Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are at a crossroads in the 3-year-old conflict raging in Sudan's Darfur region. Last week's Security Council Resolution 1706, authorizing a United Nations peacekeeping force for Darfur, represents the culmination of persistent advocacy for a robust international intervention and offers the resources and mandate necessary to bring an end to violence which has already taken more than 200,000 lives and forced an estimated 2.5 million Darfurians from their homes.

Unfortunately, the Government of Sudan has rejected the U.N.'s plan and is actively undermining peace efforts while exacerbating the humanitarian situation. The Sudanese Government's behavior increasingly violates both international law and the terms of the Peace Agreement it signed in May.

If the Sudanese Government remains on its current trajectory, disaster--perhaps on the scale of the 1994 Rwandan genocide--is imminent. The current 7,000-member African Union Mission in Sudan, which has been struggling valiantly to protect innocent civilians for 2 years, is set to withdraw at the end of this month. If it is not replaced by a U.N. force at that time or given an extended and expanded mandate, a power vacuum will result that many agree would lead to a resurgence in violence from all sides.

Already, the future of the peace process is at risk and increasing insecurity are leading humanitarian aid organizations to retreat from the areas where their services are needed most. More than a dozen aid workers have been murdered since the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed in May.

It is time for the United States and the international community to use all means of influence at their disposal to ensure that U.N. Resolution 1706 is implemented. In contrast to the small African Union contingent, which is severely limited in both what it is able and allowed to do, the recently-authorized United Nations force would include up to 22,500 U.N. troops and police officers and an immediate injection of air, engineering, and communication support for the African Union force. The resolution, passed unanimously by the Security Council on August 31, also gives the U.N. peacekeepers power to take all necessary measures to protect humanitarian aid workers and civilian populations.

In an affront to international law and the international community, Sudan's envoys refused to attend last week's United Nations meetings and the Government has rejected the introduction of a U.N. peacekeeping force, likening it to ``western colonization.'' Most recently, the Government has issued an ultimatum to the African Union, demanding that it refrain from incorporating U.N. reinforcements or withdraw its peacekeepers from the country. The Sudanese Government insists that it will defeat rebel groups in Darfur on its own and has announced intentions to move more than 10,000 troops to the region. In effect, this amounts to sending the same soldiers who displaced Darfur's refugees to protect them.

Over the past week, there has been a military buildup in Darfur, with witnesses reporting an influx of Sudanese military equipment and troops, which is in direct violation of May's Darfur Peace Agreement. In fact, while the Security Council was debating how to end the violence in Darfur, the Sudanese military was indiscriminately bombing rebel-held villages. Firsthand sources report flight crews rolling bombs off plane ramps, a tactic often practiced by Government forces in their 21-year civil war to devastate whole areas of southern Sudan, with nightmarish consequences for civilians.

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground is deteriorating rapidly. The more than 2 million refugees in Darfur and neighboring Chad--two thirds of them children--are particularly susceptible to malaria, diarrhea, and other health problems and live in fear of forced recruitment by rebel fighters or bomb attacks by the military. This current escalation in instability seriously impedes the mobility of humanitarian organizations, preventing them from reaching civilians in Sudan's most dangerous areas. The World Food Program reports that its existing food rations--upon which some 6 million Sudanese rely--will run out in January, adding another dimension of desperation.

In unanimously passing Resolution 1706, the international community has delivered a clear message to the Government in Khartoum that it needs to abide by international law and its own commitments. Last- minute changes the recent resolution included a reaffirmation of the sovereignty and ``territorial integrity of Sudan'' and the first paragraph of the resolution invites the Sudanese Government to consent to the deployment of a U.N. force, but such consent is not required by international law or the text of the resolution. Additionally, the U.N. Resolution threatens sanctions for any individual or group that violates human rights or the Darfur Peace Agreement.

At this critical juncture, the Government of Sudan must fulfill its obligation to relieve the suffering of its citizens by working with the United Nations to agree upon a robust, coordinated force to end the violence in Darfur. It is essential that the international community displays steadfast solidarity in insisting upon the implementation of United Nations Resolution 1706 and provides the troops and resources necessary to follow through on its commitment. The implications of allowing another genocide to take place in Africa could lead to a complete collapse in the U.N.'s authority and the deterioration of international law.

In conclusion, I am deeply troubled by recent developments regarding Sudan. The international community has asserted its determination to bring

an end to the violence in Darfur. Now we need to act upon these intentions and pressure the Government of Sudan to cooperate in efforts to improve prospects for peace throughout Sudan and the greater east Africa region.

Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to vote on the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007, I want to thank all of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines for their hard work in the ongoing fight against terrorism, in Iraq, in response to natural disasters here at home, and in the many other missions to which they have been assigned around the world. These dedicated men and women, along with their families, are making great sacrifices in service to our country. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the members of the United States Armed Forces for their selfless service.

I am pleased that the Senate is about to pass the Defense Department appropriations bill. While I continue to have grave concerns about the misguided strategy this administration is pursuing in Iraq, the Senate bill includes funds for many important programs and priorities for our servicemen and women. In particular, the bill includes a well-deserved, although modest, 2.2 percent across-the-board pay raise for our military personnel. It also increases funding for vital equipment for those in uniform facing daily dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also pleased to support a number of good

provisions in this bill that seek to ensure that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their duties on the ground, including increased funding for body armor and personal protection equipment, as well as additional funding for up-armored humvees.

I am also pleased to support increased funds for the National Guard and Reserve, including an additional $340 million for force protection equipment. This bill includes critical funding that will help the National Guard repair its equipment and reinstate a superior readiness level so that it is capable of defending our country and responding to natural disasters within the continental United States.

While I strongly support increased funding for the National Guard, and for border security, I opposed Senator Sessions' amendment to appropriate nearly $2 billion to the Army National Guard solely to build hundreds of miles of fencing along the southern border. I did so because it is difficult to justify pouring massive Federal dollars into efforts that have not been shown to be effective. We must improve border security but we simply do not have the data to show that border fences are an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. For that reason, I opposed the authorization of this fencing when it was proposed as an amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, and I opposed appropriating the funds for it in this appropriations bill.

The better approach would be to first implement another provision of S. 2611 that directs the Attorney General, in cooperation with other executive branch officials, to conduct a study on this question. The study would analyze the construction of a system of physical barriers along the southern international land and maritime border, including the necessity, feasibility, and impact of such barriers on the surrounding area. It is estimated that construction costs for these border fences is more than $1 million per mile. And that doesn't include the cost of maintaining these structures. Furthermore, there are very serious concerns about the environmental impact this type of massive construction project would have. Before we commit to pouring precious Federal dollars into a massive fencing system, at the very least we should do a thorough analysis of the most effective and fiscally responsible means of securing our borders against illegal transit.

While I support much of the funding for intelligence activities contained in the bill, I am deeply concerned at the failure of this Congress to pass an intelligence authorization bill. Congressional oversight of intelligence has never been more important. Strengthening our Nation's intelligence capabilities after the attacks of September 11 requires the involvement of Congress, which is why the 9/11 Commission described strengthened oversight as one of its most important recommendations. The disastrous failures of intelligence related to Iraq, both by the intelligence community and by the administration, further highlight the importance of thorough congressional scrutiny. Recently revealed programs such as the NSA's illegal warrantless wiretapping and secret CIA detention facilities, are among the intelligence activities that the congressional intelligence committees must examine. Thirty years after the Senate Intelligence Committee was created in the aftermath of well-documented abuses, we need to ensure that Congress does not abdicate its important oversight responsibilities.

While I do support many of the provisions in this bill, I am deeply disappointed that the bill fails to put our Iraq policy on a better footing. My vote for this bill in no way signals support for that policy, which is hurting our national security. The war in Iraq is having a negative--and dramatic--effect on our military's capability and readiness levels. Because of the heavy usage of military equipment in Iraq, the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat-ready, and it will be no easy task getting our physical capacity back up to full strength. The costs we are incurring in Iraq are devastating and they are not advancing our national interests particularly when they are undermining our military's capacity to defeat the terrorist networks that attacked us on 9/11. I will continue to call for the redeployment of our forces from Iraq so that our military remains strong and so that our country can refocus on fighting the terrorist networks that attacked us on 9/11.

Unfortunately this spending bill contains many unnecessary items. The administration continues to request large amounts for Iraq and Afghanistan through ``additional'' or ``emergency supplemental'' appropriations not subject to limits on total discretionary Federal spending and not subject to the full congressional authorization and appropriations review process. I continue to be deeply concerned about this administration's priorities and about the process by which we consider the Department of Defense authorization and appropriations bills, a concern I voice every year at this time. However, on balance, this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform who serve our country selflessly around the world. That is why I support it.

Mr. President, as the international community deploys an international peacekeeping force to southern Lebanon and as Lebanon and Israel begin rebuilding after the recent conflict, it has become clear that a long-term solution to this conflict will not come about unless the Lebanese Government is strengthened and has the ability and the will to improve the daily lives of its citizens--thereby eliminating the conditions that have allowed Hezbollah to exploit and expand its influence throughout the country. Israel's security depends on it, and a lasting peace throughout the region won't occur without it.

While it is still fragile, the cessation of hostilities presents an opportunity for the Lebanese people, with support from the international community, to eliminate terrorism and to cast off the detrimental influence that Iran and Syria have had throughout their country for years. It is also an opportunity to address the significant threats that have plagued Israel for decades.

Still, my optimism is guarded. Unless the deployment of a U.N. force to patrol southern Lebanon is part of a broader international effort to root out Hezbollah and address the underlying causes of the conflict, we cannot expect Israel to feel more secure than it did prior to Hezbollah's recent aggressions, nor can we expect that any broader, long-term peace process will be pursued. Israel has every right to remain wary of the current international effort unless its security concerns are addressed and Lebanon can become a permanent--and capable--partner in establishing long-term peace in the region.

One of the most important elements of establishing peace is initiating reconstruction efforts throughout southern Lebanon immediately. Unfortunately, the Lebanese Government--and thus the international community--is already losing to Hezbollah in the race to show legitimacy and strength. It is an ominous sign that Hezbollah is ahead of Lebanese and internationally led reconstruction efforts and has been responsive to local needs. This is in contrast to an international donor community that has yet to establish the mechanisms and partnerships on the ground to get reconstruction efforts moving. In addition, the Lebanese Government is looking weak and out of touch, struggling to develop coordinated strategies for reconstruction and security. If this continues, it will have very real security implications for Israel, Lebanon, and the region, and will make the work of the U.N. force relatively useless. This is not in the interest of Israel, Lebanon, or the international community.

Mr. President, as troop-contributing nations begin their deployments to support the U.N. force, an equal amount of attention needs to be paid to longer term efforts to bolster the Lebanese Government's capacity to deliver services and to kick-start the Lebanese economy. As I mentioned, coordinated--and rapid--reconstruction efforts will help. But so, too, will support for the Government, its institutions, and its role in Lebanese society. In addition, and as experts have suggested in recent weeks, sufficient--and significant--attention needs to be given to enhancing the ability of the Lebanese military and police forces to do their jobs. The military and police forces need outside help. They need training, equipment, and supplies if they are going to be able to project the authority of the central Government in a professional way. Lebanon's democratic institutions need help; so, too, do civil society groups and private enterprises that can provide services to the Lebanese people quickly and that can increase demand for functioning, responsive, and transparent democratic institutions. Without this support for the army and police, stability will be elusive, and Israel will have every right to remain nervous about the role that Hezbollah will play in southern Lebanon and about the influence that Iran and Syria will have throughout the country.

Finally, the U.S. Government must devote greater attention and resources to this issue. We have already seen the results of this administration's passive approach: hesitant international partners, lagging reconstruction efforts, and a shaky framework for ensuring that Israel's security concerns are addressed. If we are to contribute positively to a sustainable ceasefire and to setting the conditions within which Israel and Lebanon can become secure, a senior U.S. envoy must be deployed to help manage the implementation of U.N. Resolution 1701, assist with donor reconstruction efforts, build support for the Lebanese Government, influence important regional actors, and begin setting the conditions for a transition to a broader peace process throughout the region that will bring an end to this violence and instability.

One of the most pressing and important tasks for a U.S. envoy will be working with the international community to end the pernicious influence that Iran and Syria continue to exert over Lebanon. Until that influence is ended and the Lebanese people are allowed to assert their own sovereignty, the prospects for a long-term peace will be shaky at best.

Mr. President, we have an opportunity to eliminate a terrorist organization that has terrorized Israel for too

long. It has exploited a weak Lebanese Government and has used the facade of public service and charity work to buy favor amongst the people of southern Lebanon. Efforts now must be focused on helping to create the conditions within which the Lebanese Government can build the legitimacy and capacity it will need to establish peace within its borders. This will make Israel safer and will contribute to longer term peace efforts throughout the region. That won't happen unless the international community, led by the United States, helps create the conditions within which the Lebanese Government can do its job.

Mr. President, the African Union is essential to the political and economic development of Africa's diverse community of States. It has become clear that the AU represents a real commitment by its members to establishing a forum for political dialogue and to address the challenges and seize opportunities that are arising throughout the continent.

The AU plays three very specific roles that I will highlight as we consider the nomination of the United States' first ambassador and as we renew our efforts to strengthen our relationship with the AU.

The AU is primed to serve as the primary forum for establishing peace and preventing conflict throughout the continent. I applaud the efforts of the leaders of the AU to establish a true capacity to prevent and end conflict that has devastated many parts of the continent for too long. The creation of the Peace and Security Council, PSC, within the AU is particularly valuable, and I hope this organ within the AU develops sufficient capacity to deal with the full range of conflict throughout the continent. It is essential that the PSC complete its work in developing a series of early warning systems and indicators so that it can be effective in preventing conflict. It also must develop a real capacity to respond to conflict should one occur. The Panel of the Wise, too, is an important source of moral authority and opportunity for prominent African leaders to engage in country-specific conflicts without sacrificing neutrality or threatening the sovereignty of a nation.

As we have learned from recent years in places such as Sudan and Somalia, it is critical that there be a way to identify, understand, and respond to the conditions that breed instability. The United States should support this conflict prevention and resolution capacity and work closely with the AU to identify weaknesses or shortfalls that exist in maximizing the AU's ability to fulfill these important functions.

The United States must also support the AU's efforts to establish an African Standby Force that can participate in peace operations, intervention, and conflict monitoring. The AU and its members have proven a willingness and commitment to contributing military forces to AU-flagged missions throughout the continent. AU forces are operational in Darfur and in Burundi and have proven that they are willing to take on challenging assignments in nonpermissive environments. Unfortunately, the AU still does not have the capacity to fully implement the vision for the African Standby Force, nor to effectively complete its mission in Darfur. The United States should assist the AU in developing a professional, deployment-ready standby force that can respond to conflict and that can participate in interventions to establish peace in areas already facing conflict. We must continue our efforts to help African militaries develop their capacity, while also urging the importance of the respect for human rights, civilian leadership, and fighting corruption.

Finally, the AU is playing an increasingly important role in defeating terrorist networks throughout the African continent. As terrorist networks exploit undergoverned or unstable areas throughout Africa, the AU can play an important role in helping member States develop internal capacity to defeat the conditions that allow terrorists to take root. The AU also can strengthen member-State networks to share information, best practices, and even capacity as it relates to understanding, and ultimately defeating, terrorist networks. The African Center for the Study and Research on Terrorism, ACSRT, a joint AU Commission/PSC structure, was launched in 2004 but lacks sufficient capacity to carry out its broad mission. It is a good first step, but it will need assistance from the United States, the European Union, and other members of the international community. Establishing this capacity must also be a priority for the AU's member states.

There are a range of other challenges facing the AU, and there is no doubt a long list of priorities to be addressed. And while the United States has and will continue to support a range of AU efforts, it is essential that the U.S. Government structure its assistance to the AU to help empower it as an organization, support its priorities, and help to develop an internal capacity to plan for its growth and role in the coming years. I hope that the fact that we are sending our first ambassador to the AU will represent a heightened level of engagement with the AU and a renewed commitment to helping the AU, its member states, and the people of the African continent address the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering the Defense Department appropriations bill. As many of my colleagues have noted, this bill provides essential funding for the men and women in uniform who are serving bravely around the world. It provides a well-deserved 2.2 percent across-the-board pay raise for our military personnel, along with funding money to help equip and resupply our military, which has been strained to the breaking point by the war in Iraq.

Before I discuss what I believe are the broader implications of this bill, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the men and women in uniform and their families, who are bearing the heaviest burden of our Nation's military operations around the world. The brave men and women who make up our military are serving in desolate, harsh, and too often deadly conditions throughout the world, and their professionalism, dedication, and honor are appreciated by all of us in this body.

I specifically commend the men and women of Wisconsin who are currently serving, or have served, in the military. Wisconsin has lost 58 of its sons and daughters in Iraq, and 4 in Afghanistan. I am proud of the service and accomplishments of the citizens of my State and am grateful for their contributions to our country.

The greatest tribute we could pay to the men and women of the Armed Forces, however, would be to create a national security policy that addresses the most serious threats to our country, and that makes all of us more secure. Unfortunately, the administration has failed to provide such a policy--in fact, its Iraq policy has actually undermined our national security--and this appropriations bill fails to put things right. While this bill provides necessary and valuable support for our military and their families, this bill does not address the fundamental fact that members of the military are being asked to put their lives on the line in Iraq for a policy that has not succeeded, has very little chance of succeeding, and does not appear to have any end in sight. And let's not forget that the American taxpayer is footing the enormous and growing bill for this unsuccessful policy.

Much of the funding in the bill is associated with the fallout of this administration's failed policy in Iraq, and with a military that has been strained by the current pace of operations in Iraq, to the point where it has a diminished readiness level to respond to other crises. And we have no shortage of other potential crises these days.

For anyone following developments in Iraq, it is abundantly clear that this administration is pursuing a flawed and damaging strategy there. It is clear that the presence of 130,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq is not contributing to political stability in Iraq or quelling sectarian violence; that the administration has failed to articulate a policy or strategy for establishing long-term stability in Iraq; and that

the administration failed to take into account what an unending and devastating commitment in Iraq could do to our military capability and to our national security.

Sectarian violence is on the rise. Security is not getting better in Iraq. The United Nations has reported that an average of 100 civilians were killed per day in June. The U.N. just released a report suggesting that over 6,000 civilians have died over the past 2 months. And the administration seems unable to settle on an appropriate strategy to address these worsening conditions. Just 2 months ago General Casey came to Washington to discuss the significant drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. Now, just a few weeks later, troop deployments are being extended beyond a year, and we are no closer to helping Iraqis establish stability in their country than we were over a year ago.

It is clear that our current approach in Iraq is not going to establish stability in Iraq. We need a new strategy--a political and economic strategy--that will help establish long-term stability in Iraq. Perpetuating the massive presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is not the answer. We need a new strategy in Iraq so that we can repair our military and strengthen our national security. Anything short of a change in course will ensure more of the same.

It is also clear that the war in Iraq is having a negative--and dramatic--effect on our military's capability and readiness levels. Because of the heavy usage of military equipment in Iraq, the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat-ready, and it will be no easy task getting our physical capacity back up to full strength.

While I applaud the efforts of Senators Dodd and Reed of Rhode Island to include in this bill sufficient ``reset'' funds for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, I think it is imperative to remember that this is a war of choice. This is a war that this administration designed and pressed on the American people as ``urgent.'' This is a war that was based on false pretenses, launched with poor planning, and implemented without any concept whatsoever of how significant the drain on our national resources would be. This is a war that the administration chose the ``time and place'' for but that now cannot seem to end. And now, after years, it is apparent that stability cannot be won militarily. The costs we are incurring in Iraq are devastating, they are endless, and they are not advancing our national interests-- particularly when our military is losing its capacity to respond to future threats globally and to defend our country from the terrorist networks that attacked us on 9/11.

I would like to quote the Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker, who testified in front of the House in June. He painted a dire picture of our military's equipment in Iraq:

This sustained strategic demand has placed a tremendous

strain on the Army's people and equipment which have been

employed in the harsh operating environments of Iraq and

Afghanistan. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example, crews

are driving tanks in excess of 4,000 miles a year--five times

more than the programmed annual usage rate of 800 miles. Army

helicopters are experiencing usage rates roughly two to three

times programmed rates. Our truck fleet is experiencing some

of the most pronounced problems of excessive wear, operating

at five to six times programmed rates.

This testimony highlights not only the physical strain that military operations in Iraq are having on our military capability but also the strain on our readiness to deal with the serious threats to our national security around the world. We were ill prepared for our operations in Iraq, and now Iraq is making us ill prepared to respond to other crises.

Lieutenant General Blum, head of the National Guard, also painted a dire picture yesterday when he noted that three-quarters of the National Guard are not ready for combat. A significant portion of our Special Forces personnel are deployed to Iraq, and there is no doubt about the draining effect that operations in Iraq are having on the rest of our government.

This is a major concern. While this bill includes some important funds to help restore readiness levels, we are not addressing the root causes of what is placing such a strain and limitation on our military.

With that said, I would like to shift to the very work-- reconstruction--that was originally designed to help develop a sound political and economic infrastructure in Iraq and, as the administration has consistently repeated, help set the ``conditions for success.'' Unfortunately, there isn't much to report.

Reconstruction efforts in Iraq are troubled. The SIGIR released a new quarterly report this week on U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and it is clear that, after billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent, major obstacles remain. SIGIR has concluded that large unforeseen security costs, massive corruption within the Iraqi Government, administrative overhead, and waste have crippled original reconstruction strategies and have prevented the completion of up to half of the work originally called for in critical sectors such as water, power, and electricity.

It is also troubling that the recent SIGIR report suggests that there still is no strategy for transitioning the responsibility for reconstruction efforts in Iraq from the United States to the Iraqi Government. Reconstruction efforts in Iraq have been dominated for more than 3 years by U.S. funding and companies, and now as it comes time to transfer the responsibility and management of reconstruction efforts to the Iraqis, it has become clear that Iraqis don't have the capacity to complete the many projects left unfinished.

Most troubling, in my mind, is the fact that the GAO has recently reported that there does not currently exist a strategy that links reconstruction efforts to broader political and strategic goals in Iraq. I am not sure how we will achieve any goals in Iraq if we don't have a sense of how reconstruction efforts, political efforts, and security efforts fit together. Given that stability in Iraq will only come through political and economic progress, it is troubling to know that no strategy exists to link any of this together.

While this bill doesn't address reconstruction funding, it is clear that unless there is a comprehensive strategy to bring these efforts together, security conditions in Iraq won't get better. This has a direct impact on the troops currently in Iraq, which in turn has a direct impact on our national security.

Mr. President, our ongoing military presence in Iraq is hurting our national security. It is putting a tremendous strain on our military itself and it is limiting our capacity to deal with other crises around the world, including Lebanon, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

We need a drastic change of course in Iraq. We need to redeploy our troops so that we can focus on these very real threats to our national security, and on al-Qaida and its allies. We need a strong military, and we also need a strong national security strategy that honors the men and women in uniform who serve our country selflessly around the world.

Mr. President, I will vote against the Pension Protection Act. While there are many constructive provisions in the bill, the package is deeply flawed in at least two respects. First, it will add to our already massive government debt. Thanks in large part to the expensive tax provisions that were added, the legislation will add another $66 billion over the next 10 years to the already massive debt with which we are burdening our children and grandchildren. To add insult to that injury, most of that cost stems from savings incentive provisions that overwhelmingly benefit those who least need it. The provisions that raise the contribution limits on tax-preferred savings accounts benefit only 1 in 16 households, and only 1 in 100 households with incomes under $50,000. If we want to encourage more savings, and we should, there are far better ways to do it.

The second matter that raises significant concerns is the so-called red zone

provision which permits pension plans to cut the vested pension benefits of workers. Allowing a worker's vested benefits to be cut is unprecedented and grossly unfair. If workers are told that they may take early retirement at a certain level of earned pension, that promise should not be broken. But under this bill, the financial future on which some families were planning can now come crashing down on them. Retirement benefits which were promised to them and on which they were relying may now be taken away. And make no mistake; if Congress permits earned benefits to be taken, they will be taken.

There is a clear need for pension reform, and many of the provisions in this bill make sense. But I cannot vote for a measure that is so irresponsible for the fiscal future of our Nation and the personal economies of thousands of workers who will soon retire.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the memory of Leon Epstein, someone who contributed a great deal to the University of Wisconsin and the study of political science, and someone I was proud to know.

Leon, who passed away on Tuesday, was a native Wisconsinite who gave back to our State through his dedicated work both as a scholar and an administrator at UW. Born in 1919 in Beaver Dam, he went on to study at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he earned a B.A. and then an M.A. in economics. He then spent virtually his entire academic career on the Madison campus, where for 40 years he was a beloved fixture in the political science department--a department from which I was proud to graduate. He made an impact on countless students as he taught introductory courses and supervised doctoral dissertations for four decades.

Throughout his life, Leon remained dedicated to his own research and independent work. He received many prestigious fellowship grants and published six books. He was widely recognized for his book ``Political Parties in Western Democracies,'' which received the first book award from the Political Organizations and Parties Section of the American Political Science Association. He also served as president of the Midwest Political Science Association, the British Politics Group, and the American Political Science Association.

Leon also held the position of dean of the College of Letters and Science from 1965 to 1969. In every capacity, Leon earned the respect and friendship of those with whom he worked. He was someone I admired, both for who he was and for the many outstanding contributions he made to the study of political science. He leaves behind a great legacy. People will study his work for many years to come. And those of us who knew him will remember a man of tremendous character who gave so much to a university and a State that he loved. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of 46 million people in the United States, and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the No. 1 issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the No. 1 issue for tens of millions of Americans. Nevertheless, the issue has been largely ignored in the Halls of Congress. We sit idle, locked in a stalemate, refusing to give this life-threatening problem its due attention. We need a way to break that deadlock, and today I am introducing a bill that will do just that--the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

I believe that health care is a fundamental right, and every American should have guaranteed health care coverage. My bill seeks to move us toward that goal in a way that I hope will be acceptable to many of my colleagues.

Every day, all over our Nation, Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even change they way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical discomfort. These 46 million Americans bear the additional burden of wondering where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health care needs. When illness strikes families, the last thing they should have to think about is money, but I know that for many in our country, this is a persistent burden that causes stress and hopelessness.

It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. Forty-seven percent of the uninsured avoided seeking care in 2003 due to the cost. Thirty-five percent needed care but did not get it. Thirty-seven percent did not fill a prescription because of cost. The uninsured are seven times more likely to seek care in an emergency room. They are less likely to receive preventative care because they cannot afford to see the doctor, and they are more likely to die as a result. Each year, at least 18,000 people die prematurely in this country because of uninsurance. If the uninsured

had access to continuous health coverage, a reduction in mortality of 5 percent to 15 percent could be achieved.

Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. More and more, employers offer sub-par benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation.

I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold townhall meetings. Almost every year, the No. 1 issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These people used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in.

Our country can do better, and it will.

Last year, I was pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on health care reform. It requires Congress to take up and debate universal health care bills within the first 90 days of the session following enactment of the bill. This bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated--it simply requires Congress to act.

Today, I am here to build on the proposal from last year. I am introducing the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot project to provide States with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement; it just provides an incentive for action, provided the States meet certain minimum coverage and low-income requirements.

Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we should change the health care system in this country. Some propose using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a national single payer health care system is the only way to go. I have my own preferences, but I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system.

As a former State legislator, I come to this debate appreciating the role that States are playing in coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health care problem. We are already seeing States move ahead of the Federal Government on covering the uninsured. Massachusetts recently passed into law a plan to require health insurance for all residents, and State legislators in my home State of Wisconsin, as well as Vermont, Maine, and California, are working to expand health insurance coverage in their States. The Federal Government should be encouraging these innovative initiatives, and my bill provides the mechanism for this goal to be realized.

This legislation harnesses the talent and ingenuity of Americans to come up with new solutions. This approach takes advantage of America's greatest resources--the mind power and creativity of the American people--to move our country toward the goal of a working health care system with universal coverage. With help from the Federal Government, States will be able to try new ways of covering all their residents, and our political logjam around health care will begin to loosen.

Under my proposal, States can be creative in the State resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State can use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to the approval of the newly created Health Care Reform Task Force, which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This task force will be responsible for choosing viable State projects and ensuring that the projects are effective. The Task Force will also help the States develop projects, and will continue a dialog with the States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and Federal Governments.

The task force is also charged with making sure that the State plans meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act bases affordability on income.

Another provision in this legislation requires that the States contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. States that can afford to provide more are encouraged to, but in order to ensure the financial viability of the bill and to ensure State buy- in, this matching requirement provides a starting point. Other than these requirements, the States largely have flexibility to design a plan that works best for their respective residents. The possibilities for reform are wide open.

One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The bill doesn't avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be made if we are going to pay for health care reform.

One of the offsets in the bill was proposed by the Congressional Budget Office: an increase in the flat rebate paid by drug manufacturers for Medicaid prescription drugs. Currently, Medicaid recoups a portion of its drug spending through a rebate paid by the manufacturer. The savings mechanism would set a flat rebate, and provide funding for the States' health care reform projects.

Additional funding for the bill comes from the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to auction the radio spectrum and the authority of Customs and Border Protection to collect multiple different conveyance and passenger user fees through fiscal year 2016. My bill proposes similar extensions of these established authorities. Also, my bill proposes to both simplify and reduce the federal subsidy of airline passenger screening costs by replacing the current variable fee, which is capped at five dollars per one-way trip, with a flat five dollar fee. This proposal is similar to one in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget and would decrease federal subsidies to about thirty percent of passenger security costs, without reducing aviation security spending.

I also pay for this bill with an offset modeled on legislation introduced in the House by my good friend and fellow Wisconsinite Tom Petri and in the Senate by the senior Senator from Massachusetts that seeks to save money by encouraging higher education institutions to shift from private lenders to the direct loan program, which is most cost-effective for taxpayers. Currently, the Federal Government subsidizes private lenders for the loans they issue to students and this offset would end the current taxpayer-funded subsidies while increasing financial aid to students.

We can say that it is time to move toward universal coverage, but it is empty rhetoric without a feasible plan. I believe that this is the way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system

that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is providing a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of health care costs.

It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis.

We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet, there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That is an injustice, and it is one we can and must address. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality. I urge my colleagues to support the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of 46 million people in the United States, and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the No. 1 issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the No. 1 issue for tens of millions of Americans. Nevertheless, the issue has been largely ignored in the Halls of Congress. We sit idle, locked in a stalemate, refusing to give this life-threatening problem its due attention. We need a way to break that deadlock, and today I am introducing a bill that will do just that--the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

I believe that health care is a fundamental right, and every American should have guaranteed health care coverage. My bill seeks to move us toward that goal in a way that I hope will be acceptable to many of my colleagues.

Every day, all over our Nation, Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even change they way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical discomfort. These 46 million Americans bear the additional burden of wondering where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health care needs. When illness strikes families, the last thing they should have to think about is money, but I know that for many in our country, this is a persistent burden that causes stress and hopelessness.

It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. Forty-seven percent of the uninsured avoided seeking care in 2003 due to the cost. Thirty-five percent needed care but did not get it. Thirty-seven percent did not fill a prescription because of cost. The uninsured are seven times more likely to seek care in an emergency room. They are less likely to receive preventative care because they cannot afford to see the doctor, and they are more likely to die as a result. Each year, at least 18,000 people die prematurely in this country because of uninsurance. If the uninsured

had access to continuous health coverage, a reduction in mortality of 5 percent to 15 percent could be achieved.

Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. More and more, employers offer sub-par benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation.

I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold townhall meetings. Almost every year, the No. 1 issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These people used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in.

Our country can do better, and it will.

Last year, I was pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on health care reform. It requires Congress to take up and debate universal health care bills within the first 90 days of the session following enactment of the bill. This bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated--it simply requires Congress to act.

Today, I am here to build on the proposal from last year. I am introducing the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot project to provide States with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement; it just provides an incentive for action, provided the States meet certain minimum coverage and low-income requirements.

Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we should change the health care system in this country. Some propose using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a national single payer health care system is the only way to go. I have my own preferences, but I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system.

As a former State legislator, I come to this debate appreciating the role that States are playing in coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health care problem. We are already seeing States move ahead of the Federal Government on covering the uninsured. Massachusetts recently passed into law a plan to require health insurance for all residents, and State legislators in my home State of Wisconsin, as well as Vermont, Maine, and California, are working to expand health insurance coverage in their States. The Federal Government should be encouraging these innovative initiatives, and my bill provides the mechanism for this goal to be realized.

This legislation harnesses the talent and ingenuity of Americans to come up with new solutions. This approach takes advantage of America's greatest resources--the mind power and creativity of the American people--to move our country toward the goal of a working health care system with universal coverage. With help from the Federal Government, States will be able to try new ways of covering all their residents, and our political logjam around health care will begin to loosen.

Under my proposal, States can be creative in the State resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State can use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to the approval of the newly created Health Care Reform Task Force, which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This task force will be responsible for choosing viable State projects and ensuring that the projects are effective. The Task Force will also help the States develop projects, and will continue a dialog with the States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and Federal Governments.

The task force is also charged with making sure that the State plans meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act bases affordability on income.

Another provision in this legislation requires that the States contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. States that can afford to provide more are encouraged to, but in order to ensure the financial viability of the bill and to ensure State buy- in, this matching requirement provides a starting point. Other than these requirements, the States largely have flexibility to design a plan that works best for their respective residents. The possibilities for reform are wide open.

One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The bill doesn't avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be made if we are going to pay for health care reform.

One of the offsets in the bill was proposed by the Congressional Budget Office: an increase in the flat rebate paid by drug manufacturers for Medicaid prescription drugs. Currently, Medicaid recoups a portion of its drug spending through a rebate paid by the manufacturer. The savings mechanism would set a flat rebate, and provide funding for the States' health care reform projects.

Additional funding for the bill comes from the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to auction the radio spectrum and the authority of Customs and Border Protection to collect multiple different conveyance and passenger user fees through fiscal year 2016. My bill proposes similar extensions of these established authorities. Also, my bill proposes to both simplify and reduce the federal subsidy of airline passenger screening costs by replacing the current variable fee, which is capped at five dollars per one-way trip, with a flat five dollar fee. This proposal is similar to one in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget and would decrease federal subsidies to about thirty percent of passenger security costs, without reducing aviation security spending.

I also pay for this bill with an offset modeled on legislation introduced in the House by my good friend and fellow Wisconsinite Tom Petri and in the Senate by the senior Senator from Massachusetts that seeks to save money by encouraging higher education institutions to shift from private lenders to the direct loan program, which is most cost-effective for taxpayers. Currently, the Federal Government subsidizes private lenders for the loans they issue to students and this offset would end the current taxpayer-funded subsidies while increasing financial aid to students.

We can say that it is time to move toward universal coverage, but it is empty rhetoric without a feasible plan. I believe that this is the way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system

that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is providing a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of health care costs.

It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis.

We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet, there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That is an injustice, and it is one we can and must address. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality. I urge my colleagues to support the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

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

Mr. President, once again, this body has missed a chance to pass responsible, effective legislation responding to the very real and very pressing energy needs of this country. While there may be pieces of S. 3711 that have merit, I did not support cloture and I will not vote in favor of the final bill.

I voted to allow the Senate to consider S. 3711 in the hope that we might

have a serious discussion of the bill, including debating and voting on amendments to improve it. While the bill only addresses one part of our energy needs, it could have provided an opportunity for the Senate to finally address a broad range of energy issues. Unfortunately, Senators were prevented from offering amendments, so there was no opportunity to address, for example, efficiency, conservation, renewable fuels, or even global warming. The result is another missed opportunity to pass the comprehensive energy legislation that our constituents are looking for.

In addition to opposing the flawed process for consideration of S. 3711, I have grave concerns about the fiscal implications of the legislation. This bill will redirect billions of dollars in Federal revenues to just four States. While I agree that we have a responsibility to ensure that Federal dollars are going to important activities like protecting and restoring coastal wetlands, I do not believe that doing so requires creation of a new entitlement for a handful of States. If enacted, S. 3711 will have massive long-term and negative consequences. For example, in 2017, the loss to the taxpayers of the country is estimated to be over $590 million a year, jumping to over $1.2 billion per year in 2022. Adding it all up, you get a total likely loss of over $170 billion over 60 years. I am not prepared to support such a massive drain on the Federal Treasury for the benefit of a few States and I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 3711.

Mr. President, today I will introduce a bill to repair and strengthen the Presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2006 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. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election, too. In the last election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the Presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but took the general election grant.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is becoming less viable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is 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 collapses from disuse.

This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing 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 $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1.

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 nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public

money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit.

The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 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 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow any gap to be more than adequately filled.

Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law.

The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our Presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting on July 1 of the year preceding the election, 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grant for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grant is released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.

The bill will also end the political parties' use of soft money for their conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement. I will also ask that a copy of the bill itself be printed in the Record, following my statement.

Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, with the country looking forward to the first Presidential election since 1952 where both the incumbent President and the sitting Vice-President are not running, this is a perfect time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. Each party will have numerous candidates in the primaries, and no party can claim it will be helped or hurt by these changes.

Fixing the Presidential public financing system will 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 raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $360 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill caps taxpayer subsidies for promotion of agricultural products, including some brand-name goods, by limiting the Market Access Program to $100 million per year.

Though the numbers are large, this is actually 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 ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will introduce a bill to repair and strengthen the Presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2006 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. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election, too. In the last election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the Presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but took the general election grant.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is becoming less viable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is 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 collapses from disuse.

This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing 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 $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1.

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 nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public

money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit.

The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 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 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow any gap to be more than adequately filled.

Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law.

The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our Presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting on July 1 of the year preceding the election, 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grant for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grant is released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.

The bill will also end the political parties' use of soft money for their conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement. I will also ask that a copy of the bill itself be printed in the Record, following my statement.

Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, with the country looking forward to the first Presidential election since 1952 where both the incumbent President and the sitting Vice-President are not running, this is a perfect time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. Each party will have numerous candidates in the primaries, and no party can claim it will be helped or hurt by these changes.

Fixing the Presidential public financing system will 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 raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $360 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill caps taxpayer subsidies for promotion of agricultural products, including some brand-name goods, by limiting the Market Access Program to $100 million per year.

Though the numbers are large, this is actually 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 ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will vote ``no'' on the nomination of Jerome M. Holmes to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and I would like to take a minute to explain why I reached this decision.

This is an important nomination and should receive close scrutiny. Judges on the court of appeals have enormous influence on the law. Whereas decisions of district courts--a position Mr. Holmes has never held--are subject to appellate review, the decisions of the courts of appeals are in almost all cases final, as the Supreme Court agrees to hear only a very small percentage of the cases on which its views are sought.

I believe in certain longstanding touchstones of the qualifications needed for judicial nominees: legal competence, fairness, and the ability to approach issues with an open mind. We sometimes short-hand these qualities into a single phrase--a judicial temperament. In evaluating a nominee's judicial temperament, our goal is to have an evenhanded judiciary that hears the case before it and applies the law fairly and uniformly, rather than letting strong personal convictions override the facts or the law. We do this for a simple but fundamental reason, namely, that we want a highly qualified and independent judiciary that can command the respect and admiration of the American people.

In the nomination of Mr. Holmes, we have a nominee to one of our highest courts who has never served as a judge before. President Bush originally nominated Mr. Holmes to be a Federal district judge in Oklahoma earlier this year. Prior to this nomination, Mr. Holmes had been an assistant U.S. attorney in Oklahoma and in private practice. The Judiciary Committee was ready to consider that initial nomination-- to determine the merits of Mr. Holmes serving in his first judicial position as a Federal district judge, a position with substantial responsibility.

But for some reason Mr. Holmes' nomination was upgraded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Placing a nominee with no judicial experience on an appellate court makes it hard to evaluate the nominee's judicial temperament--his capacity to be fair and impartial.

With no judicial record to illuminate his views, we are left only with Mr. Holmes' words as a window into his judicial temperament. Those words are troubling and could lead a reasonable person to question his objectivity and temperament. After the Supreme Court's nuanced affirmative action ruling, Grutter v. Bollinger, Mr. Holmes derided the Court for missing the ``opportunity to drive the final nail in the coffin of affirmative action,'' and complained that ``[t]he court did not go far enough: Affirmative action is still alive.'' He has referred to scholarship programs targeted at minority children as ``morally offensive.'' He has called African-Americans leaders, on various occasions, ``ideologically bankrupt'' and suggested that their opposition to school vouchers is insincere. In a letter to a publication, Mr. Holmes flippantly dismissed a doctor's complaint that his colleagues had ``negative reactions to his dreadlocks'' as ``naive.'' He has even gone so far as to claim that efforts to address racial bias in jury selection actually harm the criminal justice system.

Mr. Holmes has even dismissed problems with the administration of the death penalty. In a 2004 speech, he said: ``The statement society is sending--that certain conduct and the perpetrators of it deserve to die is not materially diminished by the fact that in the implementation of the death penalty mistakes are made.'' In response to my written questions regarding whether executing an innocent person was an acceptable mistake, Mr. Holmes responded by saying that ``the criminal justice system should be administered in a manner that eliminates mistakes--to the extent it is humanly possible--and yields accurate outcomes.'' I do not think this is an acceptable answer to a fairly simple question. His statements suggest a rather cavalier approach to a very significant issue in contemporary criminal law.

Mr. Holmes' dismissive comments about affirmative action, school vouchers, and the death penalty were not offhand remarks, or impassioned advocacy on behalf of a client. Nonetheless, Mr. Holmes, of course, urges us to set his earlier statements aside, and look to his assurances of his future impartiality as a judge. But Mr. Holmes did little to actually address the concerns of many members of the Judiciary Committee. Rather than discuss his previous comments openly and candidly--and take the opportunity to show why those comments might not reflect his actual thinking--he provided stock and unconvincing answers that he considers racism to be a ``negative influence'' in society and that he would follow Supreme Court precedent.

Mr. Holmes' actions in connection with his membership in the Men's Dinner Club of Oklahoma also suggest, rather than candor, a strategy of simple image control. Mr. Holmes, having been a member of this club that excludes women from membership, resigned from its membership on February 2, 2006 just 2 weeks prior to his initial nomination to be a district court judge. Mr. Holmes has defended this institution as, to his knowledge, not ``practicing invidious discrimination.'' So what accounts for his resignation? His explanation--that ``some might perceive the Men's Dinner Club as an improper organization''--suggests not a principled decision but a pure political and image calculation. Clearly, Mr. Holmes wishes to make this nomination as palatable as possible--and we should therefore take his assurances and stock answers with a grain of salt.

Mr. President, I am saddened that President Bush has once again proposed a judicial nomination that I cannot support, especially because Mr. Holmes would be the first African American to serve on the Tenth Circuit. But he has never served as a judge either on the Federal or State level--and his statements on a broad range of topics suggest concerns about his ability to provide impartial justice. And, by failing to explain his statements and views with candor, he missed a chance to show the Judiciary Committee that he has the deliberative and impartial reasoning needed to serve on an appellate court. We want a judiciary that the American people respect and admire as impartial. With no judicial record to examine and a history of troubling statements, Mr. Holmes has not shown that he will apply the law fairly. I will therefore vote ``no.''

Mr. President, I cannot support the Child Custody Protection Act. First, I object to the decision to bring this bill directly to the floor, circumventing the Senate's committee process. I remember when this bill came before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 105th Congress. We held a hearing, debated and voted on amendments, and even issued a committee report with minority views. Mr. President, that was in 1998; surely, the factual basis of this legislation has changed since then. I do not see why the Leadership feels that this bill no longer deserves the serious consideration that it received eight years ago.

In addition, this bill is an overreach of Federal power that comes at the expense of the health and safety of young women. The notion that one State may not impose its laws outside its territorial boundaries is a core federalist principle, and I believe this bill might very well violate the Constitution if enacted. States should retain their right to enact and implement appropriate policies within their territorial boundaries. The Child Custody Protection Act would preempt these rights by allowing the laws of certain States to essentially trump the laws in other States.

In an ideal world, all young women who face this difficult decision would be able to turn to their parents. But we do not live in an ideal world, and the reality is that there are young women who feel they cannot turn to a parent out of fear of physical or mental abuse, getting kicked out of the house, or worse. This bill would deny these young women the ability to turn to another trusted adult for help. Many national medical and public-health organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association have expressed grave concern about mandatory parental consent laws for these reasons.

Our focus in the Senate should be on ensuring that unintended pregnancies do not happen in the first place. For these reasons, I intend to continue my work in the Senate to ensure that all women have access to the best information and reproductive health services available. If we do that, abortions will become even more rare, as well as staying safe and legal.

Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by reports in the press that the Islamic courts in Somalia are advancing on the internationally recognized Transitional Federal Government, TFG, and are apparently ignoring recently signed cease-fire agreements. It is imperative that the Islamic courts recognize the TFG as the official governing body of Somalia and that it abide by the cease fire agreed to on June 22, 2006, in Khartoum. The Islamic courts must work in good faith to strengthen the TFG and actively commit to the development of a more inclusive and representative government of Somalia.

For this to happen, the international community, including the United States, needs to be fully engaged. The United States, in particular, must develop a comprehensive strategy for Somalia that utilizes all facets of its power and capabilities and must ramp up its diplomatic efforts throughout the region and the international community to bring this crisis to an end. Unfortunately, it can't do that if it doesn't have the resources or the people in place to deal effectively with the complexity of this problem. The U.S. Government needs to appoint a senior envoy for Somalia to pull together a strategy and to engage full time with international and regional partners in addressing this crisis. It also needs more staff and more resources to work with to help execute this strategy and to contribute to international efforts to bring about lasting peace throughout the region. The administration should work closely with Congress to identify what additional resources are needed for Somalia, given the recent escalation of tension there.

That said, it is important to realize that efforts to both establish long-term peace and to eradicate terrorist networks and safe havens in Somalia are complimentary. The U.S. Government must recognize that long-term stability in Somalia is our best weapon against terrorist networks, extremist organizations, and the conditions that allow them to seek safe haven there. We must look at poverty reduction programs, economic development efforts, support for democratic institutions, anticorruption efforts, and education as the core elements of a new Somalia strategy.

As we learned in Afghanistan, we cannot ignore the conditions that breed extremist and terrorist organizations. Accordingly, it is essential to recognize that any attempt to address instability in Somalia must address a range of root causes or facilitating conditions: a weak and dysfunctional central government, extreme poverty, corruption, conflict, disease, and drought.

It is imperative that the U.S. Government begin playing a leadership role in helping stabilize Somalia and the region and that it do so immediately. We need a comprehensive approach to engaging with regional actors, the international community, and the U.N. to find a permanent solution to this crisis. Such an approach will contribute to stability throughout the Horn of Africa and to our national security.