Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will fix one of the fundamental flaws in the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. The ``Efficiency in Government Health Care Spending Act'' will remove language included in the new benefit that prohibits the Medicare program from negotiating prescription drug prices with manufacturers. The new Medicare prescription drug benefit does far too little to bring down the prices of prescription drugs. In fact, it actually takes away one of the best tools the Medicare program could use in bringing down prescription drug prices by denying the government the ability to negotiate price discounts on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. My bill will allow the Federal Government to take advantage of the purchasing power of the Medicare program Medicare, saving millions of taxpayers' dollars while reducing the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will remove the multi-billion dollar ``stabilization fund'' from the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. This stabilization fund is in essence a slush fund that gives billions of dollars to private insurance companies. This is not an efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. In fact, it's not clear why it's even necessary. If private managed care plans are successful in bring costs down, as backers of the new Medicare bill expect, and if seniors supposedly want to choose private plans, as backers of the new Medicare bill believe, then why should American taxpayers pay private companies more money to get more people to enroll in them?

We should not be subsidizing private health insurance companies in the name of Medicare reform. It is fiscally irresponsible, in a time of record deficits, to use taxpayers' dollars as a giveaway to private insurance companies. By removing this multi-billion slush fund, my bill will save the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Many analysts predict that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will surpass the $400 billion budgeted for it. We need to look carefully at how we spend Medicare dollars, so that we can ensure that the program remains solvent for future generations.

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

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

There being no objectin, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will fix one of the fundamental flaws in the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. The ``Efficiency in Government Health Care Spending Act'' will remove language included in the new benefit that prohibits the Medicare program from negotiating prescription drug prices with manufacturers. The new Medicare prescription drug benefit does far too little to bring down the prices of prescription drugs. In fact, it actually takes away one of the best tools the Medicare program could use in bringing down prescription drug prices by denying the government the ability to negotiate price discounts on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. My bill will allow the Federal Government to take advantage of the purchasing power of the Medicare program Medicare, saving millions of taxpayers' dollars while reducing the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will remove the multi-billion dollar ``stabilization fund'' from the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. This stabilization fund is in essence a slush fund that gives billions of dollars to private insurance companies. This is not an efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. In fact, it's not clear why it's even necessary. If private managed care plans are successful in bring costs down, as backers of the new Medicare bill expect, and if seniors supposedly want to choose private plans, as backers of the new Medicare bill believe, then why should American taxpayers pay private companies more money to get more people to enroll in them?

We should not be subsidizing private health insurance companies in the name of Medicare reform. It is fiscally irresponsible, in a time of record deficits, to use taxpayers' dollars as a giveaway to private insurance companies. By removing this multi-billion slush fund, my bill will save the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Many analysts predict that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will surpass the $400 billion budgeted for it. We need to look carefully at how we spend Medicare dollars, so that we can ensure that the program remains solvent for future generations.

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

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

There being no objectin, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a friend who lived his life in the service of his community and his family.

Brian Howell was a committed journalist, and his activities reached far beyond reporting and editing. He wrote eloquently about the importance of honest government, and voiced outrage when news broke of political corruption in Wisconsin's State legislature.

Brian worked his way to become editor of Madison Magazine, a position he took after serving as features editor of the Wisconsin State Journal.

Brian Howell's dedication extended to the University of Wisconsin- Madison, where he taught a course on public campaigns and publicity. Shortly after the attacks of September 11, Brian worked closely with students to publish an issue of their student magazine that captured the circumstances, changes, and emotions surrounding the attacks. Always eager to engage young writers, Brian knew the power of good journalism.

Brian's voice remained strong, even into his last days. He wrote openly about his disease, lung cancer. In calling for increased research about the disease, Howell knew that despite lung cancer's stigma and common association with tobacco, its sufferers deserved the same scientific dedication that other patients received.

Right before he passed, Brian received by telephone the UW-Madison journalism school's Director's Award for Distinguished Service to Journalism. He greatly deserved this high honor.

My wife Mary and I will truly miss Brian. He was a friend of ours for many years and my wife had the distinct pleasure of working with him at Madison Magazine. His friendship is something we will always treasure and hold close to our hearts.

Brian's death is a great loss to the Madison community and to Wisconsin as a whole. I am saddened by his passing and join in honoring his achievements. I know that he will live on through all that he accomplished, and through everything that he taught those of us fortunate enough to call him a friend.

Mr. President, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for cloture and I intend to vote against this bill. With reservation, I voted in the favor of the Senate Medicare prescription drug bill. I felt the Senate bill, though flawed, brought us closer to offering seniors the universal prescription drug benefit that they needed and deserved. My hope was that the problems in the bill could be fixed in conference. The bill that has emerged from the House-Senate conference, however, does too much harm to the overall Medicare program.

We need to modernize Medicare by providing beneficiaries with a prescription drug benefit. But just because we need a bill creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit, does not mean we need this bill. I believe that this bill provides little help for Medicare beneficiaries and takes too many risks with the overall Medicare program, and I am not willing to take those risks.

One of the things that I am most concerned about with respect to this bill is the lack of true cost containment. If we are to ensure that Medicare remains solvent in the years to come, especially after adding a new $400 billion prescription drug benefit, we need to make sure that we take strong measures to keep the cost of Medicare down. This is especially important given the number of baby-boomers who will soon be enrolling in Medicare. Although this bill came in under the budgeted $400 billion, because it fails to make any real effort to bring down the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs, the true cost of this bill is likely to surpass what has been budgeted for it. This is fiscally irresponsible, and we cannot put Medicare in financial jeopardy by ignoring the impact of rising health care costs on the overall Medicare program.

I am also greatly concerned by the efforts included in this bill to make Medicare a private, managed care program. This bill includes $12 billion in additional subsidies to encourage private insurance companies to offer managed care plans under Medicare. The bill also includes a demonstration project, which could affect up to 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, that may cause them to pay more in premiums, should they decide to stay in traditional Medicare. Those who cannot afford these higher premiums will be forced to choose a private plan, which may limit their access and choice of doctors and other providers. Seniors should not be forced to enroll in private plans simply because they cannot pay more to stay in traditional Medicare.

One of my greatest concerns is how this bill will impact Wisconsinites. While providing, at best, a minimal prescription drug benefit for some, the bill will make others worse off than they currently are. It is estimated that, because of this bill, 60,000 retirees in Wisconsin will lose the health insurance they currently have from their employers. Over 110,000 of poor, disabled or elderly Wisconsinites who currently pay nothing for their prescription drugs will now face increased payments for their prescription drugs because of this bill. This bill will also drive up costs for the State, in a time of fiscal crisis, because Wisconsin will lose its ability to negotiate drug costs and will face increased administrative costs.

There are some who will benefit because of this bill. Due to subsidies, the tilted playing field toward private insurance plans, and the lack of any cost containment on prescription drug prices, this bill will be a windfall for pharmaceutical and insurance companies. All we have to do is take a look at how the stocks of pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies soared recently in response to this bill. While these selected industries will profit, however, retirees and many low- income Medicare beneficiaries will suffer.

I am truly disappointed that I cannot support this bill, because there are some good things about it. I am pleased that the provisions that will bring us closer to having fairness in the Medicare reimbursement system were included in the final conference report. I have fought for a fairer share of Medicare dollars for states like Wisconsin for years. I am proud to have authored the amendment that passed in the Budget Committee earlier this year, which helped make the inclusion of Medicare fairness provisions in this bill possible. These particular provisions will help reduce the gross inequity in the division of Medicare dollars across the country.

But, on balance, I cannot vote for this bill because of the negative impact it will have on the Medicare program. The harm this bill does to Medicare and those who depend on it outweighs the benefits. Instead of working to privatize Medicare, Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and create a real Medicare prescription drug benefit without undermining the Medicare system itself.

Mr. President, I pay tribute today to a good friend and a great Wisconsinite who recently passed away, leaving behind an inspiring legacy of community leadership, of creativity, and of true benevolence.

In Wisconsin, Edith's enterprise was evident in both her dedication to the arts and her success in the private sector. A community leader, she served as a board member of the Meiklejohn Educational Association, as administrator of the Wisconsin Rapids Community Company of Players, and as a member of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Privately, she was vice president and later president of her family's business, the Biron Cranberry Co.

Never one to stand still, Edith continued to reinvent herself time and time again, even late in life. After selling the Biron Company, Edith delved into poetry, publishing five books and founding a writers' group when she was well into her eighties.

Earlier in her life, Edith lived in Washington, DC, where she was dismayed and outraged at the state of the city's segregated public school system. So, with her husband Philleo, she founded one of the District's first integrated schools in 1945, the Georgetown Day School. Later, she served as the school's director for 14 years.

While at the Georgetown Day School, Edith challenged her new students by telling them that ``If you really don't like the idea of standing on your own two feet and beginning to be the master of your own life--if you'd rather be a chip in the ocean with the mammoth water raising and lowering you and you making no effort at all--don't come to Georgetown Day School. Ask your folks to help you find a regular school where you'll not have so much to do yourself.''

Edith followed her own words; as a poet, mother, philanthropist, academic, and businesswomen, she was no chip in the ocean. And even in her ninth decade, she continued to work hard and inspire new generations. Her work and ideas knew no bounds.

Edith Nash's death is a great loss to all of us who knew her, and all those whose lives were touched by her many good works. I am deeply saddened by her passing, but I know that her leadership, creativity and generosity have left a lasting mark on our State and our country.

Mr. President, I rise today with great admiration, to recognize the 2003 Winston Cup Champion, Matt Kenseth. On November 16, Kenseth was crowned champion of NASCAR's 2003 Winston Cup Series.

Kenseth was born on March 10, 1972, in Cambridge, WI. For Kenseth, racing is a family tradition. When he was 13, his father, Roy purchased a race car and made Matt a deal. Roy would drive the car if Matt would work on it. When Matt turned 16, he could get in the driver's seat.

Kenseth started his stock car racing career at the young age of 16, winning his first event in only his third race. Within his first three seasons, Kenseth racked up 10 racing victories from all around Wisconsin. His name recognition grew in Wisconsin racing hotbeds like Slinger and Lake Geneva. In 1995, Kenseth took his racing skills to the South, the heart of American stock car racing. It didn't take long before Kenseth became noticed throughout the racing world. Kenseth had great success while racing in the Busch Grand National Series. In 1998, just his first full Busch Series season, Kenseth finished second in the standings. He followed that season up with a strong third place finish in 1999 while also making five Winston Cup starts. Kenseth's arrival to the Winston Cup Series was heard loud and clear as he won Rookie of the Year honors in 2000.

But the 2003 season was simply magical. Kenseth finished the season with 25 top 10 finishes, more than any other driver. He also set a record spending 33 straight weeks in the Winston Cup Standings No. 1 position, breaking the record of racing legend Dale Earnhardt. Wisconsin is very proud of Matt's accomplishments and we wish him the best of luck next season as he defends his championship.

Mr. President, it is pleasure to join my friend and colleague Senator McCain in introducing a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2003 will ensure that this system that has served our country so well for over a generation will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century.

The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the

system for the general election. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required. In the last election, then-Governor George W. Bush opted out of the system for the presidential primaries, but elected to take the taxpayer funded grant in the general election. He appears ready to make the same choice in this election, and so far two of the Democratic presidential candidates have decided not to seek federal matching funds in the primaries. Before 2000, almost all serious candidates for President had participated in the system.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is becoming less viable. The system reduces the fundraising pressures on candidates and levels the playing field between candidates. It allows candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and its advantages for candidates and for the country make it worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out because their opponents are opting out will increase until the system collapse from disuse.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that this bill is not designed to have any impact on the ongoing presidential race. It will take effect only after the 2004 elections. Therefore, there is no partisan purpose here. Once again, Senator McCain and I are working together to try to improve the campaign finance system, regardless of any partisan impact that these reforms might have. Second, we do not expect Congress to take action on this bill during an election year. Instead, our hope is that by introducing a bill now we can begin a conversation with our colleagues and with the public that will allow us to take quick action beginning in 2005 so that a new system can be in place for the 2008 election.

The bill makes changes to both the primary and general election system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by both participants in the system and experts on the presidential election financing process. First and most important, it eliminates the state-by-state spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $75 million. This should make the system more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available significantly more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1. Thus, significantly more public money will be available to those candidates who choose to participate in the system.

One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a non-participating opponent if that opponent raises more than 33 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a non-participating opponent.

The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $75 million, indexed for inflation, which is about what it is projected to be in 2008. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 33 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This had led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 thankfully has now closed that loophole. This bill doubles the amount of hard money that parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, allowing them to fill the gap once the party has a presumptive nominee.

Fixing the presidential public financing system will obviously cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by doubling the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $6. The total cost of the changes to the system is projected to be around $175 million over the four-year election cycle. Of course, these projections may change as we get more data from the 2004 elections. But even a somewhat larger cost would be a very small investment to make to protect the health of our democracy and integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre- Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act now to preserve the crown jewel of the Watergate reforms and assure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process.

Mr. President, it is pleasure to join my friend and colleague Senator McCain in introducing a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2003 will ensure that this system that has served our country so well for over a generation will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century.

The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the

system for the general election. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required. In the last election, then-Governor George W. Bush opted out of the system for the presidential primaries, but elected to take the taxpayer funded grant in the general election. He appears ready to make the same choice in this election, and so far two of the Democratic presidential candidates have decided not to seek federal matching funds in the primaries. Before 2000, almost all serious candidates for President had participated in the system.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is becoming less viable. The system reduces the fundraising pressures on candidates and levels the playing field between candidates. It allows candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and its advantages for candidates and for the country make it worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out because their opponents are opting out will increase until the system collapse from disuse.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that this bill is not designed to have any impact on the ongoing presidential race. It will take effect only after the 2004 elections. Therefore, there is no partisan purpose here. Once again, Senator McCain and I are working together to try to improve the campaign finance system, regardless of any partisan impact that these reforms might have. Second, we do not expect Congress to take action on this bill during an election year. Instead, our hope is that by introducing a bill now we can begin a conversation with our colleagues and with the public that will allow us to take quick action beginning in 2005 so that a new system can be in place for the 2008 election.

The bill makes changes to both the primary and general election system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by both participants in the system and experts on the presidential election financing process. First and most important, it eliminates the state-by-state spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $75 million. This should make the system more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available significantly more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1. Thus, significantly more public money will be available to those candidates who choose to participate in the system.

One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a non-participating opponent if that opponent raises more than 33 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a non-participating opponent.

The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $75 million, indexed for inflation, which is about what it is projected to be in 2008. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 33 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This had led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 thankfully has now closed that loophole. This bill doubles the amount of hard money that parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, allowing them to fill the gap once the party has a presumptive nominee.

Fixing the presidential public financing system will obviously cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by doubling the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $6. The total cost of the changes to the system is projected to be around $175 million over the four-year election cycle. Of course, these projections may change as we get more data from the 2004 elections. But even a somewhat larger cost would be a very small investment to make to protect the health of our democracy and integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre- Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act now to preserve the crown jewel of the Watergate reforms and assure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process.

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

Madam President, I rise today to share my concerns about this Energy bill. An Energy bill is a serious matter. I strongly believe the country needs to achieve a balanced national energy policy.

I did not make my decision to oppose this bill lightly, but unfortunately this bill is even worse than the Senate version. I cannot support it.

Although my remarks will be very brief, my reservations about this bill run deep.

I oppose this bill for several reasons. For one thing, the price tag of this bill troubles me. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cost the taxpayers $31 billion and is not offset anywhere else in the budget. Our national deficit has ballooned over the past several years, so it is even more imperative that we be fiscally responsible with taxpayers dollars.

In addition to the bill's fiscal implications, I am deeply concerned that the bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This critical act protects consumers against abuses in the utility industry. Repeal of PUHCA would leave rate-payers vulnerable and spur further consolidation in an industry that has already seen a number of mergers. Two large holding companies have been created in Wisconsin alone in recent years. Furthermore, the bill does not protect consumers from Enron-style electricity trading practices and market manipulation. The Senate recently went on record in support of an amendment by Senator Cantwell to bar such abusive practices and I am disappointed that the bill fails to include similar protections. I also doubt that the bill will prevent blackouts like that we experienced last August--this is one of the country's most pressing energy problems, yet the bill does little to address it.

In the area of boutique fuels, the bill also falls badly short. Everyone in my state of Wisconsin is familiar with price spikes during the shift from the spring to winter fuel supply. Wisconsin has pushed for national standards for federally mandated reformulated gasoline blends, or RFGs, to try to broaden the supply and reduce price hikes during RFG shortages. The current bill will just authorize a study about the problem, not solve it. We had a genuine bipartisan effort to try to do this. I cannot understand for the life of me why this was not included in the conference report.

Also, the bill has serious and unwelcome environmental impacts. For example, the bill undercuts the Clean Air Act by postponing ozone attainment standards across the country. This issue was never considered in the House or Senate bill, but it was inserted in the conference report. This rewrite of the Clean Air Act is not fair to cities like Milwaukee that have devoted significant resources to reducing ozone and cleaning up their air. And, as asthma rates across the country increase, this provision could severely undercut efforts to safeguard the air quality of our citizens.

In addition to undermining air quality protection, the bill allows for siting of transmission lines in national parks, grants exemptions from the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act for oil and gas companies, and pays oil and gas companies for their costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. I am also concerned that the liability exemption for MTBE is retroactive to September 5, 2003, which will nullify about 100 ongoing lawsuits. MTBE is found in all 50 States, and high levels are affecting drinking water systems all over the Midwest, including 5,567 wells in 29 communities in Wisconsin, even though the state only used MTBE gasoline for the first few weeks of the phase I program that began in January 1995. As a result of this bill, taxpayers are going to have to foot the $29 billion bill for the national MTBE cleanup.

This bill fails to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The Senate energy bill contained a requirement that power companies provide at least 10 percent of their power from renewable energy sources like wind, water, and solar power. The technical term is a renewable portfolio standard. The current bill doesn't contain any renewable portfolio. standard. There's no doubt that we can and should do better on renewable energy to reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

Although, I support many of the renewable fuel provisions in the bill regarding ethanol, I am troubled by the fact that the bill also depletes vital highway funds for States by siphoning money from the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit.

The content of the bill is problematic, but so is the process of how it was written. My Democratic colleagues who served on the conference had only 48 hours to review the 1,700-page report before the Monday conference meeting. They were virtually shut out of the negotiation process. I regret that the manner in which the current bill was drafted--in secret, closed meetings, without adequate time to review it. This is no way to come up with a balanced national energy policy.

For these reasons, I oppose this bill and I will oppose cloture. I appreciate the need to develop a new energy strategy for this country. I disagree strongly, however, with the measures taken in this bill. This is a bad bill, it's bad for Wisconsin, and it's bad for the Nation's taxpayers.

I thank my colleagues from Oregon and my colleague from New Jersey for their courtesy in letting me give my remarks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this month public school students around Wisconsin are sharpening their No. 2 pencils and settling in to take a series of annual tests called the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations. These exams, given to students in grades four, eight, and ten, test students' knowledge of reading, language arts, math, science, and social studies.

These tests--and their results--have taken on new meaning for schools around my State as students and teachers in Wisconsin settle into their second school year under the No Child Left Behind Act. This law, the centerpiece of the President's domestic agenda, requires that students in grades three through eight and in one high school grade be tested annually in reading and math beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, with annual science tests to be added 2 years later. Thus, Wisconsin will be required to expand the WKCEs, and the already-existing annual third grade Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test, to include new reading tests for students in grades five, six and seven; and new math tests for students in grades three, five, six, and seven.

As I travel around Wisconsin, I hear time and again from frustrated parents, teachers, administrators, and school board members about their concerns with the ongoing implementation of the NCLB. I began to hear such comments more than 2 years ago when the President first proposed his education

initiative, and this drumbeat of concern has increased as my constituents continue to learn first-hand what this new law means for them and for their students and children. While Wisconsinites support holding schools accountable for results, they are concerned about the focus on standardized testing included in the President's approach.

I opposed the President's education bill in large part because of this new annual testing mandate. The comments I have heard from people across Wisconsin about this new program have been almost universally negative. Parents, teachers, administrators, and others in the education community have told me that they are concerned about the effect that over-testing will have on Wisconsin's public school students. They oppose another layer of federally mandated testing for many reasons, including the cost of developing and implementing the additional tests, the loss of teaching time every year to prepare for and take the tests, and the unnecessary pressure that these additional tests will place on students, teachers, schools, and school districts.

The pressure to do well on annual tests is already weighing on the teachers and schools in Wisconsin, even with 2 years to go before the additional tests are required. The stakes are very high for schools and school districts. The results on these annual tests are a central part of the complicated formula that determines whether a school is meeting or exceeding its ``adequate yearly progress'' goals. Failure to meet AYP goals in two or more consecutive years will lead to sanctions for the schools and districts in question. I have heard from many constituents about the complex AYP system, and what being determined to be a ``school in need of improvement'' or a school that ``has not met AYP'' will mean for--and how these designations will be interpreted by--parents, students, school personnel, and the general public.

In order to measure AYP, Wisconsin and other States are required under NCLB to look at four indicators for each school and district: test participation, graduation and attendance criteria, reading achievement, and math achievement. Three of these four criteria are based on the annual standardized tests. This is troubling because the future of individual schools and school districts is riding on student participation in and success on just two exams--reading and math. These core subjects are important, to be sure, but I am concerned that this exclusive focus on testing--which is a top-down mandate from the Federal Government--may be detrimental to the successful education of our children, who could benefit from a more flexible approach.

As a recent editorial in the La Crosse Tribune points out, ``the stakes on the schools are high. Buy what about students? The test result doesn't appear on their transcript and it doesn't count toward a grade or graduation.'' And what if a student had a bad day? Or what if the required amount of students don't take the tests, and the school fails to meet the 95 percent participation rate required by the NCLB? A missed participation rate 2 years in a row would mean that the school is ``in need of improvement,'' even if the students who took the tests did well on them.

In addition, some of my constituents are concerned about the value of these tests to students, parents, and teachers. According to one teacher, the existing tests don't have any meaning to students and have little meaning to classroom teachers. And the Federal Government has mandated that students take even more tests without developing a system that makes these new tests, or the existing ones for that matter, meaningful to students.

The impact of these standardized tests on students varies. Some students already have test anxiety and that anxiety may well increase unnecessarily. As the stakes increase for schools, the increased stress level is sure to filter down from administrators to teachers to students. For example, members of the Wisconsin School Counselors Association told me that they have been handing out apple-shaped ``stress balls'' for anxious third graders to squeeze while taking their reading tests.

While some students experience stress out about tests, others simply do not care about the tests at all, and fill in random answers or turn in blank test sheets--after all, there's no penalty if they do so. For students who are struggling, however, a low test score on a standardized test can be demoralizing. According to one Wisconsin teacher, ``Students are being evaluated on one single test. What if the student has a bad day? . . . [T]he truly scary part is that standardized tests ensure that half of our students will always be 'below average.' How can we meet the benchmark that everyone will score proficient and advanced when the tests are designed to never let that happen? . . . Taking more tests is not going to improve learning.''

Most students, of course, try their best. But they are confused about why they are taking tests that do not count toward their grades, and many students and parents are confused by the results of these tests.

With the stakes rising for schools and districts, some schools in Wisconsin have resorted to offering what amounts to bribes to encourage the students to participate in the WKCEs and to do well on them. Since the tests have little consequences for individual students, but very serious consequences for schools and districts, some schools are pulling out all of the stops to get students to take these tests seriously.

According to a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, some schools are offering prizes to students who show up and complete their exams. These prizes range from movie tickets to gift certificates for a local mall to big ticket items such as a television and a DVD player. Some schools are offering exemptions from end-of-semester exams for students who do well on the WKCEs. One elementary school is promising students additional recess periods, snacks, and movies. One teacher told my staff that her school is allowing students to engage in one of the ultimate school no-nos chewing gum in the classroom in order to help to relieve the stress of taking the tests.

I will ask that the complete text of the two articles that I have referenced be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, schools in my State are already feeling the pressure to compel students to participate in and succeed on annual tests 2 years before the additional, federally mandated tests are added to the mix. I am concerned about the implications that this pressure, and the resulting scramble to get students to take these tests seriously, will have on public education in my State. I am not saying that schools should not be required to be successful or to show improvement in student performance. Of course, all schools should strive to ensure that they are successful and that their students show improvement.

But these examples from my State are clear evidence of one of the basic problems with the NCLB--its exclusive focus on test scores as the main measure of student achievement. When schools feel compelled to hand out goodies to get students to take tests seriously, those tests are not serving their intended purpose. Certainly, tests have their place in education. But tests should be used as one of multiple measures of student achievement, not as the sole means of determining the success or failure of a school.

I am extremely concerned that the new Federal testing mandate will not achieve the desired result of better schools with qualified teachers and successful students. I fear that this new mandate will curtail actual teaching time and real learning in favor of an environment where teaching to the test becomes the norm. The unfortunate result of this would be to show our children that education is not about preparing for their futures, but rather about preparing for tests--that education is really about sharp No. 2 pencils and test sheets, about making sure that little round bubbles are filled in completely, and, if their school districts and States have enough money, maybe about exam booklets for short answer and essay questions. I am also deeply concerned that this focus on testing will rob teachers of valuable teaching time and will squelch efforts to be innovative and creative, both with lesson plans and with ways of measuring student performance.

For these reasons, earlier this year I introduced the Student Testing Flexibility Act, a bill that would return a

measure of the local control that was taken from States and local school districts with the enactment of the NCLB. This bill would allow States and school districts that have demonstrated academic success for 2 consecutive years the flexibility to apply to waive the new annual testing requirements in the NCLB. States and school districts with waivers would still be required to administer high-quality tests to students in, at a minimum, reading or language arts and mathematics at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 as required under the law.

This bill is cosponsored by Senators Jeffords, Dayton, and Leahy. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by the American Association of School Administrators; the National Education Association; National PTA; the National Association of Elementary School Principals; the National Association of Secondary School Principals; the School Social Work Association of America; the National Council of Teachers of English; the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction; the Wisconsin Education Association Council; the Wisconsin Association of School Boards; the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association; the Wisconsin School Social Workers Association; and the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance, which includes the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, and the Wisconsin Council for Administrators of Special Services.

I would also like to take a moment to discuss the recently released National Assessment on Educational Progress scores. In addition to a massive new annual testing requirement, the NCLB also requires States to participate in the previously voluntary NAEP tests for fourth grade reading and math, which are given every 2 years. Proponents of high- stakes testing argue that NAEP participation will help to ensure that the results of State-administered tests are valid, and that States are not ``dumbing down'' their tests in order to avoid Federal sanctions.

The NAEP scores that were released last week are the results of the first round of required testing under the NCLB, and, for the first time, include scores from all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 2 schools run by the Department of Defense. While the nation-wide test results are an improvement over the NAEP administered 2 years ago, I am deeply concerned about the lingering racial disparities in the test results.

I am particularly concerned that the test scores for the approximately 25,000 Wisconsin eighth graders who took this test lead the Nation in the gap between White and African-American students on both the reading and the math tests. While the NAEP was taken by only a small percentage of students in my State and around the country, we cannot ignore the racial disparities in the test scores and the need to do more to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity for a quality education.

The Secretary of Education heralded the NAEP results, saying, ``These results show that the education revolution that No Child Left Behind promised has begun.'' If these test scores prove anything, it is that too many children are being left behind. Study after study has shown that disadvantaged students lag behind their peers on standardized tests.

I regret that the President and the Congress have not done more to ensure that schools have the resources to help these students catch up with their peers before students are required to take additional annual tests that will have serious consequences for their schools. If we fail to provide adequate resources to these schools and these students, we run the risk of setting disadvantaged children up for failure on these tests--failure which could damage the self-esteem of our most vulnerable students.

Instead of focusing resources on those students and schools needing the most help, I am afraid that the testing provisions in the President's bill will punish those very schools with sanctions that will actually take badly needed funding away from them.

I would like to note that my constituents have raised a number of other concerns about the NCLB that I hope will be addressed by Congress. I continue to hear about complex guidelines and a lack of flexibility from the Department of Education. I hear about the unique challenges that the new tutoring, public school transfer, and other requirements pose for rural districts. My constituents often ask when the Federal Government is going to provide the funding it promised for education programs. I share my constituents' concern about imposing new sanctions on schools that do not meet yearly goals even though the programs that would help students and schools to meet those goals are not fully funded.

I will continue to monitor closely the implementation of the NCLB and its effect on public school students in Wisconsin.

I ask unanimous consent the articles to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to speak today on the nomination for promotion of Major General Robert T. Clark and the broader issue of the Department of Defense's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. The unusually lengthy and controversial nomination of General Clark has, once again, brought attention to the failure of the Pentagon's policy towards gay servicemembers. It is high time that we stop this policy of codified discrimination against our brave servicemen and women who happen to be gay.

I fear that this policy may have been a contributing factor in the June 5, 1999, brutal murder of PVT Barry Winchell at Fort Campbell, KY, a base commanded by General Clark. I will not reiterate the facts of that case at this time, but I will say that there are strong indications that there was a pervasive and hostile anti-gay climate at Fort Campbell both before and after the tragic murder of Private Winchell and that the base leadership, including General Clark, appears to have done little, if anything, to address it.

Mr. President, the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has failed. It failed to give Private Winchell useful options to combat the harassment he faced during the months prior to his murder. It failed to force General Clark to take effective action to eliminate the anti-gay climate at Fort Campbell. And it continues to fail to stop the discrimination and harassment faced by our brave gay servicemembers.

I want to take this opportunity to urge the Pentagon to begin instituting changes to its policy towards gay servicemembers. The Pentagon should provide, at a minimum, a safe place for gay and lesbian servicemembers to report harassment without fear that they will be kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. This modest step would be one small way to honor the memory of Private Winchell and to prevent what happened to him from ever happening again.

Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for agreeing to accept my amendment pertaining to veterans outreach programs. My amendment would restore a valuable--and statutorily mandated--service to our nation's veterans and their families.

In July 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management sent a memo to Veterans Integrated Service Network Directors ordering them to ``ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within [their] networks.''

This memo cited an increased demand for VA health care services as the reason for this change in policy. While it is clear that more funding should be provided for VA health care and other programs and I strongly support doing so it is inappropriate for the VA to institute a policy to stop making veterans aware of the health care services for which they may be eligible.

I joined with a number of our colleagues last year in sending a letter to the President asking that this policy be immediately reversed. I regret that the VA's reply indicated that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs stands by this policy, which remains in effect.

My amendment would prohibit the VA from using Federal funds to enforce this policy, or any other policy prohibiting regional health care directors from conducting outreach to enroll new veterans into the VA health care system. A similar amendment offered earlier this year by Congressmen Sanders and Kanjorski was accepted to the House version of the underlying VA-HUD appropriations bill.

I have long been concerned that tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible. We can and should do more to educate our veterans and their families about these benefits, and to provide adequate funding to ensure that all veterans who wish to take advantage of their benefits are able to do so. Halting health care marketing activities is not the answer. Our brave veterans have earned these benefits. The Federal department that is charged with advocating for and providing benefits to our veterans should not be allowed to continue to restrict health care outreach activities.

This is especially important as we welcome home a new generation of veterans who are serving in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. Today's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are tomorrow's veterans. These men and women selflessly put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, as have countless military personnel before them. 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.

Our veterans and their families have made great personal sacrifices to protect our freedoms. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Making sure that our veterans know about the benefits that they have earned is an important first step in starting to repay this debt.

Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for working with me on this important issue.

Mr. President, today the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization conference report comes before the full Senate. I plan to vote against cloture on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2115 because it would permit the contracting out of certain air traffic controller positions currently filled by Federal Government employees.

I do not support efforts to contract out air traffic controller positions because these positions are vital to our national security. I regret that the FAA conference report does not include language passed by both the Senate and the House--which I supported--that would have prohibited the administration from contracting out these important positions.

I support the funding for airports and airline industries in our country that this bill contains and it is not my intention to slow down funding for airports or airlines. However, the safety of Americans must outweigh the possibility of airlines and airports being temporarily inconvenienced.

Supporters of this legislation will argue that airport construction projects will be delayed if we do not pass this bill soon. However, how can the lives of Americans be compared to the value of construction projects? Airport projects are certainly important, but the lives of Americans are worth a slight delay in the passage of this bill.

Safety is one of the most important elements of this bill for me and for Wisconsin residents. I have been contacted by a number of constituents from my home State of Wisconsin who stated their opposition to the contracting out of air traffic controller positions. I share their concerns and I am not prepared to vote for cloture on a bill that does not contain adequate safeguards to ensure passenger safety.

The contracting out of air traffic controller positions would be a major mistake with potentially life-threatening consequences. In recent years, other countries have attempted to privatize their air traffic control systems only to encounter major problems, with increases in ``near-misses'' of airplanes or actual airplane crashes. Furthermore, in attempting to privatize their air traffic control systems, other countries have experienced increased delays and higher costs and fees for passengers. With our economy in its current condition, higher costs and fees are the last thing that consumers want or deserve.

In Canada, where air traffic control privatization was established in 1998, the Canadian Transportation Safety Board found that under- staffing at some towers has been a major concern and may have contributed to near mid-air collisions. According to the London Daily Telegraph in Great Britain, flight delays caused by air traffic control increased by 20 percent since the system there was outsourced. More importantly, the UK Airport Board found that ``near miss'' plane crash incidents had risen to their highest levels in a decade. We cannot and must not take that risk here in the United States.

Those supporting this bill as it presently stands argue that the legislation needs to be passed immediately and should not be held up because of the privatization debate. The safety of Americans is no minor issue. The bill as it currently stands puts many American lives at risk, as demonstrated by the increased danger of air collisions that we have seen in other countries.

This conference report also fails to address an important issue regarding flight attendants. This issue is an important one following the events of September 11, 2001. Since that tragic event in our Nation's history, cockpit doors have been reinforced, some pilots have been trained and certified to carry firearms and marshals have been added to some flights. Pilots have also been directed to remain in the cockpit during a highjacking, leaving flight attendants alone in the cabin with only minimal training on how to work with a marshal or respond alone to such an event. The provision that was not included in the legislation before us seeks to protect flight attendants by making it mandatory that the Transportation Security Administration issue minimum training standards for flight attendant self-defense training within one year.

The current legislation states that the Transportation Security Administration ``may'' issue minimum training standards for flight attendant self-defense training. This is simply not enough to protect the flight attendants or the flying public.

For the above reasons I regret that I cannot vote for cloture.

Mr. President, today I will introduce with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, a bill to bring Senate campaigns into the 21st century by requiring that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. This step is long overdue, and I hope the Senate will act quickly on this legislation.

A recent report by the Campaign Finance Institute highlighted the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get access to Senate campaign finance reports while most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Campaign Finance Institute report opened with a rhetorical question: ``What makes the Senate so special that it exempts itself from a key requirement of campaign finance disclosure that applies to everyone else, including candidates for the House of Representatives and Political Action Committees?''

The answer, of course, is nothing. The United States Senate is special in many ways. I am proud to serve here. But there is no justification for not making our campaign finance information as readily accessible to the public as the information filed by House candidates or others.

My bill amends the section of the election laws dealing with electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 hours. The FEC is required to make available on the Internet within 24 hours any filing it receives electronically. So if this bill is enacted, electronic versions of Senate reports should be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast improvement over the current situation, which, according to CFI, requires journalists and interested members of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of reports, and involves a completely wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost every campaign has available in electronic format.

The current filing system also means that the detailed coding that the FEC does, which allows for more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering the first 2 weeks of October are not susceptible to detailed scrutiny before the election.

It is time for the Senate to relinquish its Luddite attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs and candidates for the other body.

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