy very much serving with him on the committee. I also appreciate the sort of change of tone from the opposition on this amendment. Everything we have heard about this amendment recently is how we need to have a weaker rule than the pay-go rule. Somehow we have to justify these exceptions that were put in the Budget Committee resolution. Finally the chairman is talking about what we really should be talking about, that we need a strong rule.

What he has done is lay out some things our pay-go doesn't do. That is true. There may be some additional things we should do in this area. But what I am proposing, with the cosponsors, is let's at least go back to the rules we know worked, the rules that brought this country a balanced budget in the 1990s. They were proven to work. That is all this amendment does.

If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to talk about additional steps, I am all for it. Senator Gregg and I, in the Budget Committee in the past, tried for 5-year caps on spending. We were defeated by a largely party-line vote except for Senator Gregg. That didn't work so we tried a 2-year cap, working with Senator Conrad. That was rejected. We tried 1 year. That is one of the three legs of the stool, the discretionary spending. If the Senator wants to work with me and Senator Gregg and others to propose legislation to deal with that, I am ready to go. In fact, Senator Gregg and I proposed such a bill.

But the chairman knows very well we can't change that on the budget resolution. We have to pass a statutory item in order to accomplish that. So I am eager to do it.

Let's pass this pay-go amendment and let's immediately move on to finish the job by passing the kind of statute that will achieve what the Senator from Oklahoma is talking about.

I can't allow a complete changing of the subject because the truth is the pay-go rules in the proposal before us are not pay-go. They are pay-go minus. It is sort of as though you draft up a budget and after you figure out what you want, then you draft up the rules by which you will draft up the budget. That is the game we are playing here. We don't go into the process saying: Look, we have played by these rules. They have worked. We say: What do we need; what tax cuts do we want; what mandatory spending do we want. And after that, everything else that hasn't gone through the barn door, then we make the rules apply after that.

I suggest that doesn't work. I suggest it is a formula for more fiscal disaster. I suggest it means next year in the Budget Committee the same thing is going to happen. There is going to be a whole list of tax cuts and other things--mandatory spending--people wanted to get in there. And they will say: We exempt this, and now we will make the pay- go rule apply.

That is making a sham out of the pay-go rules. The ranking member, for whom I have enormous admiration on this subject, hit it right on the head. The people of this country are beginning to realize it has all happened again, that they have been taken. We had rules in place that the American people were thrilled to see work, leading to a balanced budget and a surplus. Those rules are no longer there. Those rules were allowed to expire at a time when this country was undergoing enormous anxiety. But they are catching on. They caught on in 1992, and they sent to Washington people who would deal with the deficit. They are catching on again now. The Senator is right, this vote is ``the vote'' about whether you are for balancing this Nation's budget or whether you want deficits as far as the eye can see.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Delaware who has been a terrific advocate on this issue.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I cannot tell you how pleased I am to have the support of these two Senators. They are two Senators who are consistently devoted to protecting the taxpayers in their State and in the country. I find, more than anything else, people looking for representatives who truly come out here and take the tough votes to protect the interests of the taxpayers.

As I indicated before, they are figuring out that despite all the troubles of the last couple of years, we have irresponsibly driven up this country's deficit and debt to a point that is unprecedented in the history of the country.

I am grateful to these two Senators. I remind everybody, this is a bipartisan amendment. We have a Republican cosponsor, and there will be other Republican votes for it. This is not your typical partisan amendment or vote on a budget resolution. This is about what used to be a consensus in this body. We ought to have some rules that are consistent that will apply to all parts of the budget so that we can work together on behalf of the American people to do something about our very serious fiscal problems.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I wish I could say what is in the budget resolution before us is pay-go, but it is not pay-go. It is pay-go without an absolutely critical component, and that is making it apply to the tax cuts. It is almost like saying I want pay-go as long as it does not apply to what I want, and that is not the pay-go that worked in the 1990s. That is not the pay-go that brought us a balanced budget.

I have to reiterate, this does not stop the tax cuts the Senator from Oklahoma is talking about--child care credit, 10-percent bracket, marriage penalty. Not only can all of these survive under pay-go, they will. They just need to get 60 votes. I predict in each case, they will probably get 35 to 40 extra votes on top of that, if anyone even raises the point of order. So it is simply false to say somehow this stops the tax cuts from being extended.

Let's be honest about it. The only reason this exemption is needed is those tax cuts were not made permanent. Had they been made permanent, the Senator from Oklahoma would not have to be worrying about extending them. Why weren't they made permanent? They weren't made permanent so we could have this phony idea the deficit isn't as bad as it really is out in the future years. It is a gimmick. It is a game to make them temporary so you can say it is not going to cost more in the outyears. Then when it comes time to face the music, what do we do? We say the normal rules do not apply. We do not require ourselves to pay for it, or we do not require the 60 votes that are normally needed.

Without the adoption of this amendment, we have done serious damage to the integrity of the pay-go rules going into the future. A system of rules such as this depends on the integrity of the rules, that they be applied fairly and across the board. Allowing these exemptions, even well-intentioned, with regard to certain tax cuts, undermines the integrity of a system we all relied on to work in the 1990s.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I want to know, do I have 30 seconds remaining?

Let me point out to the Senator from Iowa, for whom I also have enormous regard and really enjoy working with, he indicated he wanted to make sure this pay-go goes through the way they have it in the budget resolution in order to make sure tax cuts that are current law continue. The fact is they are not in current law. The current law says they shall expire. That is the law. The law is they are going to expire.

In order to continue these tax cuts, a new law must be passed. All I am saying is the pay-go rule should apply to that new law, to those new tax cuts, because otherwise we are not applying the rules that are applied to everything

else. I think it is an important distinction.

It is not by accident these were set up to expire.

They would have been in violation of the budget because they caused deficits in the outgoing years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to debate the Senator from Oklahoma. I join with him on the issue when it comes to the taxpayers. The lesson we learned in the 1990s is the worst thing that can be done to the taxpayers of this country is to run record deficits and destroy the fiscal integrity of this country.

The only question is: Are we going to have across-the-board, tough budget rules to protect the taxpayer dollars, or are we going to have holes in those rules that will make sure the taxpayers get in a deeper hole with the deficits?

Those tax cuts will not be denied because of these rules this year. The taxpayers of this country will get the 10 percent. They will get the continued elimination of the marriage penalty. They will get the child care credit. If we go with my amendment, they will get that and also get the fiscal discipline rules that brought them a balanced budget at the end of the 1990s.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment will simply return us to the rules by which Congress played in the decade of the 1990s. We eliminate the exceptions to pay-go included in last year's resolution that exempt new tax cuts and new mandatory spending included in the budget resolution, an exception that facilitates more damage to the Federal bottom line.

This amendment will not--I repeat, will not--prevent the extension of the expiring 10-percent bracket or the child tax credit or the marriage penalty. This body will vote to extend those tax cuts by a huge margin, and I will be part of that huge margin. But this amendment will return some of the budget discipline that helped us balance the budget.

Deficits matter. Debt matters. Let's not leave our children and grandchildren with an even bigger tab than we have already stuck them with.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004. I am pleased to be joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with me in the 107th Congress to reform the Corps. I also thank the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, who, as the Democratic Leader, has long supported Corps reform, for cosponsoring this legislation today.

As we debate the budget resolution this week, we cannot ignore the record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces. Fiscal responsibility has never been so important. This legislation provides Congress with a unique opportunity to underscore our commitment to that goal. Time and time again we have heard that fiscal responsibility and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. Through this legislation, however, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars and protect the environment. As evidence of this unique opportunity, this bill is supported by Taxpayers for Common$ense, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and Earthjustice.

Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a gloomy federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and many other states across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services in my state alone.

My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy.

This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the former Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers' package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of peer review of Corps projects.

The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were included in two bills, one of which I authored and the other I cosponsored, in the 107th Congress. It codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps, which was investigated through the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects.

I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking about the same issue.

The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the problem is with Congress. All too often Members of Congress have seen Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring that taxpayers get the most bang for their federal buck.

This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and environmental protection are co-equal goals of the Corps. Furthermore, the Corps must use current discount rates when determining the costs and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are justified using a discount rate formula established in 1974, not the current government- wide discount rate promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. By using this outdated discount rate formula, the Corps often overestimates project benefits and underestimates project costs.

This legislation also requires that a water resource project's benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer. According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60 Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates Federal- local cost sharing of inland waterways, flood control, and future beach renourishment projects, and reduces the Federal cost burden of these projects.

While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to reduce their local share for projects.

The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following circumstances: 1. the project has costs greater than $25 million, including mitigation costs; 2. the Governor of a state that is affected by the project requests a panel; 3. the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the project determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; or 4. the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. Any party can request that the Secretary make a determination of whether the project is controversial.

This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the Office

of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The Director is responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The Secretary is required to respond to the panel's report and explain the extent to which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The panel report and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the project will be made available to the public.

The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the Federal Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks.

I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible.

This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion. Under the bill a project authorized for construction but never started is deauthorized if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion of construction for five straight years. In addition, a project that has begun construction but been denied appropriations funds towards completion for three straight years is deauthorized. The bill also preserves congressional prerogatives over setting the Corps' construction priorities by allowing Congress a chance to reauthorize any of these projects before they are automatically deauthorized. This process will be transparent to all interests, because the bill requires the Corps to make a list of projects in the construction backlog available to Congress and the public at large.

In the past decade, the Corps has routinely strayed from its mission of flood control, navigation, and environmental protection. This legislation also requires that the Corps stick with its primary missions and that any water project that does not have the Corps' primary mission of flood control, navigation, or environmental protection as its main objective will be deauthorized.

This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water Resources bill.

I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance.

I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004. I am pleased to be joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with me in the 107th Congress to reform the Corps. I also thank the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, who, as the Democratic Leader, has long supported Corps reform, for cosponsoring this legislation today.

As we debate the budget resolution this week, we cannot ignore the record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces. Fiscal responsibility has never been so important. This legislation provides Congress with a unique opportunity to underscore our commitment to that goal. Time and time again we have heard that fiscal responsibility and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. Through this legislation, however, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars and protect the environment. As evidence of this unique opportunity, this bill is supported by Taxpayers for Common$ense, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and Earthjustice.

Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a gloomy federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and many other states across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services in my state alone.

My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy.

This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the former Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers' package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of peer review of Corps projects.

The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were included in two bills, one of which I authored and the other I cosponsored, in the 107th Congress. It codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps, which was investigated through the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects.

I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking about the same issue.

The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the problem is with Congress. All too often Members of Congress have seen Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring that taxpayers get the most bang for their federal buck.

This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and environmental protection are co-equal goals of the Corps. Furthermore, the Corps must use current discount rates when determining the costs and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are justified using a discount rate formula established in 1974, not the current government- wide discount rate promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. By using this outdated discount rate formula, the Corps often overestimates project benefits and underestimates project costs.

This legislation also requires that a water resource project's benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer. According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60 Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates Federal- local cost sharing of inland waterways, flood control, and future beach renourishment projects, and reduces the Federal cost burden of these projects.

While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to reduce their local share for projects.

The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following circumstances: 1. the project has costs greater than $25 million, including mitigation costs; 2. the Governor of a state that is affected by the project requests a panel; 3. the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the project determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; or 4. the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. Any party can request that the Secretary make a determination of whether the project is controversial.

This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the Office

of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The Director is responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The Secretary is required to respond to the panel's report and explain the extent to which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The panel report and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the project will be made available to the public.

The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the Federal Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks.

I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible.

This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion. Under the bill a project authorized for construction but never started is deauthorized if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion of construction for five straight years. In addition, a project that has begun construction but been denied appropriations funds towards completion for three straight years is deauthorized. The bill also preserves congressional prerogatives over setting the Corps' construction priorities by allowing Congress a chance to reauthorize any of these projects before they are automatically deauthorized. This process will be transparent to all interests, because the bill requires the Corps to make a list of projects in the construction backlog available to Congress and the public at large.

In the past decade, the Corps has routinely strayed from its mission of flood control, navigation, and environmental protection. This legislation also requires that the Corps stick with its primary missions and that any water project that does not have the Corps' primary mission of flood control, navigation, or environmental protection as its main objective will be deauthorized.

This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water Resources bill.

I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance.

I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve.

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

Madam President, if I could have 10 minutes.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota to fully fund health care programs for our Nation's veterans.

America is indebted to our veterans and military personnel and to their families for the extraordinary service and sacrifice that they have so selflessly provided to our country. As we debate this budget resolution, our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line in this country and around the world, from Iraq to Afghanistan to the Balkans to the Korean DMZ and countless other places. We thank those men and women and we hope for their quick and safe return to their families.

At the same time that the current members of our Armed Forces serve us across the globe, we must not forget those who paved the way for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of today. Our Nation's veterans and their families have given selflessly to the cause of protecting our freedom. Too many have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country, from the battlefields of the Revolutionary War that gave birth to the United States, to the Civil War, which sought to secure for all Americans the freedoms envisioned by the Founding Fathers, to the global fight against Nazism and fascism in World War II.

In the last century, Americans fought and died in two world wars and in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. They also participated in peacekeeping missions around the globe, some of which are still going on.

We owe it to our veterans to ensure that they have a decent standard of living and access to adequate health care. It is the least that we can do in return for their courageous service to our country. This is especially important as we welcome home a new generation of veterans who are serving in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles have ended and our troops have come home.

The amendment that we are considering will go a long way toward ensuring that the VA health care system can meet the demand for care from the existing veterans population and will help to ensure that the VA is able to care for returning veterans who will require health care services.

For too long our veterans have had to wait months for appointments to see a doctor at a VA facility. Others are unable to access VA care within a reasonable distance from their homes. I cannot tell my colleagues how many times I have heard that comment at the town meetings ended all over Wisconsin. And still others are told by the VA that they are not eligible for care because their priority group level is too low. The amendment before us today would ensure that the Veterans Health Administration is funded at the level recommended by the Independent Budget for Veterans Affairs, which is drafted annually by a coalition of veterans service organizations. By their calculations, the President's budget request falls short by nearly $2.8 billion, and the underlying budget resolution is $2.7 billion below what would be needed to meet demand at VA health care facilities during fiscal year 2005.

The amendment that is before the Senate would increase the amount for veterans' health care in the budget resolution by $2.7 billion. This increase would ensure that all veterans, including those in priority group 8 who are currently barred from enrolling in the VA health care system, receive care at VA facilities. It would also eliminate the need for the proposed prescription drug co-payment increases and new user fees for veterans in priority groups 7 and 8 that have been proposed by the President.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs said the following about his Department's budget request:

My top priority in health care is to ensure that resources

are available to care for those veterans who are most

deserving of VA's medical services. The proposals in this

budget will assist us in continuing that focus on our core

service population in our health care system.

Let me repeat that. The Secretary said his budget would ensure that resources are available to care for those veterans who are ``most deserving of VA's medical services.''

In my view and in the view of veterans and their families who I have spoken with around Wisconsin, all veterans are deserving of the VA's medical services. I am troubled that the Secretary's comments seem to pit groups of veterans against each other for health care services. The amendment before the Senate today will enable the VA to serve all veterans who wish to take advantage of their health care benefits.

In order to offset this increase, the amendment would reduce the tax cut for Americans making more than $1 million annually. This is a more than fair exchange that will allow us to provide badly needed health care services to our veterans.

I am deeply concerned that for the last several years funding for veterans health care and other programs for our Nation's veterans has been delayed as Congress and the administration wrangle over the Federal budget. I believe strongly that we should consider and pass a budget resolution and 13 individual appropriations bills each year. I regret that the VA budget has been rolled into omnibus measures, thus delaying this important funding for our Nation's veterans.

I hope that this amendment will be the first step in providing adequate funding to care for our veterans in fiscal year 2005 and beyond. This is the very least that we can do for those who done so much for our country. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

I yield the floor.

The Senator yields.

I think this amendment offered by Senator Daschle clearly attempts to fund this out of the most unjustified aspects of the tax cut that was put into place. It would simply prevent certain tax cuts that are for very high-income people from going forward, and at a minimum level make sure the Veterans Affairs budget is fully funded. I believe this is an appropriate amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate the 43rd anniversary of the Peace Corps. Peace Corps volunteers have made a tremendous difference in the lives of so many around the world. I salute these volunteers of all backgrounds and ages who have reached out to people in need beyond our borders and who have presented an image of our country that is compassionate, energetic and approachable. I am especially proud of the 255 people from Wisconsin who are presently volunteering for the Peace Corps in South Africa, Ghana, Nicaragua, Philippines, Turkmenistan, Mongolia and many other countries. Wisconsin is one of the biggest contributors of Peace Corps volunteers in our country, ranked 15 among the 50 States. For the 10th year in a row, University of Wisconsin-Madison has the highest number of alumni serving as Peace Corps volunteers. The selfless service of Wisconsinites must be commended.

In 1960, President Kennedy challenged Americans to serve their country by living and working in developing countries. Americans have been answering this call ever since by joining the Peace Corps. Decades later, I have been struck by the lasting impact that this organization, and the young people who have fueled it, have had around the world.

In 2002 I traveled to visit the sites of the 1998 embassy bombings. Tanzania, a country where about half of the population is Muslim, is no stranger to suspicion and mistrust of the West. Yet as I found myself meeting with a group of Tanzanian legislators, asking for their views about how to strengthen our partnership in combating terrorism and to improve the relationship between our countries, I was overwhelmed by their enthusiasm for the Peace Corps.

These distinguished legislators told me about how their first English language teachers were Peace Corps volunteers, and how those teachers seemed to be opening the whole world to them just by their very presence in the classroom. These legislators said that the best way to strengthen our relations with their country was to foster meaningful people-to-people links by increasing our Peace Corps presence there.

In today's world where our challenges are global in nature, there is an urgent need for Americans to participate in programs like the Peace Corps. Peace Corps volunteers reach across the political and cultural divide, connecting with people as individuals. They treat others with respect by learning about their cultures and their lives, and they put a human face on America, which would otherwise be simply a distant powerful land. They help dissolve resentment against our country that might flourish in their absence.

I congratulate Peace Corps and its volunteers for 43 years of effective service in a mission of world peace and friendship.

Mr. President, I am pleased to submit the People-to- People Engagement in World Affairs resolution with my esteemed colleague, Senator Chuck Hagel.

In the 1960s, during a troubled and divisive time for our country, President John F. Kennedy challenged Americans to ``ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.'' Today, the need is even more urgent for Americans to be active participants both in the United States and abroad.

This People-to-People Engagement in World Affairs resolution is a call to Americans to look beyond our borders to engage with the wider world at an individual, human level. It encourages Americans to seize opportunities to engage in the global arena--through participating in a professional or cultural exchange; studying or volunteering abroad; working with an immigrant or refugee group in the United States; hosting a foreign student or professional; participating in a sister- city program; and/or learning a foreign language.

It also asks the Secretary of State to coordinate with implementing partners in creating an online database that lists these opportunities for Americans.

In today's world, our challenges and opportunities are global in nature. Terrorism, the greatest threat to our national security, crosses all national boundaries and feeds off the gaps in intelligence and communication created by borders. Other important issues, such as the proliferation of WMD, human trafficking, poverty, environmental degradation, and diseases from HIV/AIDS to polio also have little regard for borders. These challenges require international cooperation, and Americans at all levels of society are instrumental in finding and achieving meaningful solutions.

This resolution encourages Americans to forge relationships with people outside of the United States to change not only how Americans view and act in the world, but how others view Americans. Presently, anti-Americanism is growing at a startling rate. According to the Pew Research Center, negative views of the United States among Muslims, which were once limited to the Middle East, have spread to populations in places like Nigeria and Indonesia. A growing percentage of Muslims see serious threats to Islam by the United States. Majorities in seven of eight Muslim populations surveyed express worries that the U.S. might become a military threat to their countries. And these disturbing trends hold strong even beyond the Muslim world.

This is dangerous for a number of reasons. Anti-Americanism undermines our ability to work effectively with other countries on our global problems. In addition, in our fight against terror, anti- Americanism can create a steady supply of recruits for terrorist networks, intent on our destruction. These terrorist networks have unfairly blamed the United States for the unemployment, the poverty and the powerlessness that so many around the world experience on a daily basis. They feed off erroneous perceptions of Americans, distorting our image to achieve their own objectives.

Americans must combat these misperceptions and turn mistrust into understanding. If we don't define ourselves to the people of the world, we run the risk that terrorist will continue to make America a scapegoat for other nation's ills. In order to show the world who Americans really are, diplomacy must occur at all levels of society and not only through U.S. government representatives. Artists, scholars, teachers, nurses, doctors, and business people all have a role in shaping this image and in presenting a different American face to the world.

Many Americans have been engaged for decades. In my own State of Wisconsin, my constituents have demonstrated altruism and curiosity daily. They have worked in the Peace Corps, trained dairy farmers in South America and Eastern Europe, participated in sister-city exchanges with the former Soviet Union, traveled to refugee camps in Thailand and hosted international students. Through these activities, my constituents have fought stereotypes and created openings for greater trust and cooperation. The need is greater now than ever before for more Americans to become involved.

I have been approached by Americans of all ages and all economic backgrounds to ask me how they can become more involved. This resolution is a response to those Americans and a challenge to many more to define our times and to shape our world. The creation of the online database as part of this resolution will assist Americans in finding the best way for them personally to participate. Americans will use their enthusiasm and curiosity to engage in the world where they can--through tutoring children, through assisting refugees who come to our country, through professional training, and through showing concern for the well-being of other outside of the United States.

This resolution is a challenge to Americans to make connections in their own way--to listen and show respect for others and their way of life. Americans can bridge the gap between

this powerful nation and people around the world who feel frustrated and powerless. We can change perceptions, change minds, and change the world we live in.

Mr. President, I wish to speak today on the bill before us, S. 1805, and some of the amendments relating to firearms that have been offered to it.

Listening to the debate on this issue, the American people might get the impression that there are just two sides to the gun debate: On one side are those who view the right to bear arms as absolute and oppose any proposals that could remotely be considered as restrictions on that right. On the other side are those who view gun use as an evil in our society that must be limited in any way possible. Sometimes the rhetoric gets turned up so high that reasoned analysis and debate is obscured. That is unfortunate.

I have never accepted the proposition that the gun debate is a black and white issue, a matter of ``you're with us, or you're against us.'' Instead, I have followed what I believe is a moderate course, faithful to the Constitution and to the realities of modern society. I believe that the Second Amendment was not an afterthought, that it has meaning today and must be respected. I support the right to bear arms for lawful purposes--for hunting and sport and for self-protection. Millions of Americans own firearms legally and we should not take action that tells them that they are second-class citizens or that their constitutional rights are under attack. At the same time, there are actions we can and should take to protect public safety that do not infringe on constitutional rights.

I supported the Brady bill requiring background checks of gun purchasers. I have voted in favor of closing the gun show loophole that unacceptably increases the danger that a gun will fall into the hands of a criminal. And I support child safety locks and other measures to make firearms less dangerous to gun owners and their families. These are reasonable measures that do not infringe on the rights of law- abiding citizens to own and use guns.

On the other hand, I have long opposed banning handguns, requiring national gun registration, and restricting the rights of young adults to own guns even if they are well trained and operating under adult supervision. I believe that prohibiting certain types of weapons is problematic as well. Although I voted for the ban on certain kinds of semi-automatic weapons in 1994, I have come to believe that it is a largely arbitrary and symbolic measure. Citizens see it as a first step towards confiscating their firearms. I will, therefore, vote against its reauthorization.

Finally, on the bill before us, I do not believe that granting special liability protection to the gun industry is necessary to protect the right to bear arms. There is no evidence that liability lawsuits threaten the existence of the gun industry in America. I believe it would be a mistake to impose a nationwide standard of tort liability on this industry that is more lenient than the standard that applies to the manufacturers or suppliers of any other product. The gun industry, like other industries, owes a duty to consumers of reasonable care, and juries of citizens are best able to define that standard as they do in tort cases of every imaginable type every day in this country.

Giving sweeping liability protection will cut off the rights of those injured by negligence and set a very dangerous precedent for how Congress treats corporate wrongdoers. I will, therefore, vote against

Mr. President I want to speak today on the Supreme Court's recent decision to review whether the execution of child offenders--those under 18 at the time the crime was committed--is constitutional. The Court will soon hear the case of Christopher Simmons, a Missouri man who was sentenced to die for a crime he committed at the age of 17. The case is called Roper v. Simmons.

In the past few years, our Nation has taken important strides toward fairness and justice in the administration of the death penalty. In 2000, former Illinois Gov. George Ryan took the courageous step of halting executions in his State pending a top-to-bottom study of the use of capital punishment in Illinois. Following an exhaustive review of his State's system, Gov. Ryan commuted the death sentences of all death row inmates in Illinois in December 2002. Former Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening suspended executions in his State in the face of glaring racial and geographic disparities in the Maryland death penalty system. Current Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich has since lifted the State's moratorium, but an execution has not taken place in Maryland since 1998.

A number of State legislatures have inched closer and closer to abolishing the death penalty or instituting moratoria in their jurisdictions. And in 2002, in a significant turning point for our Nation, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the execution of the mentally retarded. That decision, in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, confirmed that our Nation's standards of decency concerning the ultimate punishment are indeed evolving and maturing.

While these events are steps toward fairness and indications of progress, they also serve as reminders that our system is seriously flawed. The statistics and stories of innocent people wrongly convicted are shocking. In the modern death penalty era, 113 individuals in 25 different States have been exonerated after being convicted and put on death row. The most recent exoneration occurred just last week in a case from North Carolina. This should be disturbing to all Americans who believe in the founding principles of our Nation, liberty and justice for all.

As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 2002 dissent, after the Court refused to consider another case involving child offenders, the practice of executing child offenders is ``inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.'' In my view, Justice Stevens is right. Executions of child offenders have occurred in only eight countries since 1990: China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, and the United States of America. Most of these countries, however, have since banned executions of child offenders, leaving the United States as the only country that acknowledges its use of capital punishment for child offenders.

According to Amnesty International, there have been 34 executions of child offenders since 1990--19 of them in the United States. And there are currently

child offenders on death row in America who are scheduled to be executed this year. In fact, incredibly, Texas has scheduled the execution of four child offenders between March and June of this year, despite the Supreme Court's announcement that it will consider the constitutionality of such executions in the Simmons case this term.

Currently, 38 States authorize the use of the death penalty. Nineteen of those States have decided that they will only execute defendants who were 18 or older at the time of the crime. But 5 States use 17 as the minimum age, and the other 16 States permit the execution of defendants who were as young as 16 when they committed the crime.

The State Department has said: ``Because the promotion of human rights is an important national interest, the United States seeks to hold governments accountable to their obligations under universal human rights norms and international human rights instruments.'' But we can only call ourselves protectors of human rights if we practice what we preach. Here at home, we continue to apply capital punishment to those who were convicted of crimes committed before legally becoming adults. Spreading decency and humanity must begin here at home. As long as America executes child offenders, our reputation as a shining example of respect for human rights is tarnished.

At the beginning of the 108th Congress, I introduced the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, which would suspend Federal executions while we conduct a thorough study of the administration of the Federal death penalty at the State and Federal levels. My bill would specifically require a commission to review all aspects of the system, including the practice of sentencing child offenders to death. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, and I look forward to the Supreme Court's review of this important issue. I am hopeful that the Court will build upon the progress it made two years ago when it ended the execution of the mentally retarded. Banning the execution of child offenders is the right thing to do. Congress should act if the Court doesn't.

Mr. President, today I commemorate the sesquicentennial of Green Bay, WI, one of the most famous cities in America, and one of Wisconsin's most beloved places.

Green Bay is Wisconsin's oldest European settlement dating back to the explorations of Jean Nicolet in 1634. Early fur traders and explorers used Green Bay and the Fox River as an important access point from the Great Lakes to the Western lands of the New World. Early French settlers called the bay, ``La Baie Verte,'' because of its green waters. In the second half of the 19th century, European immigrants flocked to Green Bay for the good farming soil and ample business opportunities. The paper industry became a vital part of the Green Bay economy and remains the leading employer in the city today. Green Bay became a city when it was incorporated by the Wisconsin Legislature on February 27, 1854. Today, Green Bay stands with a population of over 100,000 people as Wisconsin's third-largest city.

Today visitors can get a taste of Green Bay's long history at the Heritage Hill State Historic Park which offers a rare opportunity to visit one of Wisconsin's oldest wood homes, the Tank Cottage. Green Bay is also home to the National Railroad Museum, home of the world's largest steam locomotive and General Dwight D. Eisenhower's WWII command train.

Green Bay is known to many as Titletown USA as it is home to the world-famous Green Bay Packers, the real ``America's Team.'' In 1919, Curly Lambeau, who worked for a packing plant, organized the original Packers football team. The team's popularity led to the packing plant backing Lambeau in obtaining a franchise in the new professional football league. Early financial problems were overcome by making the team publically owned, an honor that I am proud to say I am now a part of. The rest, as they say, is history. The Packers have gone on to win 12 championships, more than any other pro football team. Green Bay has been the stage for such great games as the 1967 Ice Bowl and such talents as Vince Lombardi, Don Hutson, Bart Starr and Brett Favre. Every year, people from all over the country make a pilgrimage to Green Bay to see the frozen tundra of the beautifully renovated Lambeau Field and visit the Green Bay Packer Hall of Fame.

Green Bay is a city with a distinguished history, a proud tradition of hardworking families and a bright future. Happy birthday, Green Bay. We are looking forward to the next 150 years.

Mr. President, three years ago tomorrow, in his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Bush declared that racial profiling is wrong and pledged to end it in America. He then directed his Attorney General to implement this policy.

It is now three years later, and the American people are still waiting for the President to follow through on his pledge to end racial profiling.

So, today I join with Representative John Conyers, the distinguished ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, in re-introducing the End Racial Profiling Act. We first introduced this bill in 2001, shortly after the President made his pledge and the Attorney General asserted that he would work with us on our legislation.

The End Racial Profiling Act would do exactly what the President promised to do: it would ban racial profiling once and for all and require Federal, State, and local law enforcement to take steps to end and prevent racial profiling.

I am very pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues have joined me on this bill Senators Corzine, Clinton, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Reid, Dodd, Cantwell, Mikulski, and Edwards.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents routinely stop African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. Reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups are being stopped by some police far in excess of their share of the population and the rate at which they engage in criminal conduct.

I might add that the urgency for legislation banning racial profiling is compounded by concerns post-September 11 that racial profiling--not good police work and following up on legitimate leads--is being used against Arab and Muslim Americans, or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim.

The September 11 attacks were horrific and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But we need improved intelligence and law enforcement, not racial, ethnic or religious stereotypes, to protect our Nation from crime and future terrorist attacks.

In fact, I believe that the End Racial Profiling Act is a pro-law enforcement bill. It will help to restore the trust and confidence of the communities our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime, and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I'm very pleased that many state and local law enforcement officials stand with the sponsors of this bill in condemning racial profiling. Many law enforcement officials across the country agree that racial profiling is wrong and should not take place in America. In fact, many State and local law enforcement officials have begun to take steps to address the problem, or even the perception of a problem. For example, in my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement.

But the Federal Government has a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement. Last June, the Justice Department issued a policy guidance to Federal law enforcement agencies banning racial profiling. But while this guidance is a useful first step, it does not achieve the President's stated goal of ending racial profiling in America. It does not carry the force of law and does not apply to State and local law enforcement. Federal legislation is still very much needed.

Our bill, the End Racial Profiling Act, would ban racial profiling and allow the Justice Department or individuals the ability to enforce this prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling; to implement effective complaint procedures; to implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice; and to collect data on stops. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress to allow Congress and the American people to monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

Like the bill we introduced last Congress, the bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in-car video cameras.

Finally, we have revised the bill to conform with the definition of racial profiling in the Justice Department's guidance and to reflect concerns about racial profiling based on religion in a post-September 11 America.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act.

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

Mr. President, three years ago tomorrow, in his first address to a joint session of Congress, President Bush declared that racial profiling is wrong and pledged to end it in America. He then directed his Attorney General to implement this policy.

It is now three years later, and the American people are still waiting for the President to follow through on his pledge to end racial profiling.

So, today I join with Representative John Conyers, the distinguished ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, in re-introducing the End Racial Profiling Act. We first introduced this bill in 2001, shortly after the President made his pledge and the Attorney General asserted that he would work with us on our legislation.

The End Racial Profiling Act would do exactly what the President promised to do: it would ban racial profiling once and for all and require Federal, State, and local law enforcement to take steps to end and prevent racial profiling.

I am very pleased that several of my distinguished colleagues have joined me on this bill Senators Corzine, Clinton, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Reid, Dodd, Cantwell, Mikulski, and Edwards.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents routinely stop African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. Reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups are being stopped by some police far in excess of their share of the population and the rate at which they engage in criminal conduct.

I might add that the urgency for legislation banning racial profiling is compounded by concerns post-September 11 that racial profiling--not good police work and following up on legitimate leads--is being used against Arab and Muslim Americans, or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim.

The September 11 attacks were horrific and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But we need improved intelligence and law enforcement, not racial, ethnic or religious stereotypes, to protect our Nation from crime and future terrorist attacks.

In fact, I believe that the End Racial Profiling Act is a pro-law enforcement bill. It will help to restore the trust and confidence of the communities our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime, and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I'm very pleased that many state and local law enforcement officials stand with the sponsors of this bill in condemning racial profiling. Many law enforcement officials across the country agree that racial profiling is wrong and should not take place in America. In fact, many State and local law enforcement officials have begun to take steps to address the problem, or even the perception of a problem. For example, in my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement.

But the Federal Government has a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement. Last June, the Justice Department issued a policy guidance to Federal law enforcement agencies banning racial profiling. But while this guidance is a useful first step, it does not achieve the President's stated goal of ending racial profiling in America. It does not carry the force of law and does not apply to State and local law enforcement. Federal legislation is still very much needed.

Our bill, the End Racial Profiling Act, would ban racial profiling and allow the Justice Department or individuals the ability to enforce this prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling; to implement effective complaint procedures; to implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice; and to collect data on stops. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress to allow Congress and the American people to monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

Like the bill we introduced last Congress, the bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in-car video cameras.

Finally, we have revised the bill to conform with the definition of racial profiling in the Justice Department's guidance and to reflect concerns about racial profiling based on religion in a post-September 11 America.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act.

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

Mr. President, over recent months, aggressive rhetoric has escalated across the Taiwan Strait. In response to Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's pledge to hold a nationwide referendum ``to demand that the Taiwan Strait issue be resolved through peaceful means,'' Chinese officials have threatened the use of force. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of the People's Republic of China has stated that China will ``crush'' any attempts by Taiwan to seek independence and that it will ``pay any price to safeguard the unity of the motherland.'' In addition on November 20, 2003, PRC Major General Wang Zaixi was quoted saying that ``the use of force may become unavoidable'' in dealing with Taiwan. On February 11, 2004, Chinese officials stated the referendum would ``provoke confrontation.''

Threats of violence by the People's Republic of China only undermine efforts to resolve longstanding China-Taiwan tensions. Intimidation and warnings of bloodshed have taken the place of constructive dialogue. I fear that these threats will only intensify as Taiwan's presidential elections on March 20, 2004, draw nearer.

In the midst of this bellicose rhetoric, I express my support for the people of Taiwan and to compliment the Taiwanese people and their leadership for the great strides they have made in strengthening their democracy. Since 2000, with the first peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another in Taiwan's history, Taiwan's democracy has thrived. The U.S. State Department's annual Human Rights Reports for 2002 reported that the government of Taiwan largely respected the independence of both the judiciary and press in practice and stated, ``Taiwan's strides were also notable, with consolidation and improvement of civil liberties catching up to its free and open electoral system.'' Transparency International has ranked Taiwan's

economy as one of the five least corrupt in Asia; and Freedom House labeled Taiwan ``free'' in 2003 with an improvement in political rights since 2002. President Chen Shui-bian has also demonstrated a commitment to human rights and is credited with solidifying a place for human rights within Taiwanese society during his presidency. The Human Rights Advisory Committee, established by Chen in 2000, is currently in the process of creating a National Human Rights Commission that will serve as the highest institution in Taiwan for the protection and promotion of human rights.

I remain committed to protecting the civil and political rights of the people of Taiwan, and I support Taiwan's inclusion in international organizations, such as in the World Health Organization, WHO. The recent SARS and avian flu outbreaks highlight the importance of giving the people of Taiwan a voice in these organizations. I agree with claims by Taiwanese authorities that it is inhumane for the international community to deny the people of Taiwan access to WHO's medical data and assistance. Unfortunately, despite congressional efforts, Taiwan has still not been granted observer status. This should change in the coming year.

I fear that provocative statements will have dangerous repercussions in this region of the world. Rather than warn and provoke, I hope that the governments of China and Taiwan will engage in a more constructive dialogue and encourage increased cross-strait people to people linkages. I support a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan-China situation, and I will continue to support policies that keep cross- strait tensions in check.