Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I will introduce in the Senate the Reasonable Notice and Search Act. This bill addresses the provision of the USA PATRIOT Act that has caused perhaps the most concern among Members of Congress. Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, sometimes referred to as the ``delayed notice search provision'' or the ``sneak and peek provision,'' authorizes the Government in limited circumstances to conduct a search without immediately serving a search warrant on the owner or occupant of the premises that have been searched.

Prior to the PATRIOT Act, secret searches for physical evidence were performed in some jurisdictions under the authority of Court of Appeals decisions, but the Supreme Court never definitively ruled whether they were constitutional. Section 213 of the Patriot Act authorized delayed notice warrants in any case in which an ``adverse result'' would occur if the warrant were served before the search was executed. Adverse result was defined as including: 1. Endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; 2. flight from prosecution; 3. destruction of or tampering with evidence; 4. intimidation of potential witnesses; or 5. otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. These circumstances went beyond what court decisions had authorized before the PATRIOT Act. In addition, while some courts had required the service of the warrant within a specified period of time, the PATRIOT Act simply required that the warrant specify that it would be served within a ``reasonable'' period of time after the search.

It is interesting to note that this provision of the PATRIOT Act was not limited to terrorism cases. Nor was it made subject to the sunset provision that will cause most of the new surveillance provisions of the act to expire at the end of 2005 unless Congress reenacts them. So Section 213 was pretty clearly a provision that the Department of Justice wanted regardless of the terrorism threat after 9/11.

Perhaps that is why this provision has caused such controversy since it was passed. Just over 2 months ago, by a wide bipartisan margin, the House passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill offered by Representative Otter from

Idaho, a Republican, to stop funding for delayed notice searches authorized under section 213. The size of the vote took the Department by surprise, and it immediately set out to defend the provision aggressively. Clearly, this is a power that DOJ does not want to lose.

I raised concern about the sneak and peek provision when it was included in the Patriot Act and even considered offering an amendment at that time to strip it out. I did not believe there had been adequate study and analysis of the justifications for these searches and the potential safeguards that might be included. I did not argue then, however, and I am not arguing now that there should be no delayed notice searches at all and that the provision should be repealed. I do believe, however, that it should be modified to protect against abuse. My bill will do four things to accomplish this.

First, my bill would narrow the circumstances in which a delayed notice warrant can be granted to the following: potential loss of life, flight from prosecution, or destruction or tampering with evidence. The ``catch-all provision'' in section 213, allowing a secret search when serving the warrant would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial'' is too easily susceptible to abuse.

Second, I believe that any delayed notice warrant should provide for a specific and limited time period within which notice must be given--7 days. This is consistent with some of the pre-PATRIOT Act court decisions and will help to bring this provision in closer accord with the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Under my bill, prosecutors will be permitted to seek 7-day extensions if circumstances continue to warrant that the subject not be made aware of the search. But the default should be a week, unless a court is convinced that more time should be permitted.

Third, Section 213 should be brought into the group of PATRIOT Act provisions that will sunset at the end of 2005. This will allow Congress to reexamine this provision along with the other provisions of the act, which was passed within 6 weeks of the 9/11 attacks, to determine if the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement has been correctly struck.

Finally, the bill requires a public report on the number of times that section 213 is used and the number of times that extensions are sought beyond the 7-day notice period. This information will help the public and Congress evaluate the need for this authority and determine whether it should be retained or modified after the sunset.

These are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. They do not make it worthless. They do recognize the growing and legitimate concern from across the political spectrum that this provision was passed in haste and presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that fourth amendment rights have meaning and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

About 10 minutes.

I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

(The remarks of Mr. Feingold are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I again especially thank the Senator from Arizona for his courtesy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I have voted in support of Senator Byrd's amendment to strike $15.2 billion in reconstruction aid from the supplemental appropriations bill. I supported this amendment not because I oppose the overall intent of some of this spending-- helping Iraqis establish order and setting the country on a path to stability and development--but because it is clear that there has been insufficient planning and insufficient explanation as to how this $15.2 billion in reconstruction assistance would be spent.

This portion of the request needs careful consideration and, frankly, this portion of the policy desperately needs improvement. It makes sense to sever this portion from the rest of the request to allow for that process without delaying action on all of the issues before us.

Mr. President, I rise today for the second in a series of statements that I plan to deliver about the hemorrhaging of American manufacturing jobs and the steps that I think that we ought to take to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad and to strengthen our deteriorating manufacturing base.

Recently, I talked about how tax policy can help to strengthen American manufacturing. Today, I want to discuss the role of Federal procurement policy in supporting American businesses and American jobs.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs procurement by the Federal Government. The name of the act accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods.

It only makes sense for the Federal Government to make every effort to purchase goods that are made in America. A law requiring this commonsense approach should not be necessary. Unfortunately, this law is necessary and, even more unfortunately, the law contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign- made goods.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. For generations, Wisconsin has had an economy dominated by manufacturing, and Wisconsinites have proudly made goods under name brands that are known around the country and even around the world brands such as Oshkosh B'Gosh, Harley-Davidson, Snap-On Tools, Masterlock, and S.C. Johnson. Many Wisconsin factories have churned out products for the Federal Government, including for the Department of Defense.

Regrettably, thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my State--77,000 jobs of this kind in the last 2\1/2\ years. Those companies that remain in my State often struggle to compete with cheaper foreign goods that flood into U.S. markets--even when they may be competing for contracts to supply our own Federal Government.

This Congress should do more to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods by strengthening the provisions of the Buy American Act.

Some argue that the Buy American Act has outlived its usefulness in today's global economy. I could not disagree more. I strongly disagree. The act is as relevant today as it was when it was enacted in 1933. The passage of 70 years has not diminished the importance of this act for American manufacturing companies or for those who are employed in this crucial sector of our economy.

In fact, a strong argument can be made that this act is even more necessary today than it was 70 years ago. With American jobs heading overseas

at an alarming rate, the Government should be doing all it can to make sure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent to support American jobs.

Some argue that the Buy American Act is protectionist and anti-free trade. I disagree. Supporting American industry is not protectionist; it is just common sense. The erosion of our manufacturing base needs to be stopped, and Congress should support procurement and trade policies that help to ensure that we do not continue to lose jobs in this vital segment of our economy.

Recently I introduced the Buy American Improvement Act, which would strengthen the existing act by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal Departments and Agencies are given broad discretion to waive the act and to buy foreign goods. We should ensure that American companies are given a fair chance to compete for Federal contracts.

Companies in Wisconsin tell me that they do not mind having to compete for Federal and other contracts. In fact, they welcome the chance to compete and to put their high-quality products up against the best that the United States and the world has to offer. What they are concerned about is an uneven playing field that tilts in favor of foreign companies, which enjoy advantages including government subsidies, lower labor costs, little environmental regulation, and devalued currencies.

My constituents are also concerned about the prospect of certain types of industries leaving the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

In order to get a better picture of how often the Federal Government buys foreign goods, my bill also would expand annual reporting requirements regarding the use of Buy American Act waivers that currently apply only to the Department of Defense to include all Federal Departments and Agencies. I am pleased that the Senate has adopted amendments based on this provision that I have offered to a number of appropriations bills, thus putting the Senate on record in support of increased public disclosure regarding the use of Buy American Act waivers.

I am also pleased that my legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups including: Save American Manufacturing, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the national and Wisconsin AFL- CIO, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.

In addition, I believe that the Senate itself should lead by example and make every effort to purchase American-made goods. For that reason, I recently sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration asking them to support strengthening current law governing Senate procurement to clarify that the Senate should comply with Buy American requirements.

My letter also asks that the Rules Committee direct the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms to provide to the Senate an annual report, beginning at the end of the current fiscal year, describing the dollar value of any articles, materials, or supplies purchased that are manufactured outside of the United States, outlining the reasons for such foreign purchases, and providing a summary of total procurement funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States versus funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United States. This report is consistent with the annual report already required of the Pentagon. I think we in the Senate ourselves should comply with the same requirement we impose on the Pentagon.

As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while all these American jobs continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem, I believe that one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act. I will continue to come to the floor to discuss other ways in which we can work to strengthen this crucial segment of our economy in the coming weeks.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue.

I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley, Kennedy, and Lieberman, have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support.

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, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe and the Pacific, here, at home, the U.S. Government was curtailing the freedom of some of its own people. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to defend. 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 and 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 shameful event 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 our Government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by many German Americans,

Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees.

The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II.

I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with Japanese Americans, 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 during World War II. We must learn from our history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to protect basic freedoms.

A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must 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 refugees 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. It is time to create independent, fact- finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II.

Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.

There has been no justice for European Latin Americans who were shipped to the United States and sometimes repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries.

Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores.

Although the injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred fifty years ago, it is never too late for Americans to learn from these tragedies. We should never allow this part of our nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment study Act. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our Nation's history.

I ask that the text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue.

I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley, Kennedy, and Lieberman, have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support.

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, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe and the Pacific, here, at home, the U.S. Government was curtailing the freedom of some of its own people. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to defend. 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 and 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 shameful event 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 our Government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by many German Americans,

Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees.

The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II.

I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with Japanese Americans, 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 during World War II. We must learn from our history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to protect basic freedoms.

A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must 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 refugees 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. It is time to create independent, fact- finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II.

Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.

There has been no justice for European Latin Americans who were shipped to the United States and sometimes repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries.

Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores.

Although the injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred fifty years ago, it is never too late for Americans to learn from these tragedies. We should never allow this part of our nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment study Act. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our Nation's history.

I ask that the text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to speak today on the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program. In my twenty years as a public servant, I have seen only a very small number of federally funded programs that have had such a measurable and immediate effect on local communities as the COPS program.

The Community Oriented Policing Services Program, commonly known as COPS, was established in 1994, due in large part to the efforts of my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and the support of then-President Clinton. Since its inception, the program has greatly enhanced community oriented policing across the Nation, resulting in real, tangible crime reduction in cities such as Green Bay, Wisconsin's third-largest city, as well as in small, rural areas across Wisconsin and the country. This program has been a shining example of an effective partnership between local and Federal governments. It provides Federal assistance to meet local objectives without imposing mandates or interfering with local prerogatives. It also provides Federal dollars directly to police departments and local communities.

To date, the COPS program has facilitated the hiring and training of over 118,000 police officers who help keep our communities safe. In the State of Wisconsin alone, COPS has funded over 1,330 new officers by contributing over $100 million to communities. COPS funds have also provided over $20 million worth of crime-fighting technologies to Wisconsin law enforcement agencies. As Green Bay Police Chief Craig Van Schyndle told me last week, these funds have had a very positive and measurable impact on policing in Green Bay. Crime rates have gone down, school security has been enhanced, and more officers have gotten out from behind their desks and into the communities they protect.

But the Chief also expressed his fear that proposed cuts to the COPS program will result in devastating consequences for the Green Bay Police Department. The proposed drastic funding cuts will set many police departments back decades. Already outdated equipment will become the norm, and what's worse, our communities will see a reduction in officers patrolling our neighborhoods. The Green Bay Police Department and so many other local law enforcement agencies in Wisconsin and across the country are already crunched for resources due to the stressed state budgets in many of our home States. Due to these fiscal constraints, COPS funds that we have praised as beneficial have become absolutely crucial. If we allow the proposed cuts to the COPS program, many departments will have no choice but to cut wages and reduce personnel.

It is important to note in the post-September 11 world that when we lose our community-oriented officers, we lose first responders. This year, for the first time, COPS dollars are being used to hire community policing officers who will be engaged in homeland security efforts, and to pay for overtime costs associated with homeland security. They are also helping to provide inter-operable communications technology in communities to better help our first responders communicate during times of crisis. Many of us have heard from first responders in our home States about how important, and how lacking, this communications technology is on the front lines of the fight against terrorism.

The administration and Congress simply cannot tell the American people that we want them to feel secure and tell our local law enforcement officers how they are, while at the same time cutting funding for those officers. We must not short-change our police officers. As the tragic events of September 11th reminded our Nation, police officers play a vital role in protecting and securing our communities. In the past 2 years, the words ``security'' and ``safety'' have taken on new significance for Americans. The COPS program helps to give those words meaning. The officers who are hired and trained and funded by the COPS program are our neighbors, our first responders, our drug educators, and, in some cases, as in the COPS in Schools program, the mentors for our children. We must give them the support they need so that they can continue to keep us safe and secure.

No police department should have to choose between having up-to-date communications devices and having sufficient law enforcement officers in its community, or decide whether to continue its school crossing guard program or to fund its successful crime-reduction programs. And yet, that is exactly what is happening to local law enforcement agencies in Wisconsin and across the country as they watch funding levels for the COPS program drop.

I might add that unlike other important law enforcement grant programs, COPS delivers grant funding directly to chiefs and sheriffs. There are no overhead costs for States because the grant administration is facilitated directly by the Federal Government. Communities of all sizes are eligible to apply for COPS grants, and the payoffs are invaluable. Ensuring funding in the COPS program is an investment in our Nation's security, an investment in our children, and an investment in community safety.

As we consider appropriations for the many Federal programs that make a difference at home, I urge my colleagues to send a strong message of support to our local law enforcement officers: As we ask more of them, we must understand the fiscal pressure they face and help them bridge their funding gap so they can continue the level of excellence at which they operate. There is no question that community-oriented policing is integral to the protection and safety of all Americans.

Again, I want to applaud Senator Biden for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues, especially those on the Appropriations Committee, to work to ensure that the COPS program is fully funded before we adjourn. Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, over the past year, I have come to the floor several times to express my concerns about the U.S. policy in Iraq. I have raised questions about what I have called the administration's ``shifting justifications'' for this war. I have raised questions, both before and after the conflict began, about the administration's plans for finding and securing weapons of mass destruction, for ensuring that the international community is willing to share the burden of reconstruction, and--perhaps most critically-- for making certain our action in Iraq does not detract from or undermine the fight against terrorism. I still have many of the same concerns today. I still am not confident that the American people have gotten all the answers and all the information they deserve.

Now many in the administration clearly do not want to talk about weapons of mass destruction in too much detail. They don't really want to talk very much about distorted intelligence. These things are apparently old news in their view.

We fought a war of choice. We remain deeply involved. American troops continue to die. Some don't want to talk anymore about those initial choices that were made. The President told the American people that the main reason he went to war was to prevent Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction against us. Now, however, we are told that the real reason for choosing to go to war in Iraq was to tip off a set of, in effect, democratizing dominos that will change the face of the modern Middle East, perhaps even the entire Muslim world, and then, in so doing, defeat the forces of terrorism. I guess that seems to be the general thrust of the argument.

I don't believe it is a good thing for our democracy or for our standing in the world to switch arguments for a war in midstream. But I do think this idea that the administration is putting forth now, after having moved from many other justifications, also deserves to be seriously and critically considered by this Congress, especially given how often the administration is now invoking this idea that we are going to create a domino effect of democracy throughout the Middle East

by invading Iraq and setting up a government there.

Let us consider three propositions that have been repeated by the administration in recent weeks. First, the assertion that Iraq is now the central front in the fight against terrorism--not Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia, not Southeast Asia, or east Africa or the central Asian states of the former Soviet Republic, Mr. President, but Iraq as the central focus of the war against terrorism.

In support of this assertion, the administration can, of course, point to the influx of terrorists into Iraq since the United States military campaign began. The country was not, however, a hotbed of terrorist activity directed at American interests before that campaign. But the administration appears to be making a much broader point based on a sort of new domino theory for our new century. This time, instead of propping up dominoes threatened by the forces of communism, we are tipping them over in the name of democracy. By tipping the Iraqi domino, we will change the entire Arab world--or perhaps even the entire Muslim world--or so the argument goes--and this in turn will lead to the demise of the terrorist forces that have attacked America.

In other words, what the administration is really saying is that Iraq is now the central battle in the fight against terrorism because this is where we choose to tip the domino.

How likely is it that the battle for the future of the Middle East or the future of modern Islam is going to be fought at a place and time of American choosing? Are we really that all-knowing or that all-powerful?

I agree that a battle of ideas and wills is underway in the region. I am not at all sure that this kind of battle can be influenced by U.S. military action or a U.S. occupation--at least not in the way we would hope.

I am even less sure that invading and occupying Iraq in an attempt to establish a beachhead for democracy will help us in the campaign against terror. It is that campaign against terror that we should be focused upon. How likely is it that the plans and capacities of terrorists operating, let's say, in the Philippines or Indonesia will be greatly affected by the outcome in Iraq? How about the forces still present along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Will a blow for democracy in Iraq wipe them out?

Most importantly, are we more secure? Are we on a firmer footing in the fight against terrorism if we somehow convince ourselves that this is so? Are we on the right track when the Vice President refuses to acknowledge that we know of no real link between Iraq and the attacks of September 11, and then goes on to insist that the Saudis are good partners in the fight against terrorism, as he did on ``Meet The Press'' earlier this month?

There is something else happening here. I fear that there is. Are we getting distracted, muddled in our thinking, when it comes to our first national security priority? I fear that we actually endanger our security and detract from the fight against terrorism if we all accept this new domino theory as fact.

I can remember hearing a domino theory before, when American troops were fighting a different war. It was an overly simplistic idea that just did not capture all of the different agendas at play in the world--the nationalistic, the self-serving, and the corrupt, to name a few. I am highly skeptical that this theory is any more useful or accurate today.

That earlier conflict also taught me that the right thing to do is to ask hard questions. That is the right thing for the country and the right thing for our brave men and women in uniform. GEN Anthony Zinni made a good point when he spoke earlier this month at the Marine Corps Association and the U.S. Naval Institute Forum. He said the following:

This is the greatest treasure that the United States has,

our enlisted men and women. And when we put them in harm's

way, it had better count for something. . . . They should

never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not

only for the fighting . . . but for the aftermath and winning

that war. . . . Our feelings and our sensitivities were

forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the

garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore

never again would we do that. We swore never again would we

allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again?

This is what was said by General Zinni in front of the Marine Corps Association of the U.S. Naval Institute. These are powerful words from one of our generals. They remind us of the stakes, and they remind us that the questions about our planning, about the wisdom and intellectual honesty of the ideas that guide it, are very much in order today.

I support our troops and I support their families who are very anxiously waiting for their return. That is why it is so important to get some clarity on the nature of our involvement in Iraq and where we stand in the fight against terror.

The President is, of course, right to reject the notion that one can be ambivalent about terrorism. If we don't have moral clarity when it comes to the fundamentally evil nature of acts that target innocent civilians, that murder noncombatants on a grand and gruesome scale as some sort of perverse act of political theater, then, of course, we are really lost. There is no halfway point on this. There is no middle ground. The battle against terrorism is worth fighting. It is a battle we did not begin, and it is a battle I have supported and will always support wholeheartedly.

I agree with those who say that states that knowingly harbor and support our terrorist enemies are enemies themselves. That is why I voted to support using our military might in Afghanistan to defeat the forces that attacked us on September 11. I believe we have to stay focused on that goal. No evidence that has been presented to me suggests a meaningful link between Iraq and the forces that attacked on September 11--at least not prior to our invasion. Iraq was not the inevitable next battleground in our fight against terrorism. It was a battlefield that the administration chose for its own reasons and now sees as the lead domino that will start the region on the path to peace and democracy.

Second, let us consider the assertion that the forces attacking Americans in Iraq do so precisely because they know we are onto something--they know that we are bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and therefore are striking a blow against terrorism.

What if they are attacking us simply because we are there, because we are present and vulnerable and easier to target in a climate of disorder and in the context of a population that regards foreign occupation, understandably, with some suspicion, even fearing that we want to install a client regime that will provide us ready access to the country's oil?

Disorder creates opportunity. Consider the lead of a recent Chicago Tribune article:

Smugglers on motorcycles ferry Arab insurgents across the

rugged desert from neighboring Iran, while former Iraqi army

officers guide anti-American Afghan veterans through

minefields left over from the Iran and Iraq war. Meanwhile,

militants disguised as Iranian merchants, religious pilgrims

and charity truck drivers bring in illicit drugs, weapons,

and explosives into Iraq to fuel the guerrilla campaign.

Of course, terrorist forces do not want us to succeed in Iraq. They do not particularly want us to succeed anywhere. And America should not and cannot hesitate to take the steps we need to protect our security against terrorist threats. But what I find so disturbing about this assertion is it seems to suggest that bad news somehow vindicates current policy--that if they attack our troops, we are getting it right, that the Middle East peace process breaks down because spoilers are threatened by the winds of democratic change blowing from Iraq.

Recently, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz explained away the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and a holy shrine in Najaf by asserting that ``Terrorists recognize that Iraq is on a course towards self-government that is irreversible and, once achieved, will be an example to all in the Muslim world . . . pointing a way out of the hopelessness that extremists feed on.''

In other words, what he is saying is, these attacks happen because we are on the right track.

This is a somewhat disturbing formula. Are we to interpret every new horror as an encouraging sign that we have it right, that we are really getting to the bad guys? If an increased terrorist presence and activity in Iraq

tells us we are on track, what will tell us we are off track?

Associated with this is a third idea--the assertion that fighting terrorists in Iraq means we will not have to fight them closer to home. I heard the President say a number of statements like this.

If only this were true. Do we really believe that somehow we can attract all the terrorists to Iraq, bring them all in there and then defeat them? Do we really believe there is a finite number of terrorists whom we can finish off by goading them into attacking us in Iraq? Do any of us believe that right now terror cells are not plotting and planning and operating elsewhere in the Middle East, in East Africa, in Southeast Asia, in central Asia? Global terrorist networks would be a great deal easier to deal with if they could be contained within some national boundaries, such as Iraq, clearly identified and engaged. But this is simply not the reality we confront today.

We have to be honest with ourselves about what is really accomplished in these skirmishes in Iraq in terms of the long-term security of the United States. Unquestionably, there is value in helping the people of Iraq take control of their own destiny. I am enthusiastic about helping the forces fighting for democracy and accountability and human rights around the world to triumph because I believe their success will create a more stable and just world for my children and my children's children to live in. And there are very real threats associated with allowing Iraq to become a failed state--the same kind of threats I have warned are associated with weak states elsewhere, including weak and failed states in sub-Saharan Africa.

To tell ourselves this is the central front of the fight against terrorism strikes me as more dangerous self-delusion, and we cannot afford to be anything less than clear and focused and relentless in fighting the forces that attacked this country on September 11.

That task is complex. It requires military strength, but military strength alone is not sufficient. It also requires international cooperation in sharing intelligence, disrupting terrorist communications, and planning and cutting off their access to financial resources. It requires international good will to sustain that kind of cooperation, and it requires a robust public diplomacy effort founded on respect and honesty so we can win the trust of those who fear we are hostile toward Islam and the Arab world.

We have a lot of work to do, both in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. This is as serious business as we will ever confront. Lives are on the line--the lives of Americans both in and out of uniform. Rather than relying on simplistic theories and constantly shifting justifications, we need to be honest about the threats we face and the means to overcome them.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure, which will likely pass the House and Senate by an overwhelming margin and in record speed. This bill makes it perfectly

clear that the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, has the authority to implement and enforce the Do Not Call program that until yesterday's court ruling was scheduled to go into effect on October 1. I am usually not in favor of quick legislative reaction to lower court decisions. We have an appellate process to determine if a lower court is mistaken, as this one surely was, and that process serves us well. However, this case is different, and I am pleased that this Congress is prepared to react so quickly and so decisively.

There is no doubt in my mind that the FTC has the authority to create the Do Not Call program. It is true that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, TCPA, passed in 1991, allowed the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, not the FTC, to create a national database of telephone numbers from Americans who wanted to avoid telephone solicitation. But in 1995, in the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, TCFAPA, Congress also directed the FTC to establish rules on telemarketing activities. The FCC and the FTC have jurisdiction over different telemarketers, so it makes sense that there is some overlapping authority.

The FTC initially promulgated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, TSR, which contained a variety of restrictions on telemarketing, such as prohibiting such calls between the hours of 9 pm and 8 am and requiring telemarketers to cease making calls to consumers who specifically request not to be contacted again. Complaints about telemarketing continued and in 2000, the FTC began a proceeding to consider revisions to the TSR. That led to the adoption of the national Do Not Call Registry. The FTC announced the final rule on December 18, 2002.

Just a few months ago, in March 2003, Congress passed and the President signed Do Not Call Implementation Act, DNCIA. That statute authorized the FTC to collect fees sufficient to create and administer the database. The Consolidated Appropriations Act passed a month earlier also authorized the FTC to collect fees for the enforcement and implementation of the program, estimated at $18.1 million for fiscal year 2003. With this history, it is as clear as day that Congress has at least ratified the FTC's view of its statutory authority to create the Do Not Call list. Simply put, the district court decision yesterday was wrong.

Mr. President, the public response and support for the Do Not Call program have been tremendous. Americans have voluntarily registered over 50 million phone numbers on the database. They have waited a long time for this measure to finally be implemented. Months ago, they began adding their phone numbers to the list with the expectation that on October 1, finally, the calls would stop. That is why we must act decisively to reverse the court decision. It adversely affects millions of people. It thwarts a good program that has received overwhelming public support and participation. And it ignores clear evidence of congressional authorization. Even the few months that it would take to reverse the decision, and I am convinced it ultimately would be reversed, would be too long. The time has come for the national Do Not Call program to go into effect, and for Americans to be able to eat dinner or watch TV with their families free of interruptions by telephone solicitors. I am proud to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer some comments on one of the most serious problems we face in this Nation--the severe erosion of our manufacturing base.

This crisis has been well documented, and the statistics are dismaying. According to the Economic Policy Institute, between January 1998 and August 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by three million, and manufacturing's share of total gross domestic product fell from 16.3 percent in 1998 to 13.9 percent in 2002. In my own State of Wisconsin, 77,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost just in the last 2\1/2\ years.

Of course, as shocking as those numbers are, they do not begin to convey the depth of the personal tragedies behind them. Millions of families have had their breadwinner thrown out of work, and entire communities have been ravaged. When the factory shuts down, everybody in town feels the impact. Across my home State of Wisconsin communities are trying to cope with this crisis on a daily basis. There are, no doubt, a number of reasons for this sudden loss of manufacturing jobs, but at the absolute center has been our appalling trade policy. The trade agreements into which we have entered have failed to protect our businesses and workers against unfair competition from overseas competitors. This failed trade policy was the result of an unholy alliance of leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties over the past decade and more. I opposed those trade agreements, and

until this country's trade policy is changed we will see more and more jobs shipped overseas.

We have seen this most clearly in the manufacturing jobs lost to China, but the problem is broader than just China. People have turned a blind eye to the impact of these trade agreements for too long. It is time for reality to set in here in Congress: These trade agreements have failed the American people. They have taken Americans' livelihoods and shipped them overseas. People in my State are left wondering who these trade agreements were for, if they weren't for America's workers? These men and women are the heart and soul of the economy in Wisconsin, and these agreements have taken their jobs out from under them.

The tool and die industry is one of the hardest-hit parts of the manufacturing sector in my State. In the town of Kewaskum, it was reported that the county board has taken the extraordinary step of making a loan to a local tool and die company to help it stay afloat in the face of competition with China. That is not typical for a county board, but it just goes to show how hard communities across Wisconsin, and across the country, are fighting to keep manufacturing businesses alive. These businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, and we turn our back on them every time we say yes to another one of these kinds of trade agreements.

Mr. President, no single policy can adequately address this problem. If we are to stop this hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs it will take a concerted effort on several fronts, and over the next few weeks I will come to the floor to discuss some of the steps I think we ought to take.

Today I want to very briefly discuss one, and that is tax policy. A number of my colleagues have advocated changing our Tax Code to help beleaguered domestic manufacturers. In the other body, Representatives Crane and Rangel have proposed legislation to help domestic manufacturers by providing them with a tax incentive to keep production here at home, and to encourage those runaway plants that left our shore to return. In our body, Senator Hollings has introduced the Senate companion to that proposal, S. 970, the Jobs Protection Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of that measure.

Under this bill, the new tax incentive for domestic manufacturers is offset by repealing the extraterritorial income provisions of the Tax Code. This offset means that the bill is paid for, and won't increase our already exploding budget deficit. I think that feature is essential to any measure we propose to spur economic growth for, as we know, budget deficits undermine long-term economic growth.

The repeal of the extraterritorial income provision deserves at least a brief comment. The foreign sales corporation tax benefit, and it successor, the extraterritorial income, ETI, tax subsidy, were challenged by the European Union before the World Trade Organization as illegal export subsidies, and the WTO ruled in favor of the EU.

I opposed the ETI provisions when they were before the Senate in the fall of 2000 in part because, as I noted at the time, I fully expected the WTO to rule against them, which would subject American firms and workers to a possible multibillion dollar tax on American products purchased in the EU.

I regret to say that we now face that very problem. If we fail to repeal the ETI provisions enacted in November of 2000, American firms and workers will bear the brunt of billions of dollars in trade sanctions.

This situation is a testament to the failed trade policy that has, in great part, led to the crisis we are seeking in American manufacturing. Our tax policy is being held hostage to the rulings of an international bureaucracy, making decisions largely in secret.

As I noted 3 years ago, while the ETI tax subsidy may be bad tax policy, it is our tax policy--a policy arrived at through the elected Representatives of the people of this Nation. The ability of some international bureaucracy to impose punitive taxes or tariffs on American goods should offend all of us. Unfortunately, that is what we face because of the action Congress took in 1994 to ratify the GATT. And unless we eliminate the ETI export tax subsidy, American firms and American workers are at risk.

Faced with that situation, the best possible choice is to take this opportunity to repeal the ETI tax subsidy and use the additional revenue raised by that repeal to help our domestic manufacturers, many of whom are directly impacted by the WTO's ruling against the ETI tax subsidy.

As I noted earlier, I have cosponsored legislation offered by Senator Hollings, and I was pleased to do so, but that bill certainly is not the only possible model, and I am willing to consider supporting other approaches so long as they are focused on domestic operations and are also fiscally responsible. I understand the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee are developing a measure that may fit the bill. I commend them for doing so, and look forward to reviewing their proposal. Our manufacturers are facing a crisis that is in great part the result of the policies promoted by our Government over the past several years. It is essential that we reform those policies to stop more jobs from being shipped overseas. But we must also take other steps to help American workers, and this sensible change to our Tax Code should be one of them.

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

Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today would provide sufficient funding from the underlying bill to enable the Secretary of the Interior to submit to Congress a report on the amount of goods acquired by that Department in fiscal year 2004 that were made overseas.

I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for working with me to include this important provision in the bill.

My amendment requires that this report include the following information: (a) the dollar value of any articles, materials, or supplies purchased that are manufactured outside of the United States; (b) an itemized list of all waivers of the Buy American Act granted with respect to such articles, materials, or supplies, and (c) a summary of total procurement funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States versus funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the United States.

The amendment also requires that these reports should be made publicly available on the Internet.

Current law requires that only the Department of Defense report annually on its use of waivers of domestic procurement laws. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to strengthen the Buy American Act of 1933, the statute that governs procurement by the Federal Government. The name of the act accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. One part of my bill would require that all Federal Departments and Agencies submit the annual reports that are currently required only of the Pentagon. The amendment that I am offering today is based on that provision in my bill. Recently, the Senate adopted a similar amendment that I offered to the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS-Education and energy and water appropriations bills.

The Buy American Act requires that the Federal Government support domestic businesses and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. The underlying bill expresses the sense of the Senate that goods and equipment purchased with the funds included in this bill should be American-made.

It only makes sense that Federal Departments and Agencies be required to report to Congress on their compliance with Federal law and with congressional intent regarding this important matter.

The Department of Labor reported recently that the United States economy lost 93,000 jobs in the month of August, including 44,000 manufacturing jobs. The stagnant economy and continued loss of high- paying manufacturing jobs underscore the need for the Federal Government to support American workers and businesses by buying American-made goods.

Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for agreeing to accept my amendment.

Mr. President, earlier this year, the Senate passed S. 3, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I opposed that bill and instead supported a constitutionally sound alternative offered by my colleague, Senator Durbin. The Durbin alternative would ban post-viability abortions unless the woman's life is a risk or the procedure is necessary to protect the woman from grievous injury to her physical health.

I understand that people on all sides of this issue hold sincere and strongly held views. I respect the deeply held views of those who oppose abortion under any circumstances. Like most Americans, I would prefer to live in a world where abortion is unnecessary. I support efforts to reduce the number of abortions through family planning and counseling to avoid unintended pregnancies. I have always believed that decisions in this area are best handled by the individuals involved, in consultation with their doctors and guided by their own beliefs and unique circumstances, rather than by Government mandates.

I support Roe v. Wade, which means that I agree that the Government can restrict abortions only when there is a compelling State interest at stake. I feel very strongly that Congress should seek to regulate abortions only within the constitutional parameters set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why I supported the inclusion of language in S. 3 reaffirming the Senate's commitment to Roe and its belief that Roe should not be overturned. The Senate had a straight up-or-down vote on the Harkin amendment, and a majority of the Senate agreed to support the Harking amendment.

The House was wrong to remove this language during its consideration of the bill. I sincerely hope that the final version of this bill that goes to the President's desk for his signature contains this important reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade.

Mr. President, I am speaking for.

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of S.J. Res. 17, the bipartisan resolution of disapproval which would overturn the Federal Communications Commission's new rules on broadcast media ownership. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure because I believe the FCC has acted in gross disregard of its mandate, of good public policy, and of the will of the American people.

When the public became aware that the Federal Communications Commission was considering new rules on media consolidation earlier this year, the explosion of concern was immediate, heartfelt, and unprecedented. Close to three-quarters of a million people registered their views with the FCC before it issued its decision, more than for any proceeding in its history. Public opinion was almost unanimous in opposition to further relaxation of media ownership restrictions.

So how did the FCC respond to this clear statement of the will of the people? With the back of its hand. Only one official public hearing was held. This was more than carelessness or bureaucratic inertia. This was simple disdain for the public in whose interest the FCC by statute is required to act.

Among the many letters I have received on this issue was one from Nicholas Dzubay, a Republican alderman on the city council of Barron, WI. Alderman Dzubay said his area's radio stations were suffocating under the control of a single corporation. He hopes we will not allow television and other broadcast media in his area to be monopolized in the same way.

I was also particularly struck by a letter from the Reverend Robert Stiefvater, the Vocations Director for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. He wrote:

I find it very difficult to get news into our local market

here in Southeastern Wisconsin. The FCC's June 2 decision to

radically weaken the remaining ownership rules will

unacceptably harm my ability, the Archdiocese's and its

community's ability to receive and distribute local

independent programming.

If any of us doubts the dangers of the road down which the FCC wants to send us, the story of American radio stands as a powerful warning. Unprecedented consolidation followed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but the real story is told over the airwaves. Radio does not sound like it used to. Like most of us in the Senate, I travel a lot, and wherever I go, radio stations sound more and more alike. Why? Because they are no longer programmed by local DJs but by executives at corporate headquarters hundreds of miles away.

As we begin to examine the issue of file-sharing, and look for ways to protect copyright owners and artists from infringement of the copyrights on works they struggled to create, we should keep in mind that there used to be a time when American young people heard new music on the radio, when they explored the variety of musical styles and genres by flipping channels. DJs used to make a name for themselves by playing new artists, or taking changes on records other DJs had overlooked. New local programmers do not have the freedom to deviate from the corporate playlist, and young people are turning off their radios and booting up file-sharing programs like Kazaa.

The homogenization of American radio is a grim predictor of the consequences of deregulation. If allowed to stand, the FCC rules will ravage the independence and character of other forms of media, from television to newspapers, the way radio has already been ravaged. This resolution is our chance to say no.

If this resolution of disapproval passes, I hope the FCC will finally understand how seriously we in Congress feel about this issue. I hope the FCC gets the message. They did not just make an honest mistake. They did not just misinterpret a complicated or ambiguous statute. They headed off in entirely the wrong direction. They ignored the will of the American people. That is why I will support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. President, I am pleased to submit legislation to establish some minimum standards for the trade agreements into which our Nation enters. This measure is a companion to H. Con. Res. 276, a resolution introduced in the other body by my colleague from Ohio, (Mr. Brown).

The record of the major trade agreements into which our Nation has entered over the past few years has been dismal. Thanks in great part to the flawed fast track rules that govern consideration of legislation implementing trade agreements, the United States has entered into a number of trade agreements that have contributed to the significant job loss we have seen in recent years, and have laid open to assault various laws and regulations established to protect workers, the environment, and our health and safety. Indeed, those agreements undermine the very democratic institutions through which we govern ourselves.

The loss of jobs, especially manufacturing jobs, to other countries has been devastating to Wisconsin, and to the entire country. When I opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China, and other flawed trade measures, I did so in great part because I believed they would lead to a significant loss of jobs. But even as an opponent of those agreements, I don't think I could have imagined just how bad things would get in so short a time.

The trade policy of this country over the past several years has been appalling. The trade agreements into which we have entered have contributed to the loss of key employers, ravaging entire communities. But despite that clear evidence, we continue to see trade agreements being reached that will only aggravate this problem.

This has to stop. We cannot afford to pursue trade policies that gut our manufacturing sector and send good jobs overseas. We cannot afford to undermine the protections we have established for workers, the environment, and our public health and safety. And we cannot afford to squander our democratic heritage by entering into trade agreements that supercede our right to govern ourselves through open, democratic institutions.

The legislation I submit today sets forth principles for future trade agreements. It is a break with the so-called NAFTA model, and instead advocates the kinds of sound trade policies that will spur economic growth and sustainable development.

The principles set forth in this resolution are not complex. They are straightforward and achievable. The resolution calls for enforceable worker protections, including the core International Labor Organization standards.

It preserves the ability of the United States to enact and enforce its own trade laws.

It protects foreign investors, but states that foreign investors should not be provided with greater rights than those provided under U.S. law, and it protects public interest laws from challenge by foreign investors in secret tribunals.

It ensures that food entering into our country meets domestic food safety standards.

It preserves the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to maintain essential public services and to regulate private sector services in the public interest.

It requires that trade agreements contain environmental provisions subject to the same enforcement as commercial provisions.

It preserves the right of Federal, State, and local governments to use procurement as a policy tool, including through Buy American laws, environmental laws such as recycled content, and purchasing preferences for small, minority, or women-owned businesses.

It requires that trade negotiations and the implementation of trade agreements be conducted openly.

These are sensible policies. They are entirely consistent with the goal of increased international commerce, and in fact they advance that goal.

The outgrowth of the major trade agreements I referenced earlier has been a race to the bottom in labor standards, environmental standards, health and safety standards, in nearly every aspect of our economy. A race to the bottom is a race in which even the winners lose.

We need to turn our trade policies around. We need to pursue trade agreements that will promote sustainable economic growth for our Nation and for our trading partners. The resolution I submit today will begin to put us on that path, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Andrew Ayers, a legal intern with my Judiciary Committee staff, during consideration of the debate on S. Res. 17.

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

Mr. President, the Department of Labor overtime proposal is the latest in a series of assaults on working Americans that began in the early days of this administration. Right out of the gate, the President made it his first legislative priority to overturn a Federal ergonomics standard that was more than 10 years in the making. I am also concerned about the approach this administration has taken on the collective bargaining process through its use of the Railway Labor Act and the Taft-Hartley Act. We have also seen the reintroduction in Congress of so-called ``family friendly'' workplace bills that we all know really seek to rob working families of vital overtime pay.

In March of this year, the Department of Labor proposed a regulation that builds upon these efforts to tear down worker protections by denying millions of Americans vital overtime pay. This proposed rule would change the three tests that must be met to declare a worker exempt from the wage and hour protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, thus opening the door to denial of overtime benefits to more than 8 million workers who currently are entitled to this extra pay for working more than 40 hours per week.

Under current law, a worker must meet each of three tests to be declared exempt from overtime protections. First, workers earning less than a certain level each week cannot be exempted. Second, workers must be paid a set salary, not an hourly rate, in order to be exempt. Finally, only workers whose job responsibilities are primarily classified as administrative, professional, or executive can be exempt from overtime protections. The proposed rule would reduce the educational levels required to be classified as a professional or administrative employee, thus allowing employers to substitute as little as 2 years of work experience for education when considering whether an employee should be entitled to overtime protections.

I am deeply concerned that the administration continues to characterize these changes to overtime protections as ``small'' or ``insignificant.'' During an August 31 interview with National Public Radio, the Secretary of Labor said of the proposed rule, ``it's not an overtime regulation. We have many, many overtime regulations. This is not one of the major ones. This is a small part of the Fair Labor Standards Act that pertains to white collar workers. So it's got nothing to do with blue collar workers.''

The wage and hour protections of the FLSA are intended to protect all workers from being forced to work excessive hours without additional compensation. The Secretary's attempt to differentiate between white collar and blue collar workers in such a way as to imply that only blue collar workers are protected by the FLSA is troubling.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, EPI:

The revised regulations--would dramatically increase the

number of workers whose jobs are classified as professional,

administrative, or executive and therefore ineligible for

overtime pay. The blurring of the lines between managerial

and hourly staff, coupled with a downgrading of the

educational standards required to exempt employees from

overtime pay, will give employers a powerful incentive to

switch millions of workers from hourly to salaried status in

order to reap the benefit of a newly created pool of unpaid

overtime hours.

In essence, this rule would create a larger force of employees who can be required to work longer hours for less pay. This could also mean fewer opportunities for paid overtime for the workers who would remain eligible for it.

The administration has claimed that they are trying simply to update and clarify the FLSA as it applies to white collar employees. According to the Secretary:

``[W]hat we are trying to do is clarify a regulation that

has not been modernized in well over 50 years. And the

ambiguity in the regulation is impeding the Department's

ability to enforce the law so that we cannot protect workers

who need protection. So what we are trying to do is to

guarantee vulnerable, low-wage workers the overtime that they

deserve, and we also want to provide clarity so that business

people know what they're supposed to be doing.

It seems to me that the FLSA is abundantly clear: if a worker who is covered by the act works more than 40 hours per week, he or she is entitled to time-and-a-half pay for each extra hour worked.

According to the EPI, the administration's proposed changes go far beyond simple clarifications. ``It is troubling that such dramatic losses in overtime protection are being proposed as a means of bringing clarity to the regulations and reducing litigation. As [our report] has shown--the proposed rule is rife with ambiguity and new terms--that will spawn new litigation.''

The Secretary's contention that the FLSA has not been updated in 50 years is just plain false. Congress has amended and revised the FLSA numerous times since its enactment in 1938, most recently just 3 years ago. I regret that this administration continues to characterize Federal labor protections as ``outdated'' and claims that it seeks to ``update'' them for the new century, when, in fact, many of its proposals would roll back protections for workers around the country.

Who are the 8 million workers who will be affected by this proposed rule change? According to EPI, 257 ``white collar'' occupational groups could be impacted. EPI did a detailed analysis of the effect of this rule on 78 of those occupational groups and found that 2.5 million salaried employees and 5.5 million hourly workers would lose their overtime protections under the proposed rule. And that is less than half of the occupational groups that would be covered by this rule change.

By broadening the FLSA wage and hour exemptions, the Department of Labor is seeking to deny overtime benefits to a wide range of workers, including police officers, firefighters, and other first responders, nurses and other health care workers, postmasters, preschool teachers, and social workers, just to name a few.

I am deeply troubled that the administration would propose a rule that would deny overtime benefits to the people who put their lives on the line each and every day to protect our communities and those who work in health care professions, which, of course, as we know, already are facing severe staffing shortages. I am also disappointed that the Office of Management and Budget issued a ``Statement of Administration Policy'' document on this bill that states that the President's advisers would recommend that he veto this important appropriations bill if the Harkin amendment is adopted. I think it is irresponsible to threaten to veto a bill that includes crucial funding for labor, health, and education programs because the administration, apparently, is digging in its heels about a proposal that would deny millions of Americans overtime pay. I regret that this administration is so determined to undermine labor protections for American workers that it would actually threaten to deny funding for schools, health care, job training, and other programs that it regularly claims are a priority.

I urge my colleagues to support working families by supporting the Harkin amendment.

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