Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment in the cuts that the conference report for H.R. 2862, the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, made to important grant programs that assist State and local law enforcement agencies. I voted in favor of H.R. 2862 because of the other important programs that it funds, but I have grave concerns about these particular grant funding cuts.

I believe that Congress, in partnership with States and local communities, has an obligation to provide the tools, technology, and training that our Nation's law enforcement officers need in order to protect our communities. I have consistently supported a number of Federal grant programs, including the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Program, which is instrumental in providing funding to train new officers and provide crime-fighting technologies. I also have long supported funding for the Byrne Grant Program, which provides funding to help fight violent and drug-related crime, including support to multijurisdictional drug task forces, drug courts, drug education and prevention programs, and many other efforts to reduce drug abuse and prosecute drug offenders. I know how important these programs have been to Wisconsin law enforcement efforts, in particular with regard to fighting the spread of methamphetamine abuse. Both of these programs suffered major funding cuts in the conference report for H.R. 2682, which the Senate passed on November 16, 2005.

Funding for the COPS Program has been reduced dramatically in recent years. In fiscal year 2003 the COPS Program received $929 million in Federal funding. In fiscal year 2004, that level was reduced to $756 million, only to drop again in fiscal year 2005 to $606 million. And now, for fiscal year 2006, the funding level has again been reduced to a mere $487.3 million, a dramatic decrease just over the last 3 fiscal years. This is unacceptable. Funding for these grant programs has continually dropped even as the needs of law enforcement officers, our first responders, grow.

Funding cuts like the ones to the COPS Program have been mirrored in cuts to Byrne grants. For fiscal year 2006, the administration's budget proposal would have completely eliminated this critical law enforcement program in full. Congress rightly rejected the administration's unjustified attempt to entirely do away with this important program, but unfortunately the funding level provided this year is inadequate. In fiscal year 2003, Byrne and the local law enforcement block grants, which have now been merged into one program, received a total of $900 million in Federal funding. By fiscal year 2005, that number was reduced to $634 million. This year, the Byrne program will receive a meager $416 million in Federal funding. It is irresponsible to habitually take the rug out from under our hard-working law enforcement officers by taking away their access to the funding they need to keep our communities across the country safe.

It is my hope that in the next fiscal year, the administration and Congress will work together to repair the damage done and increase critical funding to these and other programs that assist our State and local law enforcement officers on a daily basis.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will promote openness and fair competition in the radio and concert industries.

I have followed the changes in the radio and concert industries since the 1996 Telecommunication Act with great concern. For years, I have heard complaints from my constituents about the increasing concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industries and, in turn, the increasingly uneven playing field for small radio stations and independent concert promoters. For consumers this has meant less diversity, less local content and growing dissatisfaction with the radio and concerts they are offered.

Most recently in the last Congress, I introduced broad legislation to address ownership consolidation and the anti-competitive practices common in the industry. These practices include tacit or explicit pay- for-play, or ``payola,'' payments, and corporate radio stations putting untoward pressure on artists to play at the same corporation's venues use affiliated concert promoters. While I continue to be concerned by consolidation and believe this centralization exacerbates the potential for abuse, the bill I introduce today focuses instead on the anti- competitive practices, whether they occur at a radio station group of a handful of stations or one that owns thousands of stations.

Some might question why we need added scrutiny and accountability for the radio and concert industries specifically. Besides the unique role radio plays for communication and entertainment in each American's life, radio also is, in a sense, a public-private partnership. With radio's use of the public airwaves, it also has a responsibility to serve the public good.

The abuses within the radio and concert industry are not entirely new. In fact, problems have occasionally sprung up almost throughout the entire history of the medium. There almost seems to be a cyclical pattern as the payola is rooted out and then several years later is reincarnated in slightly different form to grow to become pervasive again. So while the original payola practices predated the recent rapid consolidation in the industry, the concentration of power has made the problem more widespread and its effects possibly more severe on local stations, promoters, artists and consumers.

While paying a radio station or radio station employee to play a certain song without telling the audience has a long history in radio, this does not make the fraud and bribery any more acceptable. In the 1950s, the practice was relatively simple. Artists, their labels or managers would often directly bribe DJs to play their songs either in cash or through other consideration. When this practice became public, there were investigations and Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took actions to block this payola.

The most recent incarnation of payola takes a more complicated and sophisticated--corporate, if you will--approach to skirt the current rules that prevent direct pay-for-play. Indirect payments through independent music promoters have been an open secret, as have more direct payments, as the ground-breaking investigation of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer demonstrates. While the Spitzer investigation is ongoing, he has already uncovered significant abuses and this summer reached a $10 million settlement with a record label.

While not traditionally considered payola, there are other abuses of power over airplay decisions by radio stations and their corporate parents, especially when the conglomerate also owns concert promoters and venues. This cross-

ownership sets up a situation where the same corporation that is negotiating a contract for an artist to perform at its concert also controls the lifeblood of that artist's success--airplay of his or her songs. The result can be intense pressure on artists to play radio station-promoted shows and, often, to do so for less than the normal rate. This practice hurts the artist, hurts competing independent stations and promoters and, ultimately, hurts the listening public, which ends up choosing from songs on the radio that have been selected based on where and for whom the artist is performing a concert, and for the songs' artistic merit. Moreover, for any artist who deigns to refuse the direct or implied extortion from the conglomerate, as Don Henley's courageous testimony in a 2003 Commerce Committee hearing clearly explained, there is the risk of retaliation--either immediately or by boycotting the next single or album the artist produces. And with the consolidation in the industry, that boycott might not just be in one station in one market; it could be forty stations in many markets. Facing this kind of potential threat, you can see why even the most popular acts are afraid to speak publicly.

The bill I introduce today proposes a multi-faceted approach to the various entrenched forms of payola. The bill would simultaneously strengthen the FCC's ability to prove and punish violators, close the loophole allowing indirect payola, prevent cross-ownership from hindering fair competition, and, perhaps most importantly, increase transparency through disclosure of the payments to radio stations from artists, labels, promoters and others who may have an interest in improperly influencing airplay decisions.

The bill improves the FCC's ability to enforce payola violations through several means. It requires radio stations to make transactions with entities like record labels that might have an interest in influencing airplay on an ``arm's length basis.'' Moreover the bill requires record-keeping of such transactions and makes the records available to the FCC in the event of an investigation. In addition, the bill significantly increases penalties for payola violations and allows the FCC to consider revoking a station's license. As we have seen in the realm of indecency, multimillion dollar companies do not blink at the current fines of $10,000 per violation, but the prospect of putting a license in jeopardy will get their attention.

As I've already mentioned, the current payola rules were put in place for an earlier, simpler incarnation of the practice--the direct bribing of DJs and stations. Payola has changed, often going through third parties such as independent music promoters or under the guise of a legitimate transaction. The bill broadens the current rules to include these indirect payments, so no matter what tortured path money or other consideration travels, if it is for airplay and not disclosed, it is payola.

Cross-ownership of radio stations and concert promoters or venues poses a serious problem for fair competition. Without controls, the relationship injects the profitability of a concert and not artistic merit into airplay decisions. The bill would either prohibit this, in the case of cross-ownership, or place controls to ensure fair competition in the concert promotion industry.

The final element of the bill--increased transparency--hopefully will have the biggest impact by deterring payola in all its past, present and future incarnations. The bill requires radio stations to disclose all receipts of payments or consideration that could be used as a front for payola along with a list of the songs played every month, broken down by label and artist. While corporations may not fear the current hard-to-prove $10,000 fines, they do understand public relations. The potential for consumers and the media to use these records to connect the dots should have a chilling effect on the practice and may mean that the FCC Enforcement Bureau will rarely even need to be involved. But if problems persist, this bill will provide the Bureau with better powers and evidence to combat payola in all its forms.

Finally let me put this in context and remind my colleagues that radio stations use a public resource, the airwaves, to reach their listeners. With this use comes a responsibility to the public and an understanding that they accept a degree of increased scrutiny. My legislation strives to ensure that the public knows when it hears a song on the radio that it is because the station, the DJ, the public, or even a focus group, believes it has artistic merit and that it is something the listeners will enjoy. Too often, today's radio listeners are left to wonder whether a song was played because the station manager got a new laptop or because the station's parent company is producing the artist's upcoming concert.

It boils down to choices. This bill will reinstate choices, the fundamental basis of competition; choice for the artists to pick which concerts to play and who they want to promote their concerts; choices for the radio stations to play songs based on merit, or at least not based on narrow financial interests; and ultimately choices for consumers as artistic merit instead of the ability to pay carefully disguised bribes broadens the field of artists who can compete.

I am pleased that my bill has been endorsed by the following groups, and I am grateful for the input they have provided about problems in the radio and concert industries: the American Association of Independent Music/A2IM; the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada; Consumers Union; Free Press; the Future of Music Coalition; the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Inc.; and the Recording Artists' Coalition. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation to promote fair competition in the radio and concert industries. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation to promote fair competition in the radio and concert industries.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will promote openness and fair competition in the radio and concert industries.

I have followed the changes in the radio and concert industries since the 1996 Telecommunication Act with great concern. For years, I have heard complaints from my constituents about the increasing concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industries and, in turn, the increasingly uneven playing field for small radio stations and independent concert promoters. For consumers this has meant less diversity, less local content and growing dissatisfaction with the radio and concerts they are offered.

Most recently in the last Congress, I introduced broad legislation to address ownership consolidation and the anti-competitive practices common in the industry. These practices include tacit or explicit pay- for-play, or ``payola,'' payments, and corporate radio stations putting untoward pressure on artists to play at the same corporation's venues use affiliated concert promoters. While I continue to be concerned by consolidation and believe this centralization exacerbates the potential for abuse, the bill I introduce today focuses instead on the anti- competitive practices, whether they occur at a radio station group of a handful of stations or one that owns thousands of stations.

Some might question why we need added scrutiny and accountability for the radio and concert industries specifically. Besides the unique role radio plays for communication and entertainment in each American's life, radio also is, in a sense, a public-private partnership. With radio's use of the public airwaves, it also has a responsibility to serve the public good.

The abuses within the radio and concert industry are not entirely new. In fact, problems have occasionally sprung up almost throughout the entire history of the medium. There almost seems to be a cyclical pattern as the payola is rooted out and then several years later is reincarnated in slightly different form to grow to become pervasive again. So while the original payola practices predated the recent rapid consolidation in the industry, the concentration of power has made the problem more widespread and its effects possibly more severe on local stations, promoters, artists and consumers.

While paying a radio station or radio station employee to play a certain song without telling the audience has a long history in radio, this does not make the fraud and bribery any more acceptable. In the 1950s, the practice was relatively simple. Artists, their labels or managers would often directly bribe DJs to play their songs either in cash or through other consideration. When this practice became public, there were investigations and Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took actions to block this payola.

The most recent incarnation of payola takes a more complicated and sophisticated--corporate, if you will--approach to skirt the current rules that prevent direct pay-for-play. Indirect payments through independent music promoters have been an open secret, as have more direct payments, as the ground-breaking investigation of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer demonstrates. While the Spitzer investigation is ongoing, he has already uncovered significant abuses and this summer reached a $10 million settlement with a record label.

While not traditionally considered payola, there are other abuses of power over airplay decisions by radio stations and their corporate parents, especially when the conglomerate also owns concert promoters and venues. This cross-

ownership sets up a situation where the same corporation that is negotiating a contract for an artist to perform at its concert also controls the lifeblood of that artist's success--airplay of his or her songs. The result can be intense pressure on artists to play radio station-promoted shows and, often, to do so for less than the normal rate. This practice hurts the artist, hurts competing independent stations and promoters and, ultimately, hurts the listening public, which ends up choosing from songs on the radio that have been selected based on where and for whom the artist is performing a concert, and for the songs' artistic merit. Moreover, for any artist who deigns to refuse the direct or implied extortion from the conglomerate, as Don Henley's courageous testimony in a 2003 Commerce Committee hearing clearly explained, there is the risk of retaliation--either immediately or by boycotting the next single or album the artist produces. And with the consolidation in the industry, that boycott might not just be in one station in one market; it could be forty stations in many markets. Facing this kind of potential threat, you can see why even the most popular acts are afraid to speak publicly.

The bill I introduce today proposes a multi-faceted approach to the various entrenched forms of payola. The bill would simultaneously strengthen the FCC's ability to prove and punish violators, close the loophole allowing indirect payola, prevent cross-ownership from hindering fair competition, and, perhaps most importantly, increase transparency through disclosure of the payments to radio stations from artists, labels, promoters and others who may have an interest in improperly influencing airplay decisions.

The bill improves the FCC's ability to enforce payola violations through several means. It requires radio stations to make transactions with entities like record labels that might have an interest in influencing airplay on an ``arm's length basis.'' Moreover the bill requires record-keeping of such transactions and makes the records available to the FCC in the event of an investigation. In addition, the bill significantly increases penalties for payola violations and allows the FCC to consider revoking a station's license. As we have seen in the realm of indecency, multimillion dollar companies do not blink at the current fines of $10,000 per violation, but the prospect of putting a license in jeopardy will get their attention.

As I've already mentioned, the current payola rules were put in place for an earlier, simpler incarnation of the practice--the direct bribing of DJs and stations. Payola has changed, often going through third parties such as independent music promoters or under the guise of a legitimate transaction. The bill broadens the current rules to include these indirect payments, so no matter what tortured path money or other consideration travels, if it is for airplay and not disclosed, it is payola.

Cross-ownership of radio stations and concert promoters or venues poses a serious problem for fair competition. Without controls, the relationship injects the profitability of a concert and not artistic merit into airplay decisions. The bill would either prohibit this, in the case of cross-ownership, or place controls to ensure fair competition in the concert promotion industry.

The final element of the bill--increased transparency--hopefully will have the biggest impact by deterring payola in all its past, present and future incarnations. The bill requires radio stations to disclose all receipts of payments or consideration that could be used as a front for payola along with a list of the songs played every month, broken down by label and artist. While corporations may not fear the current hard-to-prove $10,000 fines, they do understand public relations. The potential for consumers and the media to use these records to connect the dots should have a chilling effect on the practice and may mean that the FCC Enforcement Bureau will rarely even need to be involved. But if problems persist, this bill will provide the Bureau with better powers and evidence to combat payola in all its forms.

Finally let me put this in context and remind my colleagues that radio stations use a public resource, the airwaves, to reach their listeners. With this use comes a responsibility to the public and an understanding that they accept a degree of increased scrutiny. My legislation strives to ensure that the public knows when it hears a song on the radio that it is because the station, the DJ, the public, or even a focus group, believes it has artistic merit and that it is something the listeners will enjoy. Too often, today's radio listeners are left to wonder whether a song was played because the station manager got a new laptop or because the station's parent company is producing the artist's upcoming concert.

It boils down to choices. This bill will reinstate choices, the fundamental basis of competition; choice for the artists to pick which concerts to play and who they want to promote their concerts; choices for the radio stations to play songs based on merit, or at least not based on narrow financial interests; and ultimately choices for consumers as artistic merit instead of the ability to pay carefully disguised bribes broadens the field of artists who can compete.

I am pleased that my bill has been endorsed by the following groups, and I am grateful for the input they have provided about problems in the radio and concert industries: the American Association of Independent Music/A2IM; the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada; Consumers Union; Free Press; the Future of Music Coalition; the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Inc.; and the Recording Artists' Coalition. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation to promote fair competition in the radio and concert industries. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation to promote fair competition in the radio and concert industries.

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

Mr. President, I offer my strong support for Senator Feinstein's amendment to change section 263(C) of the Tax Code, and I thank her for her work on it. The provision that her amendment targets allows large, integrated oil companies to expense, instead of capitalize, intangible drilling and development costs, such as fuel costs, workers' wages, and drilling equipment. This is a complicated way of saying that U.S. taxpayer dollars have been subsidizing the regular costs of integrated oil companies doing business, something that doesn't make sense.

Repealing this provision of the Tax Code could result in upwards of $2 billion more dollars in the Treasury over the next 5 years. Two billion dollars instead of simply transferring this significant amount of money to companies we all know are currently experiencing record profits, these funds could support a variety of important programs or could be used to reduce our skyrocketing deficit so that our children don't inherit our fiscal mess. Integrated oil companies are some of the largest corporations in the world--they simply don't need this tax break.

This amendment makes common sense and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to bring an old friend back to this body--the pay-go rule. I am even more pleased to say this is not some new pay-go, but rather good old-fashioned ``Classic'' pay-go. This is the pay-go we used to have in the Senate--a rule that said you had to pay for what you wanted. If you want to increase entitlement spending, you have to pay for it. If you want to increase tax expenditures or cut tax rates, then you have to pay for it.

In offering this amendment, I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, and in particular I am pleased to, of course, have the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, as a cosponsor.

As I said during the debate over the first part of the reconciliation scheme that was included in the budget resolution, there is no Senator more dedicated to a fiscally responsible Federal budget and to restoring sound budget rules than Senator Conrad. He is an acknowledged expert on the budget and the rules that govern its consideration, but as I also said during that debate, you do not have to be a Kent Conrad to understand the pay-go rule.

It is a straightforward, commonsense requirement that whenever Congress wants to increase spending through entitlements or wants to reduce revenues from the Tax Code, then we have to pay for it or find 60 votes to make an exception to the rule.

I say to the Presiding Officer, as you well know--and I thank you for your help on this amendment--that rule was an effective restraint on the fiscal appetites of Congress and the White House, and it was critical to our ability to actually balance the Federal books. We balanced the Federal books during the 1990s using the pay-go rule.

Of course, when this body stopped following that rule, the bottom dropped out from under the budget. We went from a projected 10-year unified budget surplus of $5 trillion to massive projected deficits and backbreaking debt.

I marvel at how rapidly this institution loses its fiscal bearings. In 1992, thanks in great part to the remarkable campaign of Ross Perot, the budget deficit became the No. 1 domestic priority of the Nation. I ran on that issue in my 1992 campaign for the Senate. Perhaps a little naively, I offered a plan to balance the budget with over 82 specific proposals to cut wasteful programs in just about every area of Government.

As optimistic as I was, I was surprised at how passionately many in the Senate actually embraced that cause. And because of a tough deficit reduction package in 1993 and a more modest package in 1997, we put the budget on track to be balanced. We actually balanced the Federal budget without using the Social Security surpluses. We actually started paying down the Federal debt, most of which had been run up during the 1980s.

Central to our ability to get on the right fiscal track was this pay- go rule. But all that work, all those tough decisions were squandered in the blink of a budgetary eye. The Federal budget is now in disastrous shape. Worse, we are on a track for even darker times. As Al Jolson famously said, ``You ain't seen nothin' yet.''

As the Senator from North Dakota has tirelessly said: We are in the sweet spot right now. That means the retirement of my generation, the baby boom generation, is around the corner. And with it, we will witness enormous new demands on the budget. If we can't get our act together now, there is little hope that we can face those demands responsibly.

We have to stop running deficits. Running deficits caused the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. As Senator Conrad has noted, it isn't just the annual budget deficits that are the problem, it is our debt as well. Every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes for fewer Government benefits.

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

That is why this amendment is so critical. We absolutely must reinstate the pay-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. When the pay-go rule was in effect, that tough fiscal discipline actually governed the budget process. Under the current approach, it is the other way around. The annual budget resolution actually determines how much fiscal discipline we are willing to impose on ourselves. That simply has not worked, and it won't work. When Congress decides that it would be nice to create a new entitlement or enact new tax cuts and then adjust its budget rules to permit those policies, we are inviting a disastrous result. That is exactly what has happened.

This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would simply return us to the rule under which Congress operated for the decade of the 1990s. It was instrumental in balancing the Federal budget. Many of us lived under that rule, and we know how effective it was.

A real pay-go rule by itself would not eliminate annual budget deficits and balance the budget, but we will never get there without a real pay-go rule.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, time-tested amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2651

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on my amendment?

I note how pleased I am that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, is a cosponsor of this amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois who is also a cosponsor of my amendment.

I thank the Senator from Illinois. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank my cosponsors, Senators Conrad, Chafee, Obama, and Salazar. This is a good old-fashioned, classic pay- go amendment. This is the rule under which we used to operate.

It is very simple. Under this pay-go amendment, you pay for what you want. If you want to increase entitlement spending, you have to pay for it. If you want to cut taxes, you have to pay for it. With the help of this budget rule, we actually balanced the Federal books, and we did so without using the Social Security surplus.

Without this rule, we have been driven back into the deficit ditch. We have begun to pile up record amounts of debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay.

I urge my colleagues to support this time-tested, commonsense rule.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I plan to introduce the Equal Access to Justice Reform Act of 2005.

This legislation contains adjustments to the Equal Access to Justice

Act (EAJA) that will streamline and improve the process of awarding attorneys' fees to private parties who prevail in litigation against the Federal Government. This is the fifth Congress in which I have introduced EAJA reform. I believe this reform is an important step toward reducing the burden of defending government litigation for many individuals and small businesses.

I am very pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation this year by my friend from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe, who chairs the Small Business Committee. We hope that by working together on a bipartisan basis, we will increase the chances that this important project will become law.

The legislation we are proposing today deals directly with a problem that affects small businesses and individual Americans across this country who face legal battles with the Federal Government. Even if they win in court, they may lose financially because they incur the great expense of paying their attorneys.

It is important to understand what the Equal Access to Justice Act is, and why it exists. The premise of this statute is very simple. EAJA seeks to level the playing field for individuals and small businesses that face the United States government in litigation. It establishes guidelines for the award of attorneys' fees when the individual or small business prevails in a case brought by the government. Quite simply, EAJA acknowledges that the resources available to the Federal Government in a legal dispute far outweigh those available to most Americans. This disparity is lessened by requiring the government, in certain instances, to pay the attorneys' fees of successful individual and small-business parties. By giving successful parties the right to seek attorneys' fees from the United States, EAJA seeks to prevent individuals and small business owners from having to risk their family savings or their companies' financial well-being to seek justice in court.

My interest in this issue predates my election to the Senate. It arises from my experience as both a private attorney and a Member of the State Senate in my home State of Wisconsin. While in private practice, I became aware of how the ability to recoup attorneys' fees is a significant factor, and often one of the first considered, when parties decide whether to defend a case. Upon entering the Wisconsin State Senate, I authored legislation modeled on the Federal law, which had been championed by one of my predecessors in this body from Wisconsin, Senator Gaylord Nelson. Today, Wisconsin statutes contain provisions similar to the federal EAJA statute.

It seemed to me then, as it does now, that we should do all that we can to help ease the financial burdens on people who need to have their claims reviewed and decided by impartial decision makers. The bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing today does a number of things to make EAJA more effective for individuals and small business owners across this country.

First, this legislation eliminates the restrictive provision in current law that prevents successful parties from collecting attorneys' fees unless they can show the government's position was ``not substantially justified.'' I believe that this high threshold for obtaining attorneys' fees is unfair. If an individual or small business battles the Federal Government in an adversarial proceeding and prevails, the government should pay the fees incurred. Imagine a small business that spends time and money fighting the government and wins, only to find out that it must undertake the additional step of litigating the justification of government's litigation position just to recover attorneys' fees. For the government, with its vast resources, this second litigation over fees poses little difficulty, but for the small business or individual, it may simply not be financially feasible.

This additional step presents more than a financial burden on the individual or small business litigant. A 1992 study also reveals that it is unnecessary and a waste of government resources. University of Virginia Professor Harold Krent reviewed EAJA cases in 1989 and 1990 and released a study on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Professor Krent found that only a small percentage of EAJA awards were denied because of the substantial justification defense. While it is impossible to determine the exact cost of litigating the issue of substantial justification, Professor Krent found that the money saved by the government was not enough to justify the cost of the additional litigation. In short, eliminating this often-burdensome second step is a cost-effective step that will streamline recovery under EAJA and may very well save the government money in the long run.

A second improvement this bill makes to EAJA are modifications to the definition of a small business. Small businesses are currently defined for purposes of EAJA as businesses with a net worth of less than $7 million. We update that number to $10 million and also provide for an inflation adjustment every five years based on the Producer Price Index. This provision will ensure that EAJA continues to serve the small businesses it is intended to protect.

Another part of this legislation that will streamline and improve EAJA is a provision designed to encourage settlement and avoid costly and protracted litigation. Under the bill, the government can make an offer of settlement after an application for fees and other expenses has been filed. If the government's offer is rejected and the prevailing party seeking recovery ultimately wins a smaller award, that party is not entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the date of the government's offer. Again, this will encourage settlement and speed the claims process. It will reduce the time and expense of the litigation.

This bill also requires the government agency that brought the case against the small business or individual to pay attorneys' fees from their own budgets. This provision ensures federal agencies will consider the financial impact of the actions they choose to bring against individuals and small businesses. OSHA, NLRB, EEOC, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration are exempt from this provision because they play a unique role in acting on behalf of workers to enforce the laws.

Finally, this bill will modify the definition of prevailing party to ensure that if claims filed against the government are the catalyst for a change in the position by the government that results in the individual or small business achieving a significant part of the relief sought, the individual or small business will be considered the prevailing party even if the case settles rather than going to a judgment. This reverses, in cases where fees are available under EAJA, the 2001 decision of the Supreme Court in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources.

We all know that the American small business owner faces many challenges. Government regulation can be a formidable obstacle to conducting business, and litigation can be costly. The Equal Access to Justice Act was conceived and implemented as a check on the formidable power of the federal government. It has already helped many individual Americans and small businesses. The legislation we are offering today will make EAJA more effective and more fair. I want to thank Senator Snowe for agreeing to work with me on this important bill. I hope our colleagues can support it.

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

Mr. President, today I plan to introduce the Equal Access to Justice Reform Act of 2005.

This legislation contains adjustments to the Equal Access to Justice

Act (EAJA) that will streamline and improve the process of awarding attorneys' fees to private parties who prevail in litigation against the Federal Government. This is the fifth Congress in which I have introduced EAJA reform. I believe this reform is an important step toward reducing the burden of defending government litigation for many individuals and small businesses.

I am very pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation this year by my friend from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe, who chairs the Small Business Committee. We hope that by working together on a bipartisan basis, we will increase the chances that this important project will become law.

The legislation we are proposing today deals directly with a problem that affects small businesses and individual Americans across this country who face legal battles with the Federal Government. Even if they win in court, they may lose financially because they incur the great expense of paying their attorneys.

It is important to understand what the Equal Access to Justice Act is, and why it exists. The premise of this statute is very simple. EAJA seeks to level the playing field for individuals and small businesses that face the United States government in litigation. It establishes guidelines for the award of attorneys' fees when the individual or small business prevails in a case brought by the government. Quite simply, EAJA acknowledges that the resources available to the Federal Government in a legal dispute far outweigh those available to most Americans. This disparity is lessened by requiring the government, in certain instances, to pay the attorneys' fees of successful individual and small-business parties. By giving successful parties the right to seek attorneys' fees from the United States, EAJA seeks to prevent individuals and small business owners from having to risk their family savings or their companies' financial well-being to seek justice in court.

My interest in this issue predates my election to the Senate. It arises from my experience as both a private attorney and a Member of the State Senate in my home State of Wisconsin. While in private practice, I became aware of how the ability to recoup attorneys' fees is a significant factor, and often one of the first considered, when parties decide whether to defend a case. Upon entering the Wisconsin State Senate, I authored legislation modeled on the Federal law, which had been championed by one of my predecessors in this body from Wisconsin, Senator Gaylord Nelson. Today, Wisconsin statutes contain provisions similar to the federal EAJA statute.

It seemed to me then, as it does now, that we should do all that we can to help ease the financial burdens on people who need to have their claims reviewed and decided by impartial decision makers. The bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing today does a number of things to make EAJA more effective for individuals and small business owners across this country.

First, this legislation eliminates the restrictive provision in current law that prevents successful parties from collecting attorneys' fees unless they can show the government's position was ``not substantially justified.'' I believe that this high threshold for obtaining attorneys' fees is unfair. If an individual or small business battles the Federal Government in an adversarial proceeding and prevails, the government should pay the fees incurred. Imagine a small business that spends time and money fighting the government and wins, only to find out that it must undertake the additional step of litigating the justification of government's litigation position just to recover attorneys' fees. For the government, with its vast resources, this second litigation over fees poses little difficulty, but for the small business or individual, it may simply not be financially feasible.

This additional step presents more than a financial burden on the individual or small business litigant. A 1992 study also reveals that it is unnecessary and a waste of government resources. University of Virginia Professor Harold Krent reviewed EAJA cases in 1989 and 1990 and released a study on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Professor Krent found that only a small percentage of EAJA awards were denied because of the substantial justification defense. While it is impossible to determine the exact cost of litigating the issue of substantial justification, Professor Krent found that the money saved by the government was not enough to justify the cost of the additional litigation. In short, eliminating this often-burdensome second step is a cost-effective step that will streamline recovery under EAJA and may very well save the government money in the long run.

A second improvement this bill makes to EAJA are modifications to the definition of a small business. Small businesses are currently defined for purposes of EAJA as businesses with a net worth of less than $7 million. We update that number to $10 million and also provide for an inflation adjustment every five years based on the Producer Price Index. This provision will ensure that EAJA continues to serve the small businesses it is intended to protect.

Another part of this legislation that will streamline and improve EAJA is a provision designed to encourage settlement and avoid costly and protracted litigation. Under the bill, the government can make an offer of settlement after an application for fees and other expenses has been filed. If the government's offer is rejected and the prevailing party seeking recovery ultimately wins a smaller award, that party is not entitled to the attorneys' fees and costs incurred after the date of the government's offer. Again, this will encourage settlement and speed the claims process. It will reduce the time and expense of the litigation.

This bill also requires the government agency that brought the case against the small business or individual to pay attorneys' fees from their own budgets. This provision ensures federal agencies will consider the financial impact of the actions they choose to bring against individuals and small businesses. OSHA, NLRB, EEOC, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration are exempt from this provision because they play a unique role in acting on behalf of workers to enforce the laws.

Finally, this bill will modify the definition of prevailing party to ensure that if claims filed against the government are the catalyst for a change in the position by the government that results in the individual or small business achieving a significant part of the relief sought, the individual or small business will be considered the prevailing party even if the case settles rather than going to a judgment. This reverses, in cases where fees are available under EAJA, the 2001 decision of the Supreme Court in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources.

We all know that the American small business owner faces many challenges. Government regulation can be a formidable obstacle to conducting business, and litigation can be costly. The Equal Access to Justice Act was conceived and implemented as a check on the formidable power of the federal government. It has already helped many individual Americans and small businesses. The legislation we are offering today will make EAJA more effective and more fair. I want to thank Senator Snowe for agreeing to work with me on this important bill. I hope our colleagues can support it.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate was finally able to debate and pass the Defense authorization bill. It was inexcusable that this bill that is so critical to our men and women in uniform was allowed to languish for over half a year. Vital defense policies are set every year in the authorization bill, including policies with a direct impact on military families such as pay and benefits. I am very pleased that we were able to include a 3.1 percent pay raise for all of our men and women in uniform and am proud of the Senate's strong bipartisan efforts to make TRICARE available for the Guard and Reserve. I was pleased to support these efforts and the successful efforts to eliminate the SBP-DIC offset and reduce the retirement age for those in the Reserve component.

One of the key policy debates that took place during the Senate's consideration of this bill involved our Nation's Iraq policy. For months, I have been calling on the President to provide a flexible, public timetable for completing our mission in Iraq and for withdrawing our troops once that mission is complete. I am not calling for a rigid timetable I mean one that is tied to clear and achievable benchmarks, with estimated dates for meeting those benchmarks. I worked with some of my distinguished Democratic colleagues in the Senate to draft an amendment that demanded just that, and I am pleased that 40 Members of the Senate agreed that we need a flexible timetable for achieving our military mission in Iraq and withdrawing our troops. They recognize what increasing numbers of military leaders and experts are saying, that having such a timeline will help us defeat the insurgency.

Our servicemembers deserve to know what their military mission is and when they can expect to achieve it. And the American people deserve to know that we have a plan, tied to clear benchmarks, for achieving our military goals and redeploying our troops out of Iraq so we can focus on our most pressing national security priority, defeating the global terrorists who threaten this country. I will keep fighting for a timeframe for our military mission and I am heartened by the fact that an increasing number of my Senate colleagues agree with me, and with the American people, on the need for such a timeframe.

I am pleased that the Senate passed my amendment to enhance and strengthen the transition services that are provided to our military personnel by making a number of improvements to the existing transition and post-deployment/pre-discharge health assessment programs. My amendment will ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserve who have been on active duty continuously for at least 180 days are able to participate in transition programs and requires that additional information be included in these transition programs, such as details about employment and reemployment rights and a description of the health care and other benefits to which personnel may be entitled through the VA. The amendment also requires that demobilizing military personnel have access to follow-up care for physical or psychological conditions incurred as a result of their service. In addition, the amendment requires that assistance be provided to eligible military personnel to enroll in the VA health care system. I thank the chairman and the Ranking Member for their assistance on this important issue.

This bill also contains a provision I authored establishing the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, CLRC, pilot project. It became abundantly clear

after the attacks of September 11, 2001, that the U.S. Government had a dearth of critical language skills. The 9/11 Commission report documented the disastrous consequences of this deficiency that, unfortunately, we still have not made enough progress in addressing 4 years after the 9/11 tragedy.

CLRC is designed to address the Government's critical language shortfall by creating a pool of people with advanced language skills that the Federal Government could call on to assist when needed. The National Security Education Program completed a feasibility study of CLRC and concluded that the concept was sound and ``an important step in addressing both short- and long-term shortfalls related to language assets in the national security community.'' It also recommended that a 3-year pilot project be conducted to work out any potential problems. My amendment establishes this pilot project. I want to thank the managers of the bill for working with me to include this worthwhile measure and thank Senator Coleman for cosponsoring my amendment.

I also want to thank the bill managers for continuing to work with me in assisting the families of injured servicemembers. I was pleased that Congress included my amendment on travel benefits for the family of injured servicemembers in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005, P.L. 109-13. My amendment corrected a flaw in the law that unintentionally restricted the number of families of injured servicemembers that qualify for travel assistance. Too many families were being denied help in visiting their injured loved ones because the Army had not officially listed them as ``seriously injured,'' even though these men and women have been evacuated out of the combat zone to the United States for treatment. The change in the law now ensures that families of injured servicemembers evacuated to a U.S. hospital get at least one trip paid for so that these families can quickly reunite and begin recovering from the trauma they have experienced. I introduced my amendment to this bill because the family travel provision in P.L. 109- 13 was sunset at the end of the 2005 fiscal year by the conferees. I thank the Senate for adopting my amendment that will make the provision permanent.

The Senate also adopted an amendment I authored requiring the Department of Defense to report on the steps it is taking to clearly communicate the stop-loss policy to potential enlistees and re- enlistees. One of my constituents, a sergeant in the Army, wrote to me earlier this year articulating his frustration with the Army's stop- loss policy. He had been scheduled to be released from service prior to his unit's deployment to Iraq but the stop-loss order kept him in uniform making him feel that his service was completely unappreciated. Part of this sergeant's frustration and the frustration experienced by others who have been put under stop-loss orders stems from the fact that many don't know that the military can keep them beyond their contractual date of separation. They may find out about this policy only shortly before they are deployed to a war zone, as was the case with my constituent. This situation is simply unacceptable.

The sergeant who shared his story with me was killed in Iraq only days after he wrote his letter. With thousands of soldiers still on stop-loss, I am certain that similar tragic stories have played out many times over the last few years. The very least we owe those who volunteer to serve our Nation is full disclosure of the terms under which they are volunteering. My amendment includes a finding that states exactly that. I hope that, by pushing the Department to report on the actions it is taken to ensure that potential recruits know the terms of their service, the Department will take quick action to do just that. One good place for it to start would be to revise DOD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, the service contract new enlistees and reenlistees must sign to join the military. Form 4/1 does not currently include information that tells those joining the active component that they may be kept on stop-loss during partial mobilizations. The Department must immediately fix this flaw and take other steps to clearly communicate to our men and women in uniform the terms under which they are volunteering to serve.

Congress has a crucial role in defense oversight and I am disappointed that the Senate has again failed to adopt Senator Dorgan's amendment that would have created a Truman Committee to oversee our efforts in Iraq. This measure was a commonsense way to assure that we carry out our policies in the most effect way possible and not, as now, waste millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars. After all, our shared goal is to get needed resources to our troops and rebuilding efforts not to profiteers.

One measure the Senate adopted that should assist in our oversight responsibilities is my amendment requiring DOD to report on how it will address deficiencies related to key military equipment. According to a recent GAO report, DOD has not done a good job in replacing equipment that is being rapidly worn out due to the military's high operational tempo or even tracking its equipment needs. Military readiness has suffered as a result. My amendment requires DOD to submit a report in conjunction with the President's annual budget request that details DOD's program strategies and funding plans to ensure that DOD's budget decisions address these equipment deficiencies. Specifically, the Department must detail its plans to sustain and modernize key equipment systems until they are retired or replaced, report the costs associated with the sustainment and modernization of key equipment, and identify these funds in the Future Years Defense Program. Finally, if the Department chooses to delay or not fully fund their plan, it must describe the risks involved and the steps it is taking to mitigate those risks.

Although I am voting for the Department of Defense authorization bill, I am disappointed with the mixed messages that the Senate continues to send to the administration and the country on issues related to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Even as the Senate passed the important McCain amendment on torture, the Senate also included in this bill the Graham amendment, which even as modified would still eliminate habeas review for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The modification worked out by Senators Graham and Levin would provide detainees with only limited review in the DC Circuit of the procedures for determining whether they are enemy combatants and the procedures the military commissions used to try them. This is an improvement over the original amendment offered by Senator Graham, but it would not allow a court to review any claim that an individual detainee is not, in fact, an enemy combatant. I was very disappointed that this became part of this bill, although I am pleased with the amendment's ban on the use of evidence obtained by undue coercion. It is troubling that after 4 years of congressional acquiescence to the administration on this issue, it took a Supreme Court decision allowing habeas review for the Senate to take action. It is good that the Senate is finally paying attention to this issue, but this amendment is the wrong result. It sends the wrong message about this country's commitment to basic fundamental fairness and the rule of law.

I must also note with some disappointment that this bill continues the wasteful trend of spending billions of dollars on Cold War era weapons systems while at the same time not fully funding the needs of the military personnel fighting our current wars. I think the Senate missed some opportunities when it rejected amendments that could have made the bill better. However, on balance this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families and that is why I support it.

Mr. President, although I recognize the important programs funded by the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations conference report, on balance, I could not support the bill. The conference report provides $50 million in funding for the Department of Energy to develop a plan for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and to select sites suitable for housing reprocessing facilities. This provision was not in the Senate version of the bill and thus was not debated in the Senate. Because reprocessing raises serious environmental, fiscal, and proliferation concerns, this provision should have, at the very least, been the subject of an open and extensive congressional debate before we simply proceeded down the path directed by the report language.

I am also concerned that the Energy and Water appropriations report extends the authorization of funding for the Animas-La Plata project. This extension of funding authorization--which does not belong in an appropriations bill--is contrary to assurances I received in 2000 when the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act was amended.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan.

In March 2003, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces were sent into war in Iraq. Now, over 2\1/2\ years later, that war continues and those brave men and women are waiting for what they should have gotten long ago--a clear, realistic military mission with a flexible timetable for achieving that mission. And, of course, that timetable has to include a plan for withdrawing our troops from Iraq when their mission is done.

On Tuesday, the Senate can start to put our Iraq policy on the right course by demanding a public plan and a flexible timetable for achieving our military goals and bringing our troops home. The absence of any kind of timetable is not fair to our troops and their families. It is making the American people increasingly anxious. And it is hurting, not helping, our Iraq policy and our broader national security strategy.

Why is it hurting us? Well, for one thing, the perception that U.S. troops will be there indefinitely discourages Iraqi ownership of the political process. It also fuels the insurgency, which thrives on conspiracy theories about our intentions and presence in Iraq. The failure to put forth a timetable is helping the recruitment of foreign fighters and unifying elements of the insurgency that might otherwise turn on each other. Former Republican Defense Secretary and Wisconsin Congressman Melvin Laird recognized that when he said that ``our presence is what feeds the insurgency.'' GEN George Casey recognized that when he said that the perception of occupation in Iraq ``fuels the insurgency.'' So did one of the top military commanders I spoke with in Iraq, who told me off the record that nothing would take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents more than a public timetable for finishing the mission.

Drawing down our troops in Iraq is also essential if we are going to prevent the U.S. army from being hollowed out and ensure our military readiness. And it is essential if we are going to make sure that our Iraq policy is consistent with our broader national security priority-- going after the global terrorist networks that threaten the U.S. Despite the administration's desperate efforts to link them, Iraq has been a dangerous and self-defeating diversion from that central fight against global terrorism.

Unfortunately, the President is one of the dwindling group of people who don't support a timetable. They argue that a timetable will embolden the insurgency. Actually, it will undermine the insurgency. They argue that fighting insurgents in Iraq means we won't have to fight them elsewhere. That is just wishful thinking, of course--the idea that all of our terrorist enemies will be irresistibly drawn to Iraq like bees to honey doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They argue that the insurgents will wait us out if we have a timetable. Of course, the insurgents could do that now if that is what they wanted--lay low and wait until we leave. They argue that if we leave prematurely, Iraq will fall into chaos. The only problem is that the insurgency isn't letting up and there is not much expectation it will, as long as our troops remain with no endgoal in sight.

For months, I have been calling on the President to provide a flexible, public timetable for our mission in Iraq. I am not calling for a rigid timetable--I mean one that is tied to clear and achievable benchmarks, with estimated dates for meeting those benchmarks. Today, I am pleased to join with some of my distinguished colleagues in the Senate in offering an amendment that demands just that. I hope that the Senate will finally tell the administration that ``stay the course'' isn't a strategy for success--it is not even a strategy. We need to correct the course we are on. To do that, we need openness, we need honesty, and we need clarity about our military mission in Iraq. The American people, and our troops in Iraq, have been waiting for that for far too long. We can't afford to wait any longer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Nation will pause to honor those brave Americans who have so selflessly served our country in the Armed Forces. For more than 200 years, men and women have proudly worn the uniform of the United States. In peacetime and in wartime, these selfless individuals have served and sacrificed on our behalf, many of them far away from their homes and from their families. Too may of them have made the ultimate sacrifice, and too many others bear the permanent scars of war, both seen and unseen. We owe them--and their families--our deepest, heartfelt gratitude.

As we prepare to mark Veterans Day in the United States with appropriate ceremonies and recognitions such as those that will take place in big cities and small towns across my home State of Wisconsin, men and women from my State and across our country will be continuing to serve with honor and distinction on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Their dedication to this great country--and that of those who served before them--should inspire us all.

These quiet heroes can be found in all of our communities--in our families, within our circles of friends and acquaintances, in our schools, at our places of worship, at the local barber shop or salon, and at various neighborhood gathering places. Many of our veterans, while intensely patriotic and proud of their service--to our country, decline to talk in detail about their own acts of courage. Such humility is a testament to the selfless nature of these individuals. It is also a reminder

of the sometimes painful burden that too many of our veterans carry as a result of their service--a burden that may include memories of wartime experiences that are too personal to share even with the closest of family members and friends.

These men and women show their pride in and dedication to their country in ways large and small, but do not call attention to their own heroism. Many of them continue to serve their fellow Americans and their fellow veterans though active membership in veterans service organization and other community groups. Others talk to school and youth groups about the importance of service, and many work tirelessly to keep alive the memories of those who did not return home.

Thousands of veterans around the country will gather proudly tomorrow for events marking Veterans Day. November 11 is a date with special significance in our history. On that day in 1918--at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month--World War I ended. In 1926, a joint resolution of Congress called on the President to issue a proclamation to encourage all Americans to mark this day by displaying the United States flag and by observing it with appropriate ceremonies.

In 1938, Armistice Day was designated as a legal holiday ``to be dedicated to the cause of world peace'' by an act of Congress. This annual recognition of the contributions and sacrifices of our Nation's World War I veterans was renamed Veterans Day in 1954 so that we might also recognize the service and sacrifice of those who had fought in World War II and the veterans of all of America's other wars.

We owe these brave men and women our gratitude, and we also owe them our best efforts to ensure they know about and receive the Federal benefits and services that they have earned through their service to our country. I have long been concerned that too many veterans and military personnel are unaware of benefits and programs that are available to them through the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense and a number of other Federal agencies. I will continue my work to ensure that all veterans know about the benefits for which they may be eligible. I will also continue to support efforts to fully fund VA health care programs so that all veterans who wish to take advantage of their health care benefits are able to do so. No veteran should have to wait months to see a doctor or should be told that he or she is barred from enrolling in the VA health care system because of a lack of funding.

In addition, I am committed to ensuring that our current military personnel receive adequate health care and transition services, including mental health services, as they return from deployments abroad and when they return to civilian life. I am pleased that earlier this week the Senate passed an amendment that I offered to the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill which is based on legislation I introduced in June, the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act, VETS Act. This amendment represents another step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that are provided to our military personnel by making a number of improvements to the existing transition and post-deployment/pre-discharge health assessment programs.

My amendment will ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserve who have been on active duty continuously for at least 180 days are able to participate in transition programs and requires that additional information be included in these transition programs, such as details about employment and reemployment rights and a description of the health care and other benefits to which personnel may be entitled through the VA. The amendment also requires that demobilizing military personnel have access to follow-up care for physical or psychological conditions incurred as a result of their service. In addition, the amendment requires that assistance be provided to eligible military personnel to enroll in the VA health care system.

Mr. President, as we reflect upon the solemn meaning of this day, let us keep all of our veterans and their families in our thoughts. These men and women are examples of the best that our country has to offer, and they deserve our support--both during times of conflict and after the battles have ended and these valiant men and women have come home to their families and their communities. As we reflect upon the service of these courageous individuals on this Veterans Day, we should also redouble our commitment to continue to honor and support America's brave veterans, military personnel, and their families on this day and throughout the year.

Mr. President, last night the Senate passed an amendment that I offered to this bill that represents another step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that are provided to our military personnel and builds upon an amendment that I offered to this bill last year. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working with me to accept this amendment.

As the Senate conducts its business today, thousands of our brave men and women in uniform are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. These men and women serve with distinction and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt gratitude.

We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them. I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have undertaken numerous legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and their families a priority.

While we should do more to support our veterans, we must also ensure that the men and women who are currently serving in our Armed Forces receive adequate pay and benefits, as well as services that help them to make the transition from active duty to civilian life. I am concerned that we are not doing enough to support our men and women in uniform as they prepare to retire or otherwise separate from the service or, in the case of members of our National Guard and Reserve, to demobilize from active-duty assignments and return to their civilian lives while staying in the military or preparing to separate from the military. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles have ended and our troops have come home.

Earlier this year I introduced legislation, the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act, VETS Act, which would help to ensure that all military personnel have access to the same transition services as they prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to demobilize from active-duty assignments and return to their civilian lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.

I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven provision of services from base to base and from service to service. All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country, and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same services in return.

I am pleased that the VETS Act is supported by a wide range of groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and veterans and their families. These groups include: the American Legion; the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin National Guard; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America.

I introduced similar legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am pleased that a provision that I authored which was based on that bill was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization bill.

In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my constituents, my amendment, in part, directed the Secretaries of Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and certification standards could be coordinated with Government and private sector training and certification standards for corresponding civilian occupations. The Secretaries of Defense and Labor submitted their report, ``Study on Coordination of Job Training Standards with Certification Standards for Military Occupational Specialties,'' in September of this year. It is my hope that this report will serve as a useful tool as the Departments seek to help military personnel who wish to pursue civilian employment related to their military specialties to make the transition from the military to comparable civilian jobs.

In addition, this amendment required the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor, and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. My amendment required GAO to focus on two issues: how to achieve the uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military personnel, and the role of post-deployment and predischarge health assessments as part of the larger transition program. GAO released its study ``Military and Veterans' Benefits: Enhanced Services Could Improve Transition Assistance for Reserves and National Guard'' in May 2005, and it plans to release its study on health assessments in the near future.

In July of this year, GAO provided testimony on its transition services report to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. That hearing could not have been more timely. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to improve transition programs now as we continue to welcome home thousands of military personnel who are serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I commend the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor for the steps they have taken thus far to improve these important programs. We should not miss an opportunity to help the men and women who are currently serving our country, and I am pleased that the chairman and the ranking member agreed to accept a number of provisions from my legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill.

Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the Departments of Veterans Affairs, VA, and Labor, provide preseparation counseling for military personnel who are preparing to leave the Armed Forces through the Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition Assistance Program, TAP/DTAP. This counseling provides servicemembers with valuable information about benefits that they have earned through their service to our country such as education benefits through the GI Bill and health care and other benefits through the VA. Personnel also learn about programs such as Troops to Teachers and have access to employment assistance for themselves and, where appropriate, their spouses.

My amendment would ensure that National Guard and Reserve personnel who are on active duty for at least 180 days are able to participate in this important counseling prior to being demobilized. In its recent report on transition services, GAO found that ``[d]uring their rapid demobilization, the Reserve and National Guard members may not receive all the information on possible benefits to which they are entitled. Notably, certain education benefits and medical coverage require servicemembers to apply while they are still on active duty. However, even after being briefed, some Reserve and National Guard members were not aware of the timeframes within which the needed to act to secure certain benefits before returning home. In addition, most members of the Reserves and National Guard did not have the opportunity to attend an employment workshop during demobilization.''

In response to these findings, GAO recommended that ``DoD, in conjunction with DoL and the VA, determine

what demobilizing Reserve and National Guard members need to make a smooth transition and explore options to enhance their participation in TAP.'' GAO also recommended that ``VA take steps to determine the level of participation in DTAP to ensure those who may have especially complex needs are being served.''

In addition to ensuring that all discharging and demobilizing military personnel are able to participate in TAP/DTAP, we should take steps to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by ensuring that consistent transition briefings occur across the services and at all demobilization/discharge locations. In its report, GAO noted that ``[t]he delivery of TAP may vary in terms of the amount of personal attention participants receive, the length of the components, and the instructional methods used.'' We should make every effort to ensure that those who have put themselves in harm's way on our behalf have access to the same transition services no matter their discharge/ demobilization location or the branch of the Armed Forces in which they serve. I look forward to reviewing the Department's progress on GAO's recommendations in this area.

In order to improve the breadth of information provided to Members during TAP/DTAP, my amendment would require preseparation counseling programs to include the provision of information regarding certification and licensing requirements in civilian occupations and information on identifying military occupations that have civilian counterparts, information concerning veterans small business ownership and entrepreneurship programs offered by the Federal Government, information concerning employment and reemployment rights and veterans preference in Federal employment and Federal procurement opportunities, information concerning housing counseling assistance, and a description of the health care and other benefits to which the member may be entitled through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In addition to the uneven provision of transition services, I have long been concerned about the immediate and long-term health effects that military deployments have on our men and women in uniform. I regret that, too often, the burden of responsibility for proving that a condition is related to military service falls on the personnel themselves. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the VA for benefits that they have earned through their service to our Nation.

Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf war. More than 10 years after the end of the gulf war, we still don't know why so many veterans of that conflict are experiencing medical problems that have become known as gulf war illness. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the Persian Gulf region face many of the same conditions that existed in the early 1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and to study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region are adequately protected from the many possible causes of gulf war illness.

Part of the process of protecting the health of our men and women in uniform is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment physicals and who end up choosing not to have these important physicals in order to get home to their families that much sooner. I am equally concerned about reports that some personnel who did not receive such a physical--either by their own choice or because such a physical was not available--are now having trouble as they apply for benefits for a service-connected condition.

I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support my bill, that our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt, high quality physical examination as part of the demobilization process. These individuals have voluntarily put themselves into harm's way for our benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense makes every effort to determine whether they have experienced, or could experience, any health effects as a result of their service. Thus I am pleased that the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill included a provision to tighten the requirement for a predischarge/post- demobilization health assessment.

It is vitally important that these assessments include a mental health component. Our men and women in uniform serve in difficult circumstances far from home, and too many of them witness or experience violence and horrific situations that most of us cannot even begin to imagine. I have heard concerns that these brave men and women, many of whom are just out of high school or college when they sign up, may suffer long-term physical and mental fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences.

Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, which could have its roots in an experience from a previous deployment and which could come to the surface by a triggering event that is experienced on a current deployment. The same is true for full-time military personnel who have served in a variety of places over their careers. I am pleased that the Senate has already accepted an amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, that will require that personnel receive mental health screenings prior to deployment into a combat zone, not later than 30 days after return from such a deployment, and not later than 120 days after return from such a deployment.

We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too often attached to seeking assistance is ended. One step in this process is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, through DoD, the VA, or a private sector health care provider. To that end, my amendment would require that the health care professionals who are assessing demobilizing military personnel provide all personnel who may need followup care for a physical or psychological condition with information on appropriate resources through DoD or the VA and in the private sector that these personnel may use to access additional followup care if they so choose.

I commend the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for issuing in March 2005 a memorandum to the Assistant Secretaries for the Army, Navy, and Air Force directing them to extend the Pentagon's current post-deployment health assessment process to include a reassessment of ``global health with a specific emphasis on mental health'' to occur 3 to 6 months post-deployment. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee earlier this year, the Assistant Secretary stated that the services were in the process of implementing a program that would include a ``screening procedure with a questionnaire and a face-to-face interaction at about three months'' post-deployment. He also noted that the idea for this program came from ``front line people'' and that he ``asked them . . . `do you think we should make it mandatory?' and the answer was: yes.'' This sentiment makes it even more important that the initial post- deployment mental health assessment be strengthened and that it be mandatory as well so that health care professionals have a benchmark against which to measure the results of the followup screening process. I am pleased that the Pentagon has undertaken this effort, and I believe that the provisions in Senator Landrieu's amendment and in my amendment will further enhance this process and help to ensure that we are properly caring for the mental health of our men and women in uniform.

In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are eligible

for medical benefits from the VA learn about and receive these benefits, my amendment would require that, as part of the demobilization process, assistance be provided to eligible members to enroll in the VA health care system.

Finally, my amendment will require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Veterans Affairs, to report to Congress on the actions taken by those Departments to ensure that the Transition Assistance Program is functioning effectively to provide members with timely and comprehensive transition assistance. As part of the report, the Secretary will be required to include a review of transition assistance that has been/is being provided to members deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, in support of other contingency operations, and members of the National Guard who were activated in support of relief efforts following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I look forward to reviewing this report.

Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assistance on this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about the almost daily series of alarming developments in Iran and Syria. Both are state sponsors of terrorism. Both have worked to undermine our rebuilding efforts in Iraq. Tehran and Damascus both have a history of refusing to comply with global nonproliferation standards, and experts routinely cite disturbing trends that suggest these governments are aggressively pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Iran clearly has the intention to develop nuclear weapons and is well on its way to doing so. It has been belligerent and dishonest in its dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency and our European partners who are negotiating with Tehran. This led to the historic vote on September 24 of this year, when the IAEA Board of Governors found that Iran had breached its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and noted Iran's policy of concealing its nuclear work and facilities. What was Tehran's response to the international community? More defiance and the outrageous comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be ``wiped off the map.''

Since coming into office, this administration has mostly allowed these problems with Iran and Syria to fester while its focus was elsewhere. It has paid only intermittent attention when crises flare up and has not formulated a long-term and comprehensive strategy for dealing with the proliferation threat presented by these regimes. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent--with the rapid nuclear developments in Iran, the increasing proliferation risk that it and Syria pose, the undermining of our work in Iraq, and the extreme statements and actions recently taken by both Tehran and Damascus--that we must take immediate action.

Congress took action to augment the U.S. nonproliferation regime in 2000 when it overwhelmingly passed the Iran Nonproliferation Act, INA, in response to repeated transfers of ballistic missile technology and know-how from Russia and other countries to Iran. Known and suspected assistance from Russia, China, and Pakistan has also helped Iran make progress in its nuclear program. I believe that the 2000 legislation has winnowed the pool of transgressors by highlighting the most egregious among them; however, determined governments, industries, and individuals continue to find it a worthwhile risk to trade in goods and technology that can contribute to an Iranian WMD program. Clearly, it is time to strengthen the INA to prevent these transactions. A more robust INA can also serve as a model for curbing proliferation involving other countries--starting with Syria, whose policies may still be influenced by such determined and effective measures.

Congress is on the cusp of adopting some important changes to the INA with S. 1713. If enacted, the reporting and sanctions provisions of the statute would also apply to transactions involving Syria. In addition, the law would also target exports of WMD and missile technology from these two countries. The revamped Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act, ISNA, would be a positive step. However, we must do more.

Today, I along with my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, introduce the Iran Nonproliferation Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would intensify and broaden the sanctions provisions in the INA. First, it requires mandatory sanctions for violators, an approach that Congress favored overwhelmingly when it passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. Second, it requires a more detailed justification from the President if he chooses to exercise a national security waiver. Third, it introduces requirements that make parent companies subject to INA sanctions, in addition to their proliferator subsidiaries. And fourth, it expands the list of sanctions to include prohibitions on U.S. investment, financing, and financial assistance for proliferators, in addition to the current arms and dual use export prohibitions.

The current sanctions mechanism is too weak. Under the INA, sanctions are authorized rather than required. Since 2000, the administration has chosen to impose INA sanctions on foreign companies or individuals on 65 occasions, with some entities having been sanctioned several times. The State Department has not revealed in unclassified form how many entities were reported but not sanctioned and why they were not sanctioned.

If we accept that a successful Iranian or Syrian WMD program poses a major threat, then we must get serious about our sanctions and make them mandatory. Our bill does just that. Making sanctions mandatory has precedents. As I previously noted, Congress overwhelmingly approved mandatory sanctions against foreign persons and entities engaged in missile proliferation to Iran as part of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. President Clinton vetoed the bill, however, largely because at that time his administration was engaged in negotiations with Russia over export controls. The sense was that the newly formed government needed time to develop its controls over Russian business. In the end, the administration exercised its Executive order authority to impose broad sanctions on several Russian companies. However, we must let the international community know that the threat from proliferation is great and that export controls must be in place and enforced. Making sanctions mandatory sends that message.

Furthermore, nonproliferation legislation should ensure that national security waivers are issued only under the most compelling of circumstances. The current national security waiver is too broad, and the administration can simply classify the reason for the waiver in order to remove almost all scrutiny. The message sent to those assisting Iran and Syria with WMD development is that, even if the United States catches them, there is only a small chance that we will actually do anything about it. There are legitimate reasons for classifying parts of these responses and that is why our bill allows the administration to submit part of the waiver explanation in a classified annex. However, our bill requires the Administration to provide more detailed explanations for such waivers and an explanation of why a justification is classified.

Currently, the INA sanctions restrict only U.S. arms and dual-use exports to violators, and an Executive order authorizes some additional restrictions. Our bill will ensure that all the significant tools in our sanctions arsenal are brought to bear on proliferators. It broadens INA sanctions to also include prohibitions on U.S. investment, financing, and financial assistance for violators, and if S. 1713 is enacted, also ban their imports into the United States. In an example identified by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, China National Aero-Technology Import Export Corporation, CATIC, which was sanctioned under the INA in 2002 and 2004, has subsidiaries that export to the U.S. Under our bill, the investment sanction would prevent U.S. companies from making new capital investments in CATIC factories. It would also forbid the purchase by U.S. persons of shares of CATIC Shenzhen Holdings and CATIC International Holdings, two CATIC- controlled companies that are listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The new import ban would block the sale of CATIC products in the United States, cutting off an important source of revenue. Put simply, this bill would make it clear for companies like CATIC that they must make a choice--profit from their dealings with the vast U.S. market or continue to assist Iran or Syria with their WMD and missile programs. It is long past due that companies make such a choice.

Under the INA, parent companies can continue to do business with the U.S. and profit from our economy, even if their subsidiaries openly assist Iran with missile and WMD-related activities. Our bill attempts to end this aberration by expanding the scope of the sanctions to include the parent companies. The Wisconsin Project has identified serial proliferators who have flouted U.S. law because they know they cannot be touched by the current INA. China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, CASC, for example, has had three subsidiaries sanctioned--two of them repeatedly--for missile technology transfers to Iran. Meanwhile, CASC is marketing its commercial satellite launch program in our country. This amendment would force CASC to choose between selling missile technology to Iran and the business potential in future U.S. satellite launches. The bill's ban on investment would also affect the subsidiaries CASC has listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Similarly, the Chinese oil giant Sinopec has been selling glass-lined vessels useful for making poison gas to Iran through its subsidiaries. While INA sanctions were imposed on one of its subsidiaries, however, Sinopec remained free to raise billions of dollars on the New York Stock Exchange and even receive U.S. technology and U.S. foreign aid. This is absurd, and will no longer be possible if our bill becomes law.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize the urgency of this matter. The intelligence community expects that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon within a decade, and the CIA has highlighted concern about Iran's robust missile program. Iran has pursued various methods for enriching uranium and experimented with separating plutonium. Iran's WMD program is making news headlines again, and the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran in noncompliance with the NPT. The Congressional Research Service reported in its review of the INA that Iran's efforts to acquire foreign WMD technology seem to have continued unabated. Similarly, Syria continues to rely on technology and assistance from abroad to develop its ballistic missile program. According to recent unclassified CIA reports, Syria's chemical weapon program also depends on equipment and precursor chemicals it receives from foreign sources.

We need to make a serious effort to inhibit WMD development by Iran and Syria. Strengthening the INA is one concrete way to do that for Iran, and when S. 1713 is enacted, also for Syria. We must make clear to the world that assisting Tehran and Damascus in developing the most dangerous weapons cannot and will not be tolerated. For example, China is a country with which we continue to build closer ties. However, a recent Rand study concluded that although China has improved its export control system on paper, it does not consistently and effectively implement these controls. Russia is also an important partner, but it has continued to provide Iran with nuclear technology. India is another nation with which the United States continues to grow closer, and the President has even committed to helping it with nuclear energy technology. Yet India also has very close ties to Iran. We must make clear to these nations and to the entire world that it is in the best interest of the international community that Iran and Syria do not expand their WMD capabilities. We must also make it crystal clear that if you assist these nations with their quest for weapons, there will be serious consequences for you in your relationship and dealings with the United States. Strengthening the INA as we suggest will make that message clear and further our national security goals.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about the almost daily series of alarming developments in Iran and Syria. Both are state sponsors of terrorism. Both have worked to undermine our rebuilding efforts in Iraq. Tehran and Damascus both have a history of refusing to comply with global nonproliferation standards, and experts routinely cite disturbing trends that suggest these governments are aggressively pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Iran clearly has the intention to develop nuclear weapons and is well on its way to doing so. It has been belligerent and dishonest in its dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency and our European partners who are negotiating with Tehran. This led to the historic vote on September 24 of this year, when the IAEA Board of Governors found that Iran had breached its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and noted Iran's policy of concealing its nuclear work and facilities. What was Tehran's response to the international community? More defiance and the outrageous comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be ``wiped off the map.''

Since coming into office, this administration has mostly allowed these problems with Iran and Syria to fester while its focus was elsewhere. It has paid only intermittent attention when crises flare up and has not formulated a long-term and comprehensive strategy for dealing with the proliferation threat presented by these regimes. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent--with the rapid nuclear developments in Iran, the increasing proliferation risk that it and Syria pose, the undermining of our work in Iraq, and the extreme statements and actions recently taken by both Tehran and Damascus--that we must take immediate action.

Congress took action to augment the U.S. nonproliferation regime in 2000 when it overwhelmingly passed the Iran Nonproliferation Act, INA, in response to repeated transfers of ballistic missile technology and know-how from Russia and other countries to Iran. Known and suspected assistance from Russia, China, and Pakistan has also helped Iran make progress in its nuclear program. I believe that the 2000 legislation has winnowed the pool of transgressors by highlighting the most egregious among them; however, determined governments, industries, and individuals continue to find it a worthwhile risk to trade in goods and technology that can contribute to an Iranian WMD program. Clearly, it is time to strengthen the INA to prevent these transactions. A more robust INA can also serve as a model for curbing proliferation involving other countries--starting with Syria, whose policies may still be influenced by such determined and effective measures.

Congress is on the cusp of adopting some important changes to the INA with S. 1713. If enacted, the reporting and sanctions provisions of the statute would also apply to transactions involving Syria. In addition, the law would also target exports of WMD and missile technology from these two countries. The revamped Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act, ISNA, would be a positive step. However, we must do more.

Today, I along with my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, introduce the Iran Nonproliferation Enhancement Act of 2005. This bill would intensify and broaden the sanctions provisions in the INA. First, it requires mandatory sanctions for violators, an approach that Congress favored overwhelmingly when it passed the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. Second, it requires a more detailed justification from the President if he chooses to exercise a national security waiver. Third, it introduces requirements that make parent companies subject to INA sanctions, in addition to their proliferator subsidiaries. And fourth, it expands the list of sanctions to include prohibitions on U.S. investment, financing, and financial assistance for proliferators, in addition to the current arms and dual use export prohibitions.

The current sanctions mechanism is too weak. Under the INA, sanctions are authorized rather than required. Since 2000, the administration has chosen to impose INA sanctions on foreign companies or individuals on 65 occasions, with some entities having been sanctioned several times. The State Department has not revealed in unclassified form how many entities were reported but not sanctioned and why they were not sanctioned.

If we accept that a successful Iranian or Syrian WMD program poses a major threat, then we must get serious about our sanctions and make them mandatory. Our bill does just that. Making sanctions mandatory has precedents. As I previously noted, Congress overwhelmingly approved mandatory sanctions against foreign persons and entities engaged in missile proliferation to Iran as part of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. President Clinton vetoed the bill, however, largely because at that time his administration was engaged in negotiations with Russia over export controls. The sense was that the newly formed government needed time to develop its controls over Russian business. In the end, the administration exercised its Executive order authority to impose broad sanctions on several Russian companies. However, we must let the international community know that the threat from proliferation is great and that export controls must be in place and enforced. Making sanctions mandatory sends that message.

Furthermore, nonproliferation legislation should ensure that national security waivers are issued only under the most compelling of circumstances. The current national security waiver is too broad, and the administration can simply classify the reason for the waiver in order to remove almost all scrutiny. The message sent to those assisting Iran and Syria with WMD development is that, even if the United States catches them, there is only a small chance that we will actually do anything about it. There are legitimate reasons for classifying parts of these responses and that is why our bill allows the administration to submit part of the waiver explanation in a classified annex. However, our bill requires the Administration to provide more detailed explanations for such waivers and an explanation of why a justification is classified.

Currently, the INA sanctions restrict only U.S. arms and dual-use exports to violators, and an Executive order authorizes some additional restrictions. Our bill will ensure that all the significant tools in our sanctions arsenal are brought to bear on proliferators. It broadens INA sanctions to also include prohibitions on U.S. investment, financing, and financial assistance for violators, and if S. 1713 is enacted, also ban their imports into the United States. In an example identified by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, China National Aero-Technology Import Export Corporation, CATIC, which was sanctioned under the INA in 2002 and 2004, has subsidiaries that export to the U.S. Under our bill, the investment sanction would prevent U.S. companies from making new capital investments in CATIC factories. It would also forbid the purchase by U.S. persons of shares of CATIC Shenzhen Holdings and CATIC International Holdings, two CATIC- controlled companies that are listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The new import ban would block the sale of CATIC products in the United States, cutting off an important source of revenue. Put simply, this bill would make it clear for companies like CATIC that they must make a choice--profit from their dealings with the vast U.S. market or continue to assist Iran or Syria with their WMD and missile programs. It is long past due that companies make such a choice.

Under the INA, parent companies can continue to do business with the U.S. and profit from our economy, even if their subsidiaries openly assist Iran with missile and WMD-related activities. Our bill attempts to end this aberration by expanding the scope of the sanctions to include the parent companies. The Wisconsin Project has identified serial proliferators who have flouted U.S. law because they know they cannot be touched by the current INA. China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, CASC, for example, has had three subsidiaries sanctioned--two of them repeatedly--for missile technology transfers to Iran. Meanwhile, CASC is marketing its commercial satellite launch program in our country. This amendment would force CASC to choose between selling missile technology to Iran and the business potential in future U.S. satellite launches. The bill's ban on investment would also affect the subsidiaries CASC has listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Similarly, the Chinese oil giant Sinopec has been selling glass-lined vessels useful for making poison gas to Iran through its subsidiaries. While INA sanctions were imposed on one of its subsidiaries, however, Sinopec remained free to raise billions of dollars on the New York Stock Exchange and even receive U.S. technology and U.S. foreign aid. This is absurd, and will no longer be possible if our bill becomes law.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize the urgency of this matter. The intelligence community expects that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear weapon within a decade, and the CIA has highlighted concern about Iran's robust missile program. Iran has pursued various methods for enriching uranium and experimented with separating plutonium. Iran's WMD program is making news headlines again, and the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran in noncompliance with the NPT. The Congressional Research Service reported in its review of the INA that Iran's efforts to acquire foreign WMD technology seem to have continued unabated. Similarly, Syria continues to rely on technology and assistance from abroad to develop its ballistic missile program. According to recent unclassified CIA reports, Syria's chemical weapon program also depends on equipment and precursor chemicals it receives from foreign sources.

We need to make a serious effort to inhibit WMD development by Iran and Syria. Strengthening the INA is one concrete way to do that for Iran, and when S. 1713 is enacted, also for Syria. We must make clear to the world that assisting Tehran and Damascus in developing the most dangerous weapons cannot and will not be tolerated. For example, China is a country with which we continue to build closer ties. However, a recent Rand study concluded that although China has improved its export control system on paper, it does not consistently and effectively implement these controls. Russia is also an important partner, but it has continued to provide Iran with nuclear technology. India is another nation with which the United States continues to grow closer, and the President has even committed to helping it with nuclear energy technology. Yet India also has very close ties to Iran. We must make clear to these nations and to the entire world that it is in the best interest of the international community that Iran and Syria do not expand their WMD capabilities. We must also make it crystal clear that if you assist these nations with their quest for weapons, there will be serious consequences for you in your relationship and dealings with the United States. Strengthening the INA as we suggest will make that message clear and further our national security goals.

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

Mr. President, in September I was pleased to support the Senate version of H.R. 2744, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill providing funding for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. I want to thank Senators Bennett and Kohl for their hard work in crafting that legislation. While I may not have supported every provision, on balance, the Senate bill provided important funding to support our Nation's farmers, rural communities, and conservation programs and to provide nutritious food for seniors, children, and those in need. While I still support many of the provisions that remained in the conference report, there were significant changes and new provisions added that prevent me from supporting the final conference report.

After years of delay, I was encouraged that the Senate bill included funds to implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling, COOL, for meat, vegetables, and fruits. Unfortunately the conference report delays COOL for another 2 years, which is unacceptable for a provision that was part of the 2002 farm bill. Country-of-origin labeling is vitally important to enable our farmers to show their pride in the quality of their products, from ginseng to cheese to cranberries. Wisconsin farmers are proud of their work, and many consumers want to support American products--with country-of-origin labeling, both farmers and consumers benefit.

The strength of the organic certification and labeling program through USDA has been the ability of organic consumers, farmers, processors, and retailers to work together to create a seal that everyone has confidence in. The Harvey court decision challenged some of the procedures in place for organic farming and food processing. This situation should have caused the organic community to again come together, openly discuss the issues, and more than likely propose consensus changes to the law to both ensure the reputation of the organic label and allow for the continued record growth of the organic market. The Senate had included an amendment to require the USDA to report on the effects of the Harvey decision as part of this open process.

Unfortunately, some powerful corporate interests who see organic foods simply through the lens of potential profit were able to have language inserted in conference. While some of the inserted changes might ultimately have been adopted after open discussions with interested parties, back-room deals in the dead of night are not the way to go and have the potential for undermining confidence in the entire organic program.

This closed-door process extended to other provisions that were changed in conference to the detriment of the final report, including reductions in conservation funding and the removal of a provision proposed by Senator Harkin that would have prevented the privatization of food stamp offices.

I am also disappointed that there are not stronger protections against the politicization of decisions made by the Food and Drug Administration. There is no room for politics in science, yet the FDA has demonstrated an alarming indifference to scientific integrity in its unprecedented decision preventing emergency contraception, or Plan B, from being offered over the counter. I strongly believe women should have access to all available contraceptive methods so that they can make choices regarding their personal health. I have supported scientific integrity in the past, and I must express my displeasure that stronger language was not included in the final conference report to prevent the FDA from allowing politics to affect its decision making.

By highlighting the problems with the conference report's process and policy I don't mean to suggest that nothing good remains from the Senate bill. The conference report still rejects a number of administration proposals to reduce or eliminate important programs such as funds for research at our land-grant colleges and universities, conservation partnerships through resource conservation and development councils, and funds to combat Johne's disease in our dairy industry. I was also heartened that the conferees included critical funds to address chronic wasting disease, and an amendment I proposed with Senator Allard to speed USDA's development of uniform regulations governing captive deer and elk. But, on balance, I simply cannot support the detrimental changes made in conference to the Senate bill.

Mr. President, today's vote is the first part of a three-step budget reconciliation package that actually leaves this Nation's budget worse off than it is now, not by tens of millions of dollars, which itself would have been a disservice to the American public, but by tens of billions of dollars.

Using reconciliation to push through legislation that will worsen our budget deficit and add billions more to the mountain of debt our children and grandchildren will have to pay is a perversion of a process designed to expedite measures to reduce the deficit.

Reconciliation was intended to help facilitate the enactment of measures to reduce the deficit. It is ironic, to say the least, that it should be used to enact measures that only aggravate our budget deficits and increase our massive debt.

No one who has served in this body for the past 10 years, and especially the past 4\1/2\ years, should pretend to be shocked, however. This is only the latest abuse of a reconciliation process that in recent years has been the principal tool used to enact some of the most reckless fiscal policies in recent history.

But for even the most cynical, there are new lows in this bill, most notably the use of reconciliation to jam through a controversial policy measure to permit drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At the very least, the Senate should be allowed to conduct a full and open debate on this misguided decision to undermine the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System. To say that the inclusion of this provision in the reconciliation package is based on dubious revenue assumptions would be kind. By perverting the budget process to push through oil and drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the majority has successfully squandered away the legacy of environmental stewardship initiated by President Eisenhower in 1960.

Also of concern are the significant changes to the Medicare and Medicaid programs, cutting programs that offer critical health care services to people who most need it. The Senate package does adopt some positive changes, such as cutting the Medicare Advantage slush fund, preventing Medicare cuts to physician payments, and protecting inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. Unfortunately, the President has made it clear that he does not support many of the provisions that will protect beneficiaries, but instead would rather give money to insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

The administration has stated that it prefers provisions offered in the House budget package. The House plan for Medicaid cuts includes cutting programs for children, pregnant mothers, the disabled, and the elderly, while including stipulations to shift costs onto already poor and vulnerable populations. This bill will result in considerable changes to these programs that could negatively affect multiple generations of American families, and I am deeply concerned about the possibility of a final conference report that adopts the House approach on these issues.

In one of the few bright spots in this package, the Agriculture Committee overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan manner proposed an extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program as part of its reconciliation package. This committee action and the lack of an attempt to remove the extension on the floor show the strong support for this vital dairy safety net. I renew my call to the administration to fulfill the President's campaign promise and actively work with members of the House to reaffirm the Senate's strong support for MILC.

I close by cautioning my colleagues in the majority party that the precedents set by previous reconciliation bills and being set in this one lay the groundwork for the leveraging through of policies they may find troubling the day Democrats become the majority party in the Senate. And that day will come.

My friends across the aisle may be thinking, ``We have nothing to lose. When Democrats take control, there will be enough of them who will object to the kinds of abuses of the reconciliation process in which we engaged.''

Well, if that is their thinking, they may be right. But I suggest that it is an unreliable strategy. The best protection against possible Democratic abuse of reconciliation in the future is to ensure that the rules are enforced as they were intended at all times, not just when they serve your immediate policy objectives.

Using reconciliation to enact controversial energy and health policies is an abuse of that process. Using reconciliation to enact legislation that will worsen budget deficits and increase the debt is an abuse of that process.

And, please, let's not waste the Senate's time with arguments that somehow this particular bill before us isn't an abuse because this bill, by itself, does not worsen the deficit. No matter how many pieces you slice it into, the reconciliation package will leave us with bigger deficits, not smaller ones.

When Congress and the White House become serious about cleaning up the fiscal mess they created, and when they are willing to spread the burden of that clean up across all programs--defense and nondefense discretionary programs, entitlements, and the spending done through the Tax Code--I am ready to help. But so long as we see reconciliation measures that are contemptuous of the principles on which reconciliation was based, I must oppose them.