Floor Statements

Mr. President, once again we are faced with an ill- advised medical malpractice bill coming to the Senate floor without any committee consideration. Some argue that we have a malpractice insurance ``crisis'' that is driving doctors from the practice of medicine, particularly in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, or OB/GYN. But we have not yet explored that issue in the Senate at all. No committee has held hearings or marked up a bill on this topic. Instead, an extreme proposal has been brought directly to the floor and Senators are expected to vote for it because there is a crisis. That is not how the legislative process should work on an issue of importance to so many people.

I would like very much for Congress to address the problem of malpractice insurance premiums once we understand the seriousness of the problem and the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. But by bringing this bill directly to the floor, the majority shows that it is not serious about addressing the problem. It just wants to play a political card. To the extent that there really is a malpractice insurance problem, what is going on here is a cynical exercise, designed only to fail and to provide fodder for political attacks. I will vote ``no'' on cloture.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on cloture on the Inhofe substitute amendment to S. 1072, the SAFETEA bill. As we all know, the country has important transportation needs that Congress must address, and I commend the managers of the bill for working hard to address highway construction, mass transit, highway safety, and other important programs.

This is a very important bill, and I am not taking my vote lightly. However, I am concerned that this bill does not do enough to help meet the transportation needs of my constituents in Wisconsin. And for that, and other reasons, I will be voting against cloture today.

Before I discuss some of my main concerns with the bill, I want to note that the substitute amendment before us was laid down on Tuesday. Furthermore, I understand that the text was not immediately available for review. I know how hard the managers have been working, and I know how important this bill is. But surely it is reasonable to give Senators more than 24 or even 48 hours to review a huge and complicated piece of legislation like this before filing cloture.

I appreciate the months of hard work that my colleagues have spent on this bill. However, I have serious concerns about the funding formula that this bill would establish. Under that formula, certain States would continue to receive significantly more money than they pay into the highway trust fund, while other States continue to be denied their fair share.

Wisconsin is one of the States that will get the short end of the stick. While increasing the total dollars coming to Wisconsin, this bill would ensure that citizens of Wisconsin no longer get back at least one dollar for every dollar that they pay into the highway trust fund.

I worked hard with the rest of the Wisconsin delegation during the last authorization to make sure that our State finally got a fair rate of return. Let me tell my colleagues, that change was long overdue. According to numbers from the Department of Transportation, from 1956 through 2000, Wisconsin got back just 90 cents on every dollar it paid into the trust fund.

In TEA-21, Wisconsin at last received a fair return. Unfortunately, this bill will take us back to where we were for the previous four decades--in the hole. Under the new formula, Wisconsin will once again be a donor State, with average rate of return of 95 percent. I have spoken to other members of our State's delegation, and I think I can safely say we agree that Wisconsin deserves better.

I am also concerned about some of the environmental provisions in the bill, particularly those with a potential impact on the Nation's air quality. The substitute modifies current transportation regulations dealing with long-range transportation planning, which could result in a failure to adequately consider the long-term effects of new projects on air quality.

The substitute also potentially undermines the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--and section 4(f), which guarantee meaningful public participation in review of the impacts of proposed highway projects.

And I am concerned that the substitute would allow the Federal Department of Transportation to ignore

the often valuable input of States, tribes, and local governments, who, in my State of Wisconsin, have spent valuable public resources and time to develop transportation and land use plans.

All of which leads me to believe that now is not the time to cut off debate on the substitute. We need plenty of time to analyze and understand the full ramifications of this bill. And, I think we need time to try to improve the bill. I will continue to work hard with the senior Senator from Wisconsin and the rest of the State's delegation to do everything that we can to provide Wisconsin with a transportation bill that is fair for our constituents.

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

Mr. President, I rise to comment on the controversy surrounding the intelligence community's assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and capabilities in the months leading up to the military action in Iraq.

It has been suggested that the intelligence community failed policymakers by presenting a picture of Iraq's WMD capacities that appears to have been far more advanced than the reality on the ground. It has been suggested that, as we have all heard, certain pieces of information were presented as certainties when, in reality, the accuracy of the information was very much in dispute among experts within the intelligence community.

I made a concerted effort to go to every briefing that was offered, and I think I largely succeeded, or maybe had entirely succeeded. I went to briefings for all Members, and I also went, of course, to the special briefings that were held for members of the Foreign Relations Committee. I am not a member of the Intelligence Committee and perhaps that committee had access to information dramatically different from what was put before the rest of us.

What I recall is that the CIA representatives who briefed us were careful and their statements were qualified. As CIA Director George Tenet recently indicated, it was made clear disagreements existed about how to interpret some pieces of information.

What I remember about the CIA is that they played it straight. I wish I could say the same about the political rhetoric that some in the administration used to characterize the content of those briefings.

Of course, I am certainly not saying the CIA is perfect or that the U.S. intelligence community is perfect. No one who reviewed the joint Intelligence Committee's report on 9/11 would make such a claim. And I am not asserting that all of the CIA's information and analysis presented in the lead-up to the Iraq war was correct. But what I am saying is, in the many briefings I attended I simply saw no evidence-- no evidence--to support the accusations that the CIA was trying to spin the facts or that they were trying to lead us in one direction or another.

My sense was that they were professionals, and I remember being very grateful for their thorough and candid presentations. In fact, in those briefings, they didn't give us easy answers, and that made our decisions tougher. But the people expect us to make tough decisions.

Time and again, I came away from the briefing room concerned about the unanswered questions related to Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capacities. But I also came away each time with the conclusion that we had no evidence of any imminent threat. Indeed, Director Tenet acknowledged that the CIA never characterized Iraq's WMD programs as an imminent threat when Mr. Tenet made his remarks last week.

When the President of the United States called Iraq ``a threat of unique urgency,'' that sure sounded a lot like imminent to many ears. When senior officials, speaking about Iraq, told us they did not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, that sure sounded like an imminent threat of nuclear attack to most Americans.

Yet just last week, CIA Director Tenet reminded the country the agency made two judgments that are too often overlooked today. They said:

Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would

have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.

Of course, that is a serious issue certainly but not an imminent threat.

The fact that the briefings we received did not present a picture of an imminent threat certainly did not mean there was no cause for concern or that the right course of action would have been to do nothing. Those who claim the only choices before us were rushing to war or being utterly complacent are quite simply misleading the American people.

I had long supported regime change in Iraq, and I am pleased that Saddam Hussein's regime has fallen. But the facts did not suggest that we had to invade Iraq in March of 2003. That means we could have had more time to build a solid international coalition, to combat some of the most damaging misperceptions of American motives and intentions, and more time to put in place a plan of action that would address our security interests without leaving American troops and American taxpayers holding the bag at the end of the day, bogged down in a risky occupation and mortgaging our children's future to pay for it.

Director Tenet said last week: To understand a difficult topic like Iraq takes patience and care. He is right. The same is true of understanding this debate and this controversy. That is why it is so important to discuss these issues carefully and responsibly. It is important because the stakes are so very high and because the public, especially our men and women in uniform and their families, who take tremendous risks and make tremendous sacrifices to serve this country, has every right to know what happened, what the facts were, what we got right and what we got wrong.

One of the difficulties for those of us who attend classified briefings, of course, is that we have an obligation to protect the content of those briefings. So we are limited in what we can say publicly. We are left to generalize and we run the risk of characterizing the same briefings in very different ways, leading us to debates about one person's interpretation versus another's. For this reason, an independent commission is desperately needed.

I am glad the President has agreed to establish a commission to examine our prewar intelligence. But I am concerned about the specifics of the commission's mandate. It is charged with examining the intelligence community's capacity to collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of foreign powers relating to the design, development, manufacture and acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use or use of WMD, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st century. All of this, of course, is useful.

In the wake of the horror of September 11, 2001, we must make every effort to ensure that America's intelligence services are as reliable and effective and accountable as they possibly can be. As I have indicated, I believe a large part of our problem in the runup to the war in Iraq was a problem of how intelligence was used, how it was invoked, sometimes out of context, and how in some cases it was used in powerful and often frightening rhetoric aimed at painting a much more conclusive picture than the actual intelligence revealed.

Intelligence, as all data, can be manipulated. I am concerned about the appearance of a concerted effort to interpret information to justify a seemingly predetermined course of action and to too easily disregard information that could not be used for this purpose. I think such an approach serves no one. I think it actually diminishes American power. I think it risks making this country far less secure.

So we must investigate matters such as the activities of the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon, which seems to have been charged with sifting through information to assemble only those pieces that bolstered the case for going to war.

We must also address the way that intelligence was alluded to in public settings, in ways that painted a much more decisive picture than actually existed. Obviously, not all Americans could be in the briefing room, but all Americans hear the public debate.

Those of us who receive and act on classified briefings have a vitally important responsibility to ensure that we never abuse their trust. I believe we need to make sure that in our efforts to review intelligence-gathering capacities and analysis capacities we do not fail to take a hard look at how policymakers employ intelligence in public remarks. Our words and our characterizations matter. The context that it is or is not provided matters. Even now some would insist that Iraq was a threat to America because even if Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, he had the capacity to make a weapon. But chemical or biological weapons could be produced in dual-use facilities in almost every country that has any significant domestic, pharmaceutical, or chemical manufacturing capacity.

This is a serious issue to be sure, but it does not make the case for the threat of unique urgency a good case. It does not make for a threat of unique urgency directed at the American people.

Finally, I propose that we need to take a look at how people responded and prepared for things we were warned about in briefings about Iraq, some of which then became public knowledge. Given what we all heard in the briefing room about the possibility that Iraq continued to possess biological and chemical weapons stockpiles and given the administration's clear belief that such stockpiles existed, why was there no better policy planning and execution when it came to rounding up these things?

Former chief weapons inspector David Kay has suggested that we may just all have to live with, as he called it, an unresolved ambiguity about what happened, that he traces to the failure on April 9 to establish immediate physical security in Iraq.

The looting that ensued has introduced a host of alarming unknowns into our consideration of what might have happened to the materiel that may or may not have existed in the first place and, quite frankly, any assertion that the United States would not have anticipated this looting has no credibility whatsoever. From think tanks to military planners to nongovernmental organizations, there were multiple, consistent, and high-level warnings about the risks of chaos and looting in the wake of the regime's fall.

There were plenty of questions about this issue which were never satisfactorily answered in the lead-up to war. In fact, I spent over 6 months, primarily in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, repeatedly asking whatever administration witness I could the same important questions. For example, I remember asking Secretary Powell in 2002: Are you aware of any significant planning for securing weapons of mass destruction sites in Iraq in the event of a military invasion if the Government would be toppled and some degree of chaos were to rein for some period? Is there not a very real risk that WMD and the means to make them will be taken out of the country or sold off to exactly the kind of nonstate actors that the United States is worried about? Do we know enough about where WMD sites are to be confident in our ability to secure them, I asked the Secretary of State?

Secretary Powell could provide no details. He simply assured me that our military planners were making this issue their highest priority. Those military planners never provided any details, either.

In the end, we are left with video footage of the unchecked looting of the country, with unanswered questions, with David Kay's unresolved ambiguity. So we have a case of inadequate follow-up on a vitally important issue presented to us by the intelligence community and that, too, is something we need to review and address in the interest of national security.

We have a lot of work to do. Some of that certainly does involve reforms of the intelligence community. I believe our biggest problems did not come in the briefing room. In the interest of our national security, in the interest of protecting the public's trust in Government, in the interest of this country's global prestige and power to persuade, we have to avoid scapegoating tactics. We have to face some hard truths about the process and the rhetoric that led this country into Iraq in March 2003.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for his remarks. Perhaps they were intended as response to my remarks or perhaps they were general remarks, but my remarks have to do with the fact there is a perception in this country that somehow the briefings the CIA gave us with regard to Iraq were distorted or inappropriate or oversold the case for the war.

My purpose here was to indicate that is not the way I saw it. I was in those briefings. As I have indicated, I felt the CIA was very measured and careful in its presentation.

The Senator from Missouri can talk as much as he wants about whether Iraq worked or not, and what the consequences are. But there are real consequences when Members of both parties decide to tell the public the misinformation or the problems were the fault of the CIA.

I think that is dangerous for the CIA. I think it is dangerous for our country.

I think it is dangerous for how we are perceived in the world.

Some of the members of the other party--including the administration, frankly--and some of the members of my own party are pointing their fingers at what we heard in the briefings. I want everyone to know that I went to the briefings. I did not hear a compelling case for the war to be conducted at that time.

Regardless of what has happened since, I would be happy to debate at any point whether it was the right thing to do and whether how we did it was the right thing to do. Regardless of all that, the point is, as one Senator who went to those briefings and did not hear the case made, I give the CIA credit for being measured and careful. And we should thank Mr. Tenet for his leadership.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor an incredible athlete and a hero of University of Wisconsin athletics, Elroy ``Crazy Legs'' Hirsch.

Not many Wisconsin Badger fans can forget the 1942 football season, the only season ``Crazy Legs'' spent playing for the University of Wisconsin football team. By running, passing, and catching for over 1,400 yards, the Wausau-born Hirsch led the Badgers to a second-place finish in the Big Ten with an 8-1-1 record and a No. 3 ranking in the final Associated Press poll.

Hirsch's football career at Wisconsin was cut short when he joined the Marines and was ordered to Michigan for basic training in 1943. Hirsch continued his illustrious career at the University of Michigan and then professionally with the Chicago Rockets of the All-American Football Conference and then the Los Angeles Rams of the NFL. Hirsch was instrumental in the Rams' 1951 championship season by leading the league in catches, receiving yards and receiving touchdowns. Hirsch was inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame in 1968.

Hirsch's on-field legacy will forever be remembered, as his number 40 is one of only 4 numbers that has been retired by the Badgers. But his legacy off the field at the University of Wisconsin was just as important. He served as athletic director from 1969 to 1987. His tenure saw a rise in football attendance and a hockey program that reached national prominence.

The University of Wisconsin and fans from all over the State will be forever grateful for Elroy's devotion to UW athletics. My thoughts go out to his wife Ruth and his family. ``Crazy Legs'' was a tremendous asset to the University of Wisconsin, both on and off the field, and he will be greatly missed.

Madam President, let me say how fitting it is that the Senator from Maine is presiding at this point, who has made a tremendous contribution to our efforts on campaign finance reform. It is a tremendous privilege to come to the floor with my good friend and longtime partner in campaign finance reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. Everybody knows we fought side by side for nearly 7 years to see our bill enacted into law.

Finally, on December 10, nearly 2 years after President Bush signed the bill, the Supreme Court upheld our work against a constitutional challenge. It has been a long and hard struggle, and, frankly, we could not possibly be happier with the result. The Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC is a complete vindication of our effort to help rid politics of the corruption of soft money. We are very proud of and also humbled by the Court's ruling.

We are not here to gloat. It is not polite or useful to do so. But if I had a dollar for every time someone said on this floor or in the media that our bill would never stand up in court, I would actually be a wealthy man. Rather, we are here to thank our colleagues who joined with us to pass this historic reform, to review the Supreme Court landmark decision, and briefly take a look forward, as Senator McCain has already done. As we often noted during the debate, the McCain- Feingold bill was not intended to be the last word on the topic of campaign finance reform. The Court's decision will serve as a guidepost for future reform initiatives.

First, I thank all of the Members of this body who worked so hard with us to pass the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

For many, this was a labor of love. For others, it was a difficult fight because of resistance from their own party or from political or campaign advisers. In the end, as Senator McCain said it so well, this bill passed because the American people demanded it and because courageous Senators and Members of the House were willing to stand up to the defenders of the status quo.

I particularly thank the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, and his counterpart at the time in the House, Representative Dick Gephardt. Their leadership and strong support made it possible to get the bill through all the complicated legislative obstacles we faced and onto the President's desk.

Also deserving of special thanks is the core bipartisan group of supporters of reform who worked closely with us to pass the bill. Senators Levin, Collins, Lieberman, Thompson, Snowe, Schumer, Jeffords, Cochran, Cantwell, Edwards, and Kerry all made major contributions to the law that the Supreme Court upheld.

I think it is actually hard to imagine a more clear statement from the Supreme Court than the one delivered in December in McConnell v. FEC. The margin of the Court was narrow, as it often is in complicated and highly contested cases. But the majority could not have been more emphatic that what we did in McCain-Feingold was a constitutional approach to the problems of soft money and also phony issue advocacy that Congress identified and we tried to address.

I have to tell you, that was enormously gratifying after the hard work we did in this body to pay attention to the Court's previous decisions. It meant a great deal to me personally that we looked at what the Court had said about the first amendment of the Constitution and crafted our legislation with respect to that. That is exactly what we did.

We drafted this bill specifically to be consistent with what the Court had said in the past in analyzing the first amendment implication of campaign finance legislation. We worked hard to shape a legislative record demonstrating the need for the reforms we proposed.

In upholding the law, the Court recognized the difficult and painstaking work we did to stay within the constitutional framework set out in previous cases.

The Court said:

We are mindful that in its lengthy deliberations leading to

the enactment of BCRA, Congress properly relied on the

recognition of its authority contained in Buckley and its

progeny.

I was particularly pleased at the deference the Court showed to congressional judgments about the problems with the system and the best way to address them. That deference has often been lacking in recent opinions in other areas, but this time the Court realized that Congress has special expertise in this area and needs to have the authority to actually address real world problems in the way that it believes will be most effective.

This is enormously important for the future of reform. It shows that the Court understands that under our Constitution, Congress is not powerless to address threats to the health of our democratic or political processes.

In no way, of course, did the Court give to Congress unbridled power. It simply upheld a reasonable and measured response to the soft money problem that many on both sides of the aisle had come to believe was extremely harmful.

One aspect of the Court's opinion is worth noting as we look forward to future reform efforts. The Court laid responsibility for the soft money problem squarely where it belongs, and as Senator McCain just did again--with the Federal Election Commission. As Senator McCain noted, the Court specifically stated that the FEC ``subverted'' the law by allowing soft money to be used to aid Federal candidates.

The Court said:

[T]he FEC's allocation regime has invited widespread

circumvention of FECA's limits on contributions to parties

for the purpose of influencing Federal elections.

The Supreme Court agreed with us that soft money was a loophole that Congress could legitimately try to plug, and that the loophole was improperly created by the FEC. With this validation of the position taken by reformers for many years, the Court underlined a cautionary note that we have sounded many times before on this floor. No law in this area can be self-executing. To be successful, campaign finance reform must be implemented and enforced by an agency that is dedicated to carrying out the will of Congress, not to frustrate it.

The new law instructed--instructed--the FEC to act quickly to develop regulations to explain and implement BCRA. Time after time, instead the FEC adopted rules that weakened the law. Senator McCain and I participated in those rulemaking proceedings, but our advice on many important issues was ignored.

As currently structured, the FEC seems simply incapable of properly applying the law that this Congress enacted. Virtually every complicated

issue is approached from a political perspective, and the political parties have extraordinary sway over the Commission's actions.

Senator McCain and I viewed the BCRA rulemaking process as a test, if you will, a final chance for the FEC to change its approach and to finally begin to faithfully enforce the law in a nonpartisan fashion. We were very disappointed in the result. We have, therefore, concluded that the FEC, as currently constituted, cannot provide the strong and consistent enforcement of the Federal election laws that this country needs. So together we have proposed to replace the agency with a new body, the Federal Election Administration.

We need to have an agency led by people who are respected by both sides of the aisle and will carry out their responsibilities in a nonpartisan manner rather than simply having representatives from each of the parties canceling each other out with a partisan approach to their jobs. Our bill makes individuals who have worked for or served as counsel to parties or candidates ineligible to serve as administrators.

We have no illusions that this reform will be easy to pass. Those who opposed our bill will undoubtedly oppose replacing the agency that is responsible for the rulings that made our bill necessary and that continue to undermine the new law. But reform of the FEC is essential if the will of Congress and BCRA is to be carried out.

I am also pleased to join Senator McCain in introducing a bill to reform the Presidential public funding system. That system did actually work well for seven consecutive Presidential elections from 1976 to 2000. In those elections, Republicans were elected four times and Democrats three times and challengers actually defeated incumbents in three out of the five races where an incumbent was a candidate.

This year, unfortunately, candidates from both parties have opted out of the public funding system for the primaries. Everyone knows the system needs to be updated to keep it functioning in future elections.

I happen to come from a State that had a very good public funding system for State elections for many years. In fact, I won my first race for the Wisconsin Senate, frankly, only because of that system. But the legislature in my State failed to update and revise that system to keep pace with the changing realities and costs of political campaigns, and now hardly anyone uses it. We can't let that happen to the Presidential public funding system.

Again, when I look at the Presiding Officer, I know these kinds of systems can work because they have made them work in her State of Maine. The bill we have introduced is a starting point only, much like the first McCain-Feingold bill in 1995. We want to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a bill that this Senate can support to preserve the public funding system that has served the country so well since the excesses of the Watergate era demonstrated that private financing of Presidential elections is really not a very good thing for our democracy.

I hope our colleagues will work with us over this year to perfect a bill that can be quickly passed in the next Congress after this Presidential election has been held.

Senator McCain and I have also introduced a bill to provide free air time to congressional candidates. The cost of television advertising has skyrocketed, and we believe the Nation's broadcasters, who make great profits from a public resource--the airwaves--should contribute to improving the democratic process. I look forward to continuing to discuss this bill with our colleagues as well.

We do not expect any one of these three major reform bills will be considered on the Senate floor this year. But there is one bill that can and should be enacted very quickly. That is a bill we have introduced to require electronic filing of Senate campaign finance reports. Right now, the Senate lags way behind the House in providing current and complete disclosure of contributions to and expenditures on our campaigns. This is really an embarrassment. It is possible the Rules Committee can quickly correct this problem, but if not, Senator McCain and I have introduced a bill to bring the Senate into the 21st century, and we should enact it promptly.

Again, I thank all my colleagues who supported the McCain-Feingold bill. I hope they are as proud of their accomplishment as I am of them. I am convinced we have begun to change this system for the better. Senator McCain discussed there is already evidence of that. I think as the 2004 campaign heats up, we will see plenty more examples of how the system has improved, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We saw what happened when Congress essentially left the field for 20 years after passing the post-Watergate reforms. We must be vigilant to protect what we did in BCRA, and we must look ahead and continue to fight for a campaign finance system that enhances, rather than suffocates, the power of individual citizens and voters in our democracy.

Finally, I again express my admiration and appreciation for all Senator McCain has done on this issue. For one final time I thank him for calling me in late 1994 and saying he wanted to work with me on this project. Next time tell me it is going to take 8 years. I am more than grateful for this terrific opportunity to not only work with a great American hero, but to have my name associated with him to the point where Senator McCain has said that some people think my first name is McCain.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to speak today about S. 1691, the Wartime Treatment Study Act. During World War II, the United States fought a courageous battle against the spread of Nazism and fascism. Nazi Germany was engaged in the horrific persecution and genocide of Jews. By the end of the war, 6 million Jews had perished at the hands of Nazi Germany.

The Allied victory in the Second World War was an American triumph, a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans. But we should not let that justifiable pride in our Nation's triumph blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government.

Sadly, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. Government was in some cases curtailing the freedom of some of its own people here, at home. While, it is, of course, the right of every Nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government can and should respect the basic freedoms that so many Americans have given their lives to defend. Of course, war tests our principles and our values. And as our Nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the Constitution.

Many Americans are aware of the fact that, during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities. They were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government.

Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians created by Congress in 1980, this unfortunate episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, people of Japanese ancestry who were subjected to relocation or internment later received an apology and reparations on behalf of the people of the United States.

While I commend Congress and our Nation for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, our work in this area is not done. We should also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees.

Most Americans are probably unaware that during World War II, the U.S. Government designated more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000 German-born U.S. resident aliens and their families as ``enemy aliens.''

Approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps. Some even remained interned for up to 3 years after the war ended. Unknown numbers of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other Europeans Americans had their property confiscated or their travel restricted, or lived under curfews.

S. 1691 would not grant reparations to victims. It would simply create a commission to review the facts and circumstances of the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans and other European Americans during World War II.

A second commission created by this bill would review the treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. German and Austrian Jews applied for visas, but the United States severely limited their entry due to strict immigration policies, policies that many believe were motivated by fear that our enemies would send spies under the guise of refugees and by the unfortunate anti-foreigner and anti-Semitic attitudes that were, sadly, all too common at that time.

It is time for the country to review the facts and determine how our restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. The United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime.

As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. Government to complete an accounting of this period in our Nation's history.

Let me repeat that the bill I have introduced, along with Senator Grassley, does not call for reparations. All it does is ensure that the public has a full accounting of what happened. I believe that is the right and, yes, the patriotic thing to do. It is patriotic to ensure that the Government owns up to its mistakes. We should be very proud of our victory over Nazism, as I certainly am. But we should not let that pride cause us to overlook what happened to some Americans and refugees during World War II. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act.

The Judiciary Committee has reported this bill favorably. It has been cleared by my Democratic colleagues. Unfortunately, someone on the other side of the aisle has placed a hold on the bill. This anonymous person or persons are unwilling to identify themselves or to explain the reasons for the hold. I think some Republican colleagues have been trying to figure out for me what the problems is. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine why someone would object to a fairly straight-forward, non-controversial bill such as this. So, Mr. President, I will try again.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 309, S. 1691, a bill to establish commission, to review the facts and circumstances surrounding injustices suffered by European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish Refugees during World War II, that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the title amendment be agreed, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from South Carolina was a supporter of this legislation in committee, and he is doing what he must do in representing that side of the aisle.

I am disappointed that there is an objection to moving this bill. The Judiciary Committee has now reported this bill favorably to the floor on two occasions--last Congress and again this Congress. I would like to know what their concerns are. So far, we have never heard a substantive objection. There is a secret hold being used here. That is unfortunate. This bill is long overdue. It is not controversial. In fact, I specifically was promised by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee late in the 106th Congress, when I was hoping the issue of German Americans would be linked to a bill going through Congress on Italian Americans. I was assured this was not controversial and

this would be taken care of. Nonetheless, this has occurred. There is no reason the Senate should not take up and consider this bill without further delay.

Again, had the representative of the majority stayed, I would have asked whether there was a time when they would expect to be ready for action. I will find other ways to ask the other side to work with me to pass the bill. I took the comments of the Senator from South Carolina in good faith that he has spoken to the leadership and that they are willing to work with us. I hope we can sit down and work this out as soon as possible to ensure that the U.S. Government accounts for what happened so many years ago.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to comment on S. 1888, the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2003, introduced by Senator Specter. I commend my colleague for his leadership on this issue. Combating terrorism is our highest national security priority at this time, and I have long had concerns regarding Saudi support for terrorist groups. While the administration has stated that the Government of Saudi Arabia has recently increased its cooperation with the United States, and while I do believe that last week's joint U.S.-Saudi announcement regarding Al-Haramain branches in Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya and Tanzania is a positive step, it remains evident that the Saudi Government has often turned a blind eye to many activities that foster terrorism and, in some cases, Saudi leadership appears to have supported terrorism directly. This bill serves to exert pressure on Saudi Arabia to increase its counterterrorism efforts or to face limited sanctions. Cutting the links between terrorist organizations and their sponsoring governments is one of the most crucial tasks in the fight against terrorism, and I support the goals of this legislation.

However, the legislation raises other concerns that must be carefully considered by Congress. I am concerned that the legislation demonstrates the degree to which we, as policymakers, wear blinders in our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The legislation expresses dissatisfaction with the Government of Saudi Arabia solely for their lack of cooperation on the global war on terrorism. But Congress must not fail to mention the government's repression of women, grand-scale corruption, widescale detentions, and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly. I fear that these omissions risk sending the wrong message about U.S. foreign policy priorities to the Middle East and other areas of the world. U.S. foreign policy objectives of promoting human rights and democracy must not be neglected while combating terrorism. These do not have to be contradictory goals. Even as we urge the Saudi Government to act more decisively and consistently against terrorism, we must ensure that the U.S. does not inadvertently encourage repression of desperately needed reforms in Saudi Arabia. Only by addressing both sets of issues can we achieve a future in which the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia stands on a firm footing.

The national security implications of failing to speak out bluntly about Saudi support for terrorism prompted me to cosponsor S. 1888. However, I hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take the opportunity to address some of these issues I have raised.

Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, Wisconsin's dairy industry is one of the largest industries in the State, generating billions of dollars for the State's economy. With an estimated impact of $18.5 billion, milk sustains over 16,000 farm families and nearly 200,000 jobs in the State. With thousands of dairy farms and hundreds of dairy processors, the industry is vital to creating and sustaining good jobs in Wisconsin. These numbers do not capture the full import of the dairy industry, however. In Wisconsin, dairy is more than an issue of dollars and cents--it is part of our heritage that every Wisconsinite takes pride in.

America's Dairyland is already threatened by bad trade agreements, but one of the worst for dairy farmers is currently in the works. U.S. negotiators are trying to wrap up a trade agreement with Australia, which is expected to include new terms of trade for agricultural commodities. Any agreement with Australia, and any subsequent agreement with New Zealand, could have a very negative impact on Wisconsin's dairy industry.

The administration has contemplated changes to our trade laws that would lay open our markets to dairy and other farm products from Australia and possibly New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand milk producers are among the many who have been using a trade loophole on milk protein concentrates to undercut our domestic dairy prices, a loophole that I am working to close. Further imports from Australia can only push U.S. milk prices lower.

This proposal comes at a time when dairy farmers are just beginning to think about a recovery from the low milk prices of the past few years. The impact of this agreement on the Nation's dairy industry, and Wisconsin in particular, will be significant. According to the National Milk Producers Federation, the flood of imports from Australia that would follow from a trade agreement could cost this country nearly one- quarter of our dairy farms. Wisconsin has been losing dairy farms at an alarming rate, and we certainly cannot afford a trade agreement that hastens that change.

I have opposed the efforts of the U.S. Trade Representative to pursue this agreement given its negative consequences for Wisconsin. I have clearly stated my position, and the position reiterated to me by dairy farmers across the State, to Ambassador Zoellick. Joined by 30 of my State colleagues, I have called upon President Bush to respond to the concerns of Americans regarding the negotiations on a free trade agreement with Australia. Today, along with several of my of my colleagues--Senators Kohl, Craig, Stabenow, Schumer, Jeffords, Specter, Clinton, Boxer, Collins, Dayton, Crapo, Domenici, and Snowe. I am submitting a resolution reiterating the fact that we must ensure that our dairy industry, especially dairy producers, will not suffer undue hardships if this agreement is put in place.

If the U.S. gives Australia significantly increased access to our dairy market, this will greatly undermine milk prices, thwarting federal efforts to support dairy producers and their families. Estimates suggest that an agreement with Australia would cost this country more than 150,000 jobs that depend on a healthy U.S. dairy sector. Wisconsin's communities area at great risk, and I call on all my colleagues to join me in working to protect the country's dairy industry from an unfair trade agreement with Australia.

Mr. President, I opposed the omnibus appropriations bill that the Senate voted on yesterday. It is the latest example of the annual breakdown in the congressional appropriations process. Once again, instead of considering appropriations bills individually, the Senate voted on a massive spending bill that includes many--in this case, seven--of the annual appropriations bills.

This process just invites the kind of problems--unauthorized spending, special interest provisions and legislative riders that go against the will of a majority in Congress--that we see in this omnibus bill. Take, for example, the Bush administration's proposed sweeping changes to regulations governing overtime pay for white-collar workers. These proposed changes would weaken overtime protections for these workers by changing the way that eligibility for overtime is determined. Both the House and the Senate are on record in favor of a provision that would block these changes from going into effect. Nonetheless, that provision was dropped in conference after the administration exerted tremendous pressure on those negotiating the final bill.

Similarly, language that would have prevented the Federal Communications Commission from moving forward with its plan to loosen the national cap on television ownership was badly weakened. And, of course, there are numerous bad provisions in the bill, including one that would create a voucher program in Washington, DC, public schools and another that would prevent country of origin labeling on many agricultural products.

I wish I could have supported this bill as there are a few worthy things in it, such as funding for global AIDS programs and for the rural AED Act, a program I created with Senator Susan Collins to increase access to defibrillators in rural areas. I am pleased that the bill contains language I fought for that would required Federal agencies to report on their purchases of foreign-made goods. As manufacturing jobs continue to disappear across the country, particularly in my home State of Wisconsin, the Federal Government should be doing everything it can to support American manufacturers. I am also pleased that the bill includes a provision I fought for to prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs from enforcing its policy of prohibiting VA employees from taking proactive steps to let veterans know about the health care benefits for which they may be eligible.

Those provisions do not outweigh the many bad ones in this bill, however. Mr. President, this is simply no way to fund the Federal Government. I regret that this ``must-pass'' bill is being used as a platform for bad funding decisions and for bad policy decisions, many of which override the will of a bipartisan majority of Congress. We need to go back to taking up and passing appropriations bills one by one, rather than throwing everything but the kitchen sink into a single, bloated piece of legislation.

Madam President, today I would like to pay tribute to a man who served in this body with distinction for 30 years, Senator William Roth.

Senator Roth was first elected to the House of Representatives from his adopted State of Delaware in 1966. He immediately made a name for himself as he shed light on wasteful Government spending. His fight against Government waste and abuse continued when he was elected to the Senate in 1970, where he served the people of his State honorably for three decades and chaired both the Governmental Affairs and Finance Committees.

Senator Roth will forever be remembered for the respect he paid to this institution and to his colleagues. That respect was returned many times over by his colleagues, who knew they could count on his integrity, civility and all-around decency. In a time when many feel partisanship is on the rise, those qualities are sorely missed. Senator Roth should be looked to as an example for all Members of the Senate.

Senator Roth's modest demeanor belied his accomplishments and influence. He played significant roles in many tax policy debates over the years and was a lead force in Congress with respect to efforts to ``reinvent'' the Federal Government during the 1990s. He also was a defender of the environment, opposing ocean dumping, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and incineration of toxic waste.

I am honored to have served with Senator Roth and he will be truly missed.

Madam President, I would like to express my support for two bills that my colleague, the junior Senator from Washington, introduced this week and that I am pleased to cosponsor: the Electric Reliability Act of 2004 and the Electricity Needs Rules and Oversight Now Act, or ENRON Act. I strongly believe that the country needs to achieve a balanced national energy policy. An essential part of a national energy policy should be to ensure electricity reliability and to protect consumers from energy market manipulation. If Congress cannot agree on an omnibus energy bill, then we must act to pass these stand-alone bills on electricity reliability and market manipulation.

Our citizens deserve a reliable, safe power grid. This is one of the country's most pressing energy needs. We have to do all that we can to prevent blackouts like the one that hit the east coast and Midwest last August and the Electric Reliability Act of 2004 takes a crucial step toward that goal. The bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--the explicit authority to create mandatory electric reliability standards. FERC can also approve the formation of electric reliability organizations, which will, subject to FERC review, enforce these standards. Strong and enforceable electric reliability standards will help ensure that our citizens and businesses do not have to worry about their respective lives and livelihoods being disrupted by blackouts.

In fact, a joint investigation by a United States-Canadian task force found that the lack of mandatory reliability standards contributed to the August 14, 2003, blackout. This massive outage affected 50 million people in eight U.S. States and parts of Canada. The task force report found that an Ohio-based utility and regional grid manager together violated at least six reliability standards on the day of the blackout. Examples of the reliability violations that contributed to the blackout included: not reacting to a power line failure within 30 minutes, not notifying nearby systems of the transmission problems, failing to analyze what was happening to the grid, inadequately training operators, and failing to adequately monitor transmission stations. Since the industry is largely self-regulated, violations of these voluntary reliability standards carry no penalties.

In testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management last fall, regulators declared that enforceable reliability standards are vital to a secure power grid. This bill is an important step toward that goal. It provides for enforceable, mandatory electric reliability standards to ensure that our Nation has a secure, reliable power grid.

In addition to securing our Nation's power grid, we must protect consumers from energy market manipulation. We cannot let the market abuses that took place during the Western energy crisis a few years ago happen again. The ENRON Act would prohibit the use of manipulative practices like the schemes used by Enron and other energy traders that raised prices and put consumers, and the reliability of the electric transmission grid, at risk. We learned from this crisis that electricity markets need close Government oversight to ensure that companies do not engage in risky trading schemes leading to soaring energy prices and their own possible financial failure. In both cases, consumers--the people who depend upon the electricity these companies generate or trade--are the losers.

Energy market manipulation crippled the west coast during 2000-2001. Just last month, a former energy trader pleaded guilty to manipulating natural gas markets 2 years ago during the west coast power crisis. This trader admitted to supplying false reports to trade industry publications that calculate the price of natural gas indexes, which are used by derivative traders to buy and sell natural gas futures and real-time transactions. This manipulation apparently benefitted the energy company at the expense of energy consumers.

Other Enron-style trading practices include ``ricochet'' electricity deals. In a ricochet transaction, Enron sent California-generated power to another company. The electricity was then sold back to California, but billed as being generated outside the State. Prosecutors state that this practice allowed Enron to evade California electricity price caps. There is also the ``Death Star'' trading scheme. Apparently, Enron attempted to generate revenue by fraudulently charging fees for services Enron did not provide. Enron charged California for electricity that was not delivered. Charging the State for undelivered power prevented the State from alleviating backlogged transmission lines. This market manipulation scheme was especially harmful since it came at a time when part of the State experienced rolling blackouts.

In June, FERC deprived Enron of its right to trade power and natural gas. Even though the company is barred from the energy-trading industry it helped create, market manipulation remains a threat to consumers. In December 2003, another energy company agreed to pay $1.7 billion to resolve market manipulation claims brought by the California Public Utilities Commission and various business and residential consumers. Other companies allegedly bought and sold natural gas simultaneously at the same price to make demand appear greater.

The ENRON legislation requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to prohibit the use of manipulative practices like these that put at

risk consumers and the reliability of the transmission grid. The Senate recently went on record in support of barring abusive market practices when it approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 agricultural appropriations bill offered by Senator Cantwell. I am disappointed that this language was stripped from the omnibus spending bill.

I think the August blackout should make clear to all of my colleagues the need for improvements in the power grid system. We need to make the electric grid safer and more reliable for all Americans and we also need to prevent manipulation of electricity markets. For those reasons, I encourage the Senate to move forward and act quickly with respect to these bills.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the distinguished life and career of my friend and former colleague, Senator Paul Simon.

Paul will forever be remembered for the great respect he earned during his 40 years of public service, thanks to his sharp intellect and tremendous leadership. These traits were as much a signature for him as his famous bow tie.

Paul's life is a testament to the fact that public service truly can be a noble calling. His service to his constituents was an inspiration. His office often handled more cases than any other Senate office. During his tenure he held over 600 town meetings in his home State of Illinois. Senator Simon's dedication to those he represented made him a role model to many, including myself. That is why I am proud to have campaigned for Senator Simon during his 1988 run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Paul Simon was dedicated to education. He played a vital role in improving literacy and supporting adult education. His hard work on making student loans more affordable allowed many Americans the chance to go to college. He was also committed to helping working Americans and, throughout his long career, he never lost touch with their concerns.

Senator Simon's dedication to public service and the education of others continued after his retirement when he founded the Southern Illinois University Public Policy Institute.

I was fortunate enough to serve with Senator Simon on both the Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees. We worked together on many issues, but I will especially remember him for his commitment to campaign finance reform. His support during the early days of campaign finance reform was invaluable. I truly regret that he passed just 1 day before the Supreme Court's historic decision to uphold the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

During a time when many feel that political partisanship is on the rise, Paul Simon remains an example of decency and integrity. He was a mentor to me and so many others who were fortunate enough to have known and worked with him. He will be deeply missed. I will remain forever grateful for the work he did, for the example he set, and for his friendship, which I will always treasure.

Mr. President, today I want to remember Marcia Coggs, a trailblazer in Wisconsin politics and a dear friend, who passed away in December.

Words cannot fully express the impact Marcia Coggs had on the lives of the people of Wisconsin. She was the first African-American woman elected to the State's legislature and was widely known as ``the Conscience of the State of Wisconsin.'' Marcia also became the first African-American to sit on the State legislature's joint finance committee. Better housing, the best in public education, integration and human rights were just some of the causes Marcia championed during her 16 years in the Wisconsin Legislature.

First elected to the State assembly from Milwaukee in 1976, she forced the State to listen and pay attention to the troubling issues people in her district often faced. Civil rights, both in Wisconsin and throughout the world, were always at the forefront of her mind. Those who knew her were not surprised when she protested against apartheid in South Africa, even joining a demonstration outside that nation's Washington, DC, embassy in 1985.

I had the honor and privilege of working with Marcia on several issues, including a successful effort to make Martin Luther King Jr. Day a legal holiday in Wisconsin. We also joined together in fighting to establish a private cause of action for civil rights violations.

I am honored to have been associated with her and proud to have called her both a mentor and a friend. Marcia made an outstanding contribution to the lives of countless Wisconsinites and left a legacy that the people of my State will honor for many years to come.

Mr. President, today, I pay tribute to John Patrick Hunter, a respected journalist and a dear friend.

After growing up in Depression-era West Virginia, witnessing the aftermath of Hiroshima, and the paranoia of the McCarthy era, John Patrick used his opposition to war and fierce defense of civil liberties to fuel his passion for journalism. For nearly half a century, John Patrick served as a reporter and editor for the Capital Times in Madison, WI. He challenged politicians and policies, but at the same time made many friends and established lasting bonds along the way.

After serving in the Navy during World War II, John Patrick attended the University of Wisconsin on the GI Bill and earned his degree. He joined the Capital Times in 1951 and that is where he stayed until his retirement in 1995.

John Patrick will forever be remembered for his work during the turbulent McCarthy era. Many were silenced by McCarthyism but John Patrick took action. For his July 4 assignment in 1951, John Patrick asked people to sign a petition he had put together using only the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. One hundred twelve refused out of fear of what might happen to them, 20 called John Patrick a communist, and only one signed. After the story broke nationally, President Harry Truman heralded John Patrick's efforts.

And as far as my own personal good fortune in knowing John Patrick, he asked me tough question for over 20 years. When I would give him a feisty answer, he would grin and I always felt buoyed by the unofficial but potent encouragement of Wisconsin's glorious progressive legacy.

My condolences go out to John Patrick's wife Merry and his entire family. His unparalleled contributions to Wisconsin journalism will never be forgotten.