Floor Statements

Mr. President, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Senate is faced with a daunting but absolutely crucial task. How can Congress best respond to the horrific damage caused by this disaster? I want to express my full support to the people from all of the affected regions in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and their congressional delegations. In this time of desperate need, we all must pull together and do everything we can to help.

We can see the devastating effects of the hurricane and flooding on our television screens every night. It will take years to rebuild the affected areas. In the meantime, the residents and small businesses in those areas have suffered catastrophic losses. Some will undoubtedly, through no fault of their own, have to file for bankruptcy sometime in the future. The bankruptcy system is an important safety net for people who suffer this kind of devastation. In this country, we do not sentence people who have been through a disaster of this type to a lifetime of financial servitude. Bankruptcy lets them get a fresh start. And a fresh start is what so many of the relief efforts going on are all about.

As my colleagues are aware, Congress earlier this year enacted major changes to the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (``BAPCPA'') was the first major overhaul of the bankruptcy system in more than 25 years. Most provisions of the new law will become effective on October 17, 2005, six months after enactment. Any bankruptcy case filed before that date is still subject to current law.

We do not yet know how many families affected by this disaster will end up filing for bankruptcy. A study just released a few days ago by Professor Bob Lawless, a law professor at the University of Nevada, indicates that bankruptcy filings increase significantly in areas where natural disasters occur. Professor Lawless looked at 18 hurricanes and tropical storms since 1980 and the rate of bankruptcy filings in the States where the storms made landfall compared to the surrounding States and the rest of the country. He looked at the effects in the first, second and third year after the event.

According to this study, bankruptcy filings climbed in landfall States at more than 1\1/2\ times the pace of unaffected States and remained stuck at that rate even three years later. Given the enormous impact of this storm, we can expect a similar if not greater, increase in filings. And this new influx of filings will occur just as the new law is going into effect. Katrina victims will in essence be guinea pigs, testing the new provisions with the most desperate of circumstances.

The new bankruptcy law makes it significantly more difficult and complicated to file for bankruptcy. No one disputes that. It was intended to weed out abusers of the system. It contains new documentation requirements and the so-called ``means test'' which is a fairly rigid formula designed to identify debtors who really can continue to pay their debts and shouldn't get a discharge.

Everyone in the Senate knows that I strongly opposed the BAPCPA and tried very hard to amend it to make it less onerous for good faith debtors. But my goal now is not to try to undermine or reopen the new law, but simply to make sure that it doesn't compound the hardship faced by victims of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. That is what the bill I will introduce today, the Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005, aims to do.

This bill first deals directly with the fact that the new law is scheduled to take effect only a month and a half from now, when the victims of Katrina will still be in the initial stages of putting their lives back together. I believe the best way to handle this extraordinary situation is to give Katrina victims a grace period during which the old bankruptcy law, which has essentially been in effect for 27 years, will still apply to their cases. The bill provides that cases filed within one year of the effective date of the new law by people who lived in the natural disaster area declared by the President will be handled under the law in effect on August 29, 2005, the date of the hurricane. This provision will mean that all the complicated work to apply and interpret the new law that will take place in the first year after it becomes effective will not affect the cases of the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

I understand that some may argue that the new law contains adequate safeguards and judicial discretion to deal with the concerns I have raised. But we can't know that for sure at this point. At the very least, there will be litigation and disagreement over how some provisions will be interpreted. Those issues will be settled by the courts all across the country, and that process will not be affected by this bill. But Katrina's victims should not be the test cases. Giving them a year to proceed under the old law seems entirely reasonable.

Providing this added grace period also addresses the fact that some of the hurricane victims might have filed their petitions before October 17 were it not for the hurricane. These people have been deprived of that right, which Congress provided in the new law itself, by a natural disaster. Given all they are now going through, we should give them adequate time to take care of their most immediate needs before closing the door on their ability to file for bankruptcy under the old law. A one year grace period should be sufficient, and seems fair.

Professor Lawless's study indicates that the financial effects of a disaster like Katrina last for more than a year. And of course, there will be future disasters, perhaps some as grave as this one. I believe we need to take a close look at the new bankruptcy law and make sure that disaster victims are treated fairly. There is simply no justification for applying provisions designed to stop abuse of the system to people who have been through this kind of disaster. Therefore, the bill makes a number of other amendments to the new law that will apply not only to Katrina victims who file for bankruptcy after the one year grace period is over but to victims of other natural disasters. Let me describe some of those provisions.

First, the bill builds on an exemption to the means test that applies to disabled veterans and simply adds victims of natural disasters to that exemption. No person driven to bankruptcy by a natural disaster should have a case dismissed or converted to a Chapter 13 filing under the means test.

The bill also exempts from the definition of income any payments from FEMA, the Red Cross, or other disaster relief funds. Whatever money people receive to help them survive the aftermath of a disaster should not be included in the calculation of how much they have available to satisfy their creditors. Generous citizens around the country are making contributions to make sure disaster victims are fed and clothed and their homes rebuilt, not to give more money to the credit card companies.

The bill contains a provision to make clear that expenses incurred as a result of a disaster are considered reasonable expenses for purposes of the means test. The rigid IRS standards obviously don't include money to replace things that were lost in a hurricane, or pay for a hotel stay while a home is rebuilt.

Another provision of the new law that seems unfair to apply to victims of natural disasters requires that debtors seek credit counseling before they file for bankruptcy. The new law already includes a provision to exempt debtors who are on active duty military service overseas or who are incompetent or disabled if that status makes them unable to complete the requirement. Victims of natural disasters deserve a similar exemption. If they can't complete credit counseling because they live in a shelter with no access to the Internet or because they have no records for the credit counselor to evaluate, they shouldn't be prevented from filing for bankruptcy.

One of the most tragic effects of a natural disaster is homelessness. Millions of homes were destroyed by Katrina. People who lived in these homes will be in temporary shelters for months, but may eventually find apartments to live in in a new location. If they end up having to file for bankruptcy, that filing puts in place an automatic stay of any legal proceedings against them, including eviction proceedings for nonpayment of rent. The automatic stay allows debtors to get their affairs in order and catch up on their rent payments, but the new law makes it much easier for landlords to have the stay lifted. The prospect of a natural disaster victim being put out on the street during a bankruptcy proceeding should be chilling to all Americans. This bill will simply require landlords of natural disaster victims to seek a lifting of the stay without the expedited procedures and special treatment that the new law provides.

Another provision of the bill gives some extra relief to natural disaster victims from the fairly rigid deadlines that are established for filing certain paperwork in connection with a bankruptcy filing. This is a very reasonable step that simply recognizes that obtaining or filing the necessary tax returns, identity documents, documentation of income and other items may be significantly more difficult, or even impossible for a period of time, for natural disaster victims than it is for other debtors.

Finally, the bill also provides relief for small businesses that are put in dire financial condition by a natural disaster. The new law includes some very tight and unmovable deadlines for small businesses seeking to reorganize under Chapter 11. If we want to help as many businesses hit by disasters to survive as possible, we need to give the courts flexibility to extend those deadlines.

I know that many people in this body worked very hard over a period of many years to pass the BAPCPA. As much as we disagreed about the merits of that bill, I respect their hard work. But I truly hope that my colleagues will not let pride of authorship or the fact that they supported that bill stand in the way of providing desperately needed help to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. The changes in this bill are modest and will apply to a relatively small number of people. I suppose some may argue that they are not absolutely necessary, but I believe, at the least, that a very good argument can be made that they are. Shouldn't we err on the side of helping people whose lives have been ripped apart? Shouldn't we take every precaution to make sure that the horror of a natural disaster is not compounded by a bankruptcy law that is too rigid or too harsh? I believe that is the least we can do in these circumstances.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these modest but important changes to the law. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today we mourn Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who faithfully served the Supreme Court and our Nation for 33 years--19 of them as Chief Justice. That tenure made him the fourth- longest serving Chief Justice in the history

of our Nation, surpassed only by Chief Justices Melville Weston Fuller, Roger B. Taney, and John Marshall. He was also the fifth longest serving Justice in our history. Walter Dellinger, former acting Solicitor General in the Clinton administration, has suggested that Chief Justice Rehnquist will be judged by history as one of the three most influential Chief Justices, together with Marshall and Chief Justice Earl Warren. We have truly lost a historic figure.

It is with pride, then, that we in Wisconsin claim Justice Rehnquist as a native son. He was born in our State, and Wisconsin was his first home. He grew up in Shorewood, a suburb of Milwaukee, and graduated from Shorewood High School in 1942. Wisconsin must have provided a good foundation for his future; he went on to graduate first in his class from Stanford Law School and to clerk for former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, another of the great jurists of the 20th century.

I have deep respect for this son of Wisconsin, although I did not always agree with his substantive legal views. Indeed, we are hearing praise for Justice Rehnquist from across the political and legal spectrum. To be admired and respected despite philosophical differences is one of the marks of a truly great man.

Justice John Paul Stevens, perhaps Rehnquist's most ideologically distant colleague on the current Court, paid tribute to him on behalf of the entire Court on the occasion of Justice Rehnquist's 30th anniversary on the bench. Justice Stevens praised him for his efficiency, good humor, and absolute impartiality when presiding over Court conferences. That Chief Justice Rehnquist possessed sufficient intellectual strength and personal skill to preside over discussions among nine of the finest legal minds in the nation and to earn their respect is no small feat, particularly considering the difficulties and dissension that have marked discussions and conferences in other eras. All acknowledge that Chief Justice Rehnquist was a devoted and skilled court administrator, not just for his own highest court but also in his role as guardian of our entire third branch of government, the Federal judiciary.

In addition to his accomplishments on the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist deserves our greatest respect for the dignity and fortitude with which he conducted himself in the last year. Despite the fact that he was clearly suffering from serious illness, he continued to serve the public and the Court. He was an inspiration to all who encounter physical obstacles in carrying out their duties, to all who face the challenges of illness or disability but still want to contribute to their country or their communities.

History will judge whether Chief Justice Rehnquist led the Court in a direction that was good for the country. For now, it is appropriate to recognize his intellect and his service. I have deep respect for Justice Rehnquist's integrity, his personal fortitude and his devotion to the Court and the entire judicial branch. Wisconsin will miss our distinguished son.

Mr. President, I want to again express my deepest sympathies to all those who have suffered so much because of Hurricane Katrina and its aftereffects. This past week has seen destruction and misery on a scale perhaps not witnessed before in the United States. Words simply cannot describe it.

Americans have responded to this tragedy in typical fashion with untold acts of kindness and selflessness. Many who have lost everything themselves have worked without sleep and in terrible conditions to help those who cannot help themselves. The Coast Guard and military saved thousands stranded on rooftops. People have volunteered their services and their homes and have donated generously. Companies both large and small have also stepped up to help, as has the international community. In my own State of Wisconsin, we have mobilized and deployed almost 500 members of the National Guard. First responders and rescue workers have traveled to the stricken areas to help, people are preparing shelters for those who have been displaced, and people are opening their pocketbooks. I deeply admire and respect all of these acts of heroism and generosity. And as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I want to express my sincere thanks to the many in the international community who have come forward with their own offers of help, and their words of support and solidarity.

Unfortunately, these acts of heroism and compassion starkly contrast with the inadequacy of the response to this major national disaster. Thousands desperate for help were left stranded as the relief effort slowly sputtered into action. Empty assurances and high-level excuses were no comfort to those stuck in overcrowded and unsafe shelters or to those who were desperate for medicine. It is shocking and disappointing, to say the least, that 4

years of efforts to supposedly improve our emergency response capabilities fell so short. We have devoted countless hours, and tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, to Homeland Security since 9/11. But the American people have not gotten an adequate return for this massive investment.

We must do all we can to help the residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama get back on their feet and rebuild their homes and their lives. These Americans will need our resolve and our partnership long after the headlines fade.

In addition it is of the utmost importance that there be a thorough and independent review of the response to Hurricane Katrina in order to identify failures and improve our emergency response system and capabilities. I pledge to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that those responsible for costly failures are held accountable, and to ensure that we learn from this tragedy. We must face up to the searing and shameful images of American families being left to fend for themselves in increasingly desperate circumstances, and we must ensure that we never see such images again.

Mr. President, like all Americans, my thoughts are with those struggling to cope with the terrible effects of Hurricane Katrina. The devastation brought by the storm is absolutely heart-wrenching and beyond description. Many of my constituents are deeply concerned by the scenes of suffering they are witnessing and I share their desire that the Government do all it can to get help to Katrina's victims as soon as possible.

I commend the majority leader and minority leader for acting to make sure that the Federal help is available to deal with Katrina's aftermath. I hope that the emergency supplemental we are passing will help to ensure that disaster relief efforts proceed as smoothly and expeditiously as possible. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress and with the President to make sure that the Federal Government does all it can to assist those who have lost so much in this national tragedy.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I have a number of concerns about the conference report we debated last night and that we will vote on today. I intend to raise a point of order that it violates the Budget Act. I do, however, want to recognize the hard work that Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman have put into this process. We all know that they have spent many long days and late nights to reach this point. The bipartisan manner in which they work is a definite improvement over previous Energy bills. I applaud their efforts.

Mr. President, Energy policy is an important issue for America and one which I can tell you my Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. Crafting an energy policy requires us to address important questions about, for example, the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the importance of ensuring adequate energy supplies while protecting the environment, the necessity for domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the need for a sound national energy policy, a vote on an Energy bill is a very serious matter and I do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. In my view, however, the conference report we consider today does not achieve the correct balance on several important issues, which is why I have to oppose it.

I have four fundamental concerns. This bill digs us deeper into a budget black hole. It fails to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. It rolls back important consumer protections. And finally, it undermines some of the fundamental environmental laws that our citizens rely upon.

First, Mr. President, the costs of this conference report are staggering. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment will increase direct spending by $2.2 billion between 2006 and 2010, and by $1.6 billion between 2006 and 2015. Additionally, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that this bill will reduce revenues by $7.9 billion between 2005 and 2010 and by $12.3 billion from 2005 to 2015. On top of the direct spending, the conference report authorizes more than $66 billion in Federal spending, according to the watchdog groups The National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Citizens Against Government Waste. Our Nation's budget position obviously has deteriorated significantly over the past few years, in large part because of the massive tax cuts that were enacted, and we now face years of projected budget deficits. The only way we will climb out of this deficit hole is to return to the fiscally

responsible policies that helped put our Nation on a sound fiscal footing in the 1990s, and that simply means that we have to be sure that the bills we pass are paid for. To do otherwise is to simply dig our deficit hole even deeper, thus adding to the massive debt already facing our children and grandchildren.

Mr. President, second, the conference report we consider today will do nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. I cannot return to my home State of Wisconsin this weekend and say that I participated in a rushed effort to accept a 1,700-plus page conference report that will not do a thing to increase our oil independence. The conference did not accept the 10-percent renewable portfolio standard passed by the Senate, nor did it accept an amendment instructing the President to develop a plan to reduce U.S. oil dependence by 1 million barrels per day by 2015. I supported efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil when the Senate debated its bill, and I am extremely disappointed that the conference committee could not accept a reduction of 1 million barrels per day through 2015.

Third, the bill rolls back important consumer protections. The conference committee retained repeal of the pro-consumer Public Utility Holding Company Act, important New Deal-era legislation which has protected electricity consumers. My State of Wisconsin is acutely interested and concerned about the repeal of PUHCA and about ongoing abuses involving the unregulated corporate affiliates of regulated utilities. In addition to hearing from Wisconsinites, I have heard from contractors and other small businesses across the Nation that have been harmed by this unfair competition by affiliates of public utilities. I must say that I don't understand how we can give the nuclear industry loan guarantees and over $2 billion in risk insurance, but we can't even give small businesses the assurance that unregulated affiliates of public utilities will not unfairly outcompete them.

I do, however, recognize the efforts of the chairman and the ranking member to protect language providing the Federal Government more oversight of utility mergers, which is important and I support. I am grateful for their willingness to further look into my concerns on unfair competition by public utility affiliates.

Fourth and finally, Mr. President, the energy conference report includes provisions that significantly weaken our commitment to the environment and to the health of U.S. citizens. Section 328 of the Energy conference report weakens the Clean Water Act by exempting certain oil and gas industry activities from compliance with both phase 1 and phase 2 storm water programs and, in the process, rolls back 15 years of protection. This is not an insignificant issue. Storm water runoff is a leading cause of impairment to our streams, rivers, and lakes.

The bill also exempts hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and by doing so, risks contaminating drinking water supplies. Over 95 percent of Wisconsin communities and about 75 percent of Wisconsin residents rely on groundwater for their supply of drinking water. Nationally, approximately half of the U.S. population obtains its drinking water from underground water sources, according to the Government Accountability Office. Wisconsin citizens and all U.S. citizens deserve more than exemptions that could threaten the water they drink.

There are provisions of the bill that I fully support, and I am pleased that the conference committee included, but I can't support this conference report. According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the Energy bill conference report includes direct spending of more than $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 period, exceeding the amount allocated by the budget resolution. I hope my colleagues will note this and will join me in sustaining a budget point of order.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending conference report violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I will defer.

I have.

I appreciate that and I intend to make that point.

Mr. President, while I voted in favor of the fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations conference report, which contains funding for a number of important programs, including vital funding for veterans health care, I am disappointed in the lack of adequate investment in the clean water State revolving fund. This program has been helpful to communities all over Wisconsin, and across the country, in their efforts to safeguard their water supplies and to comply with new standards for drinking water contaminants like arsenic and radium. I was concerned earlier this year when the President requested a 33 percent cut for the clean water State revolving fund for his fiscal year 2006 budget. Because of my concern, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in asking the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to ignore the requested cut in funds and instead provide $1.35 billion for this program. The Senate bill included $1.1 billion for the revolving fund, and I am disappointed that the conferees did not retain this more favorable funding level.

Mr. President, I have 1 minute; is that correct?

I have four fundamental concerns with regard to the Energy conference report: it digs us deeper into a budget black hole, it fails to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, it rolls back important consumer protections, and it undermines some of the fundamental environmental laws our citizens rely upon.

The conference report includes direct spending of more than $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 period, exceeding the amount allocated by the budget resolution, so I hope my colleagues will join me in sustaining a budget point of order.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending conference report violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I have already registered my disappointment at the majority leader's decision to cease work on an important defense authorization bill in order to move to the bill before us, S. 397. Today, I would like to speak about S. 397, the gun liability bill, and some of the amendments relating to firearms that have been offered to it.

Listening to the debate on this bill, the American people might get the impression that there are just two sides to this issue. On one side are those who view the right to bear arms as absolute and oppose any proposals that could remotely be considered as restrictions on that right. On the other side are those who view gun use as an evil in our society that must be limited in any way possible. Sometimes the rhetoric gets turned up so high that reasoned analysis and debate is obscured. That is unfortunate.

I have never accepted the proposition that the gun debate is a black and white issue, a matter of ``you're with us, or you're against us.'' Instead, I have followed what I believe is a moderate course, faithful to the Constitution and to the realities of modern society. I believe that the second amendment was not an afterthought, that it has meaning today and must be respected. I support the right to bear arms for lawful purposes--for hunting and sport and for self-protection. Millions of Americans own firearms legally and we should not take action that tells them that they are second-class citizens or that their constitutional rights are under attack. At the same time, there are actions we can and should take to protect public safety that do not infringe on constitutional rights. I supported the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Wisconsin regarding child safety locks and was pleased that the Senate approved this measure, which does not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use guns.

I do not believe that granting special liability protection to the gun industry is necessary to protect the right to bear arms, however. There is no evidence that liability lawsuits threaten the existence of the gun industry in America. I believe it would be a mistake to impose a nationwide standard of tort liability on this industry that is more lenient than the standard that applies to the manufacturers or suppliers of any other product. The gun industry, like other industries, owes a duty to consumers of reasonable care, and juries of citizens are best able to define that standard as they do in tort cases of every imaginable type every day in this country.

Giving sweeping liability protection will cut off the rights of those injured by negligence and set a very dangerous precedent for how Congress treats corporate wrongdoers. I will, therefore, vote against

Mr. President, today, Congress is finally completing work on a bill to reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century. This bill has been a long time coming and while it is 668 days overdue, for Wisconsin it may have been worth the wait. I am pleased that Wisconsin will now have a chance to address our State's vital transportation needs for the next year and plan its priorities for the next 5 years. I am even more pleased that this conference report builds on the precedent set under TEA-21, where Wisconsin, after decades of not getting our fair share, finally started to receive at least as much in highway funding as we pay to the Federal Government. During this summer travel season, the people of Wisconsin should be happy to know that their tax dollars will be used to improve Wisconsin's roads, bridges, trails, rails and transit system.

While the bill is not perfect, it goes a long way toward ending Wisconsin's decades-long legacy as a donor State. Historically, Wisconsin's taxpayers have received about 78 cents for every dollar we have paid into the highway trust fund. As a result, we have lost more than $625 million between 1956 and when TEA-21 was passed in 1998. Under TEA-21, the previous 6-year highway authorization, Wisconsin received approximately 102 cents for every dollar it paid contributed to the highway trust fund through gasoline taxes. I was pleased to work with the Wisconsin delegation to finally turn around decades of our State getting the short end of the stick, and am happy that we are now able to build upon that success. The conference report guarantees Wisconsin an absolute dollar increase of over 30 percent, or about $165 million per year, over the last bill and improves our rate of return to 106 cents per dollar paid in over the 5 years of the bill. This will help us make up for the decades where Wisconsin was instead on the losing end of the highway funding equation.

I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin's delegation in achieving an even greater measure of fairness for Wisconsin's taxpayers. Throughout this over 2-year process, I have worked closely with Senator Kohl and the entire House delegation to get the best possible treatment for Wisconsin. The conference bill represents a great victory for Wisconsin, largely due to this bipartisan bicameral cooperation. I would like to give special thanks to those members of both bodies who have worked in the trenches as conferees to craft this bill, especially Congressman Tom Petri, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. As one of the key conferees, he worked tirelessly over the past 2 years or more to come to this agreement and to ensure that Wisconsin was treated fairly.

While there are probably some projects in this large bill that may not be priorities for their States or local communities, but instead were proposed by special interests, I don't feel that this is the case for Wisconsin. I worked closely with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation when I made requests for funding of specific projects to ensure that they addressed Wisconsin's transportation priorities. I think this was probably true for the entire Wisconsin delegation as well, and I want to thank the State Department of Transportation for this valuable advice and support. The projects I requested were chosen to meet a range of State and local needs and span the entire State from our urban areas, with the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee or East Washington Avenue in Madison, to suburban and rural areas like the Stillwater Bridge linking St. Croix County to Minnesota, or the Sturgeon Bay Bridge and State Highway 57 in Door County. These projects will create jobs in Wisconsin, allow for the more efficient movement of manufactured goods and agricultural products throughout the State, provide access to Wisconsin's natural wonders to residents and visitors, and in many cases make the roads safer for Wisconsin's families as they go about their daily lives.

Finally, while attention has been focused on money for highways and bridges, this bill also includes funds for important safety improvements, transit projects, recreational trails, boating programs and funds to give seniors and the disabled more mobility, to name a few. I was proud to support many of these programs that were ultimately included in the bill. Having fought to secure funds for recreational trails, senior transportation, and various transit projects from the statewide bus funding to the Dane County's Transport 2020 and the commuter rail extension through Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee, I can attest that these are as important to many citizens in Wisconsin as the essential highways and bridges.

As I noted before, this bill is not perfect. I am concerned about some of the environmental provisions in the bill, particularly those with a potential impact on the Nation's air quality. The language modifies current transportation regulations dealing with long-range transportation planning and its impact on air quality. The current rules require that major new road projects must not contribute to violations of air quality standards over a 20-year period. The conference report instead mandates that Clean Air Act conformity will be considered over 10 years. The bill also contains environmental review streamlining provisions that include tight review deadlines and conflict resolutions provisions. I agree with these measures in principle, but I am concerned that the articulated deadlines may not be realistic.

On balance, my concerns about these provisions are not enough to cause me to oppose this bill that provides critical highway funds in a fair manner. I will vote for the bill.

Mr. President, 40 years ago, in 1965, African Americans were excluded from almost all public offices in the South. At that time, with 21 million people fenced out of the political process, our nation was suffering a devastating failure. A failure to fulfill one of its signature promises: representation for all.

As I speak here today, African-American and Hispanic voters are now substantially represented in the state legislatures and local governing bodies throughout the South. And 81 minority Members currently serve in the U.S. Congress.

This turn-around came as the result of a monumental struggle, a struggle in which Americans risked their lives to secure the right to vote. They marched in Alabama and across the South to protest the use of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other barriers erected in Southern States to exclude African Americans from the political process. African Americans were harassed, intimidated, and physically assaulted for simply trying to vote. Televised broadcasts brought the horrible images of attacks on peaceful protesters with nightsticks, tear gas, and police dogs into the living rooms of citizens throughout the country. Some brave souls, and some innocent bystanders, lost their lives in this struggle for justice, which still today stands as a testament to the power of ideas and nonviolence to bring about crucial social and legal change.

Two days after ``Bloody Sunday,'' a day on which protesters in Selma, Alabama, were attacked by State troopers while crossing the Edmund Pettus bridge, President Johnson sent the Voting Rights Act to Congress. In response to the horrific events in Selma and after years of efforts in Congress and around the country, on August 6, 1965, the Voting Rights Act was signed into law.

The act outlawed barriers to voting, such as literacy tests, and empowered the Federal Government to oversee voter registration and elections in counties that historically had prevented African Americans from participating in elections. Since its enactment, the Voting Rights Act has been extended four times--in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992. Changes included increasing the act's scope to cover non-English speaking minorities such as Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and other minority groups. It has also been used to examine and challenge new election formats that dilute minority votes and have a discriminatory effect.

The Voting Rights Act has been hailed as the most important piece of federal legislation in our Nation's history. Not just the most important piece of civil rights legislation, but the most important piece of legislation ever passed. This may well be true: it is from our political rights, our rights of citizenship, that all other freedoms flow. Without a meaningful chance to vote, there can be no equality before the law, no equal access to justice, no equal opportunity in the workplace or to share in the benefits and burdens of citizenship.

The Voting Rights Act is also considered one of the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation ever enacted. In Selma, Alabama, in 1965, 2.1 percent of blacks of voting age were registered to vote. Today, more than 70 percent are registered.

Still, we must remember that the fight is not over. On this 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, many Americans are still disenfranchised by discriminatory redistricting plans, voter intimidation tactics, long lines at polling places and inadequate numbers of voting machines, and lifetime restrictions on voting rights for ex-felons.

In 2007, key elements of the Voting Rights Act, including the Federal pre-clearance requirement, are due to expire. The pre-clearance requirement is especially important. It requires Federal approval of any proposed changes in voting or election procedures in areas with a history of discrimination. The Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the case that upheld Congress's power to impose these requirements, aptly called this a shifting of the ``advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.'' It simply means that voters in these areas do not have to refight the battles they won in the civil rights struggle. These provisions of the Act are crucial.

As we approach, the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, I urge my colleagues and the citizens of this great Nation to renew our commitment to protect and strengthen the right to vote for all Americans. That right is the foundation of our democracy and it must never again be denied to a group of Americans based on the color of their skin.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the version of S. 1389, the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act, that the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported last week. I am pleased that the Senate is about to pass it without modification.

The compromise that the Judiciary Committee worked out addresses a number of the concerns that I have been talking about since October 2001 when the Senate first considered the PATRIOT Act on the floor. We have come a long way since that night, and I am grateful for the efforts of my colleagues to try to deal with the civil liberties concerns that have been raised both here in the Senate and around the country. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill.

This bill does not address all of the problems with the PATRIOT Act. But the compromise does deal with the core concerns that I and others have had about the standard for section 215 orders, sneak and peek search warrants, and meaningful judicial review of section 215 orders and National Security Letters, including judicial review of the gag rule. It does not go as far on any of these issues as the SAFE Act, but it does make meaningful changes to current law.

I want to be clear that this will not be the end of my efforts to further fix the PATRIOT Act. This bipartisan compromise takes a big step in the right direction, and I am pleased that I can support it, but I will continue to push for additional changes to the law.

I also want to caution that the conference process must not be allowed to dilute the safeguards in this bill. This Senate bill goes much further than the House version in ensuring that Americans' civil liberties will be protected. I urge the Senate conferees to fight--and fight hard--for this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about the unnecessary suffering that is occurring in the African country of Niger. Last year's severe drought and locust infestation destroyed most of Niger's harvest and the fodder necessary for keeping livestock. As a result, an estimated 3.6 million people including 800,000 children under the age of 5--are now facing starvation. Aid workers in the field describe the situation as desperate, and report that children are dying daily and families have turned to a diet of acacia leaves and grass.

I urge the administration to continue to respond and to work with other donors to ensure Niger's humanitarian needs are met. In particular, it is crucial that USAID make certain the recently announced $7 million in additional emergency funds go immediately towards alleviating the hunger in the hardest hit areas: the agro- pastoral regions of Maradi and Tillaberi and the pastoral regions of Tahoua and Zinder. Reportedly, there is a shortage of therapeutic feeding centers and clinics, and weakened villagers cannot manage the travel required to reach them.

We also need to address long-term food security issues in the Sahel, where drought and famine regularly afflict these poorest nations. Earlier this year I traveled to three of Niger's neighbors--Algeria, Mali, and Chad. I heard firsthand accounts of how devastating the locust crisis was, and I heard a consensus regarding the need for permanent mechanisms to facilitate crisis response and to prevent emergencies in the future. As the tragedy in Niger demonstrates, even when governments, international organizations, and NGOs are able to anticipate food insecurity almost a year in advance and implement their assistance programs, we can still have a crisis. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes media coverage of already emaciated children to jolt donor countries into emergency action. We need to remain alert and responsive to World Food Program appeals for extra funding before the starvation begins, and we need to stay committed to long-term efforts to improve food security throughout the region.

Mr. President, we should be using our time right now to continue our work on the Department of Defense authorization bill, working through important amendments relating to the needs of our military and our Nation's security and giving these issues the time and careful attention that they so clearly deserve. At a time when our brave men and women in uniform are deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere--risking and, too often, losing their lives in service to this country--we ought to be working intensively on the Defense bill. At a time when terrorist networks continue to strike at our allies, killing innocent civilians in an attempt to intimidate everyone who rejects their violent, extremist agenda, we ought to be focusing sustained attention on ensuring that our military has the tools that it needs, and our country has the policy that it needs, to create a more secure world for our children. And as a part of that effort, we must devote more time and more attention to a realistic assessment of where we stand today in Iraq, and where we should be going.

As my colleagues know, I have submitted a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the U.S. military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission. This doesn't seem like much to ask for. After all, if we don't have a clear plan and timeframe, how can we even hold ourselves accountable for giving the military the tools they need to succeed in achieving those goals? The resolution also calls on the President to submit a plan for the subsequent return home of U.S. troops that is also linked to a timeframe, so that we provide some clarity about our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely.

My resolution does not dictate deadlines or dates certain. And it does request flexible timeframes for achieving our goals in Iraq rather than imposing any, because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the administration, in consultation with military leaders. And, of course, any timeframe has to be flexible. There are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it is hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn't linked to some timeframes. That is what the administration needs to share.

I want to respond directly to some of the criticisms I have heard of this approach.

Some have suggested that to question the path that we are on is to undermine our united commitment to support the courageous men and women who have been deployed in harm's way.

And some believe that any discussion of timeframes, flexible or otherwise, is basically a code for a ``withdraw now'' agenda.

Neither of these charges is credible. Just this morning, General Casey spoke publicly--publicly--of the potential to reduce our troop levels fairly substantially by the spring and summer of 2006. I think his comments, and Iraqi Prime Minister Jafari's frank acknowledgement that ``the great desire of the Iraqi people is to see the coalition forces be on their way out,'' are constructive. And I hardly that General Casey be accused of failing to support his fellow service men and women.

My support for our troops has not wavered one inch. And it will not. I did not support the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, but I have consistently voted to provide our service men and women with the resources they need in Iraq. And I know that our troops have done, and continue to do, a remarkable job. The brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces deserve our admiration, our respect, and our unflagging support. But that is not all that they deserve. They deserve sound policy from elected officials. They don't have that right now. The administration must not leave them in the lurch any longer. Are U.S. forces supposed to be waging a counterinsurgency campaign? Are they supposed to be taking sides in what may be an emerging civil war? Are they supposed to be focused primarily on training Iraqi forces so that the Iraqis can be in the driver's seat when it comes to taking the decisions, and the risks, associated with achieving their own stability? I hope the administration knows the answers to these questions, but until they provide them, all of us are in the dark.

It is also clear that we must not accept a false choice between supporting the status quo in Iraq and the so-called idea of cutting and running. The status quo--staying a rudderless course without a clear destination--would be a mistake. The course we are on is not leading to strength. In fact, I am concerned that the course we are on is making America weaker and our enemies stronger.

The ill-defined and open-ended military commitment that characterizes our current policy in Iraq is actually strengthening the very forces who wish to do us harm. I am not talking about disgruntled Baathists, although I am concerned that nationalist sentiments will make it more and more difficult for many Iraqis to accept a massive foreign troop presence on soil--something that they regard as a humiliation. But, more alarmingly, I am talking about the forces that attacked this country on September 11, 2001. These forces were not active in Iraq before the invasion, but they came once disorder in Iraq took hold. And today, as CIA Director Porter Goss has made plain in testimony before Congress:

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to

recruit new, anti-U.S. jihadists.

Just recently, President Bush told the country that ``with each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened and their officers grow more experienced.''

Unfortunately, the same is true of the foreign fighters. Iraq has become a prime on-the-job training ground for jihadists from around the world, terrorists who are getting experience in overcoming U.S. countermeasures, experience in bombing, and experience in urban warfare. They may well be getting a better education in terrorism than jihadists received at al-Qaida's camps in Afghanistan. And they don't just have skills. They now have contacts. They are building new, transnational networks, making the most of al-Qaida's new model of supporting loosely affiliated franchise-type organizations. Press reports suggest that the CIA is calling this emerging threat the ``class of '05 problem.'' All of us, on both sides of the aisle, should be thinking about how to ensure that there is no similar class of '06.

It would be nice to believe that these terrorists will be swept into Iraq only to be annihilated by U.S. forces. But that kind of ``roach motel'' approach to fighting is hardly a strategic vision. At its best, it is wishful thinking, and more wishful thinking is just what our Iraq policy and our strategy for fighting terrorism do not need. I agree wholeheartedly with the President that we must not waver in our commitment to defeating the terrorist networks that wish to do us harm. And I know, as he must know, that these networks exist around the world. Fighting terrorists in Baghdad does not mean that we won't have to fight them elsewhere. Sadly, we need only look at the headlines over the past few weeks to find the terrible evidence of this hard fact.

I am gravely concerned that not only are our enemies gaining strength under the administration's current policies. I am concerned that we are getting weaker. The U.S. Army is being hollowed out by the administration's policies. The Army is straining to maintain the cycle of rotations and training that we know it needs to sustain its capacities, and recruitment efforts have been in serious trouble for some time now. Meanwhile, costs for the Future Combat System--a system that depends on technology that is not yet even developed--spiral out of control. We cannot stand by and allow the U.S. Army to be broken. We cannot stay this course.

The current course of action simply is not inspiring confidence among the American people. I know that my constituents are terribly troubled by the

administration's handling of the war in Iraq. After the shifting justifications for this war, the rosy scenarios that bore no resemblance to reality, and the unreliable declarations of ``mission accomplished,'' they sense that our policy is adrift. A democracy cannot succeed in achieving its goals without the support of the people. They deserve clarity and candor and so do our troops on the ground.

Finally, I want to talk about the most common criticism leveled at anyone who invokes the phrase ``timetable'' in talking about our military deployment in Iraq. The charge goes something like this: if the insurgents know when we plan to go, they will simply hunker down and lie in wait for the time when we are no longer present in large numbers, and then they will attack.

If that were the insurgents' plan, why wouldn't they cease all attacks now, lay low, let everyone believe that stability has been achieved, and spring up again once the security presence in Iraq is dramatically reduced? If we really believe the argument that any kind of timetable is a ``lifeline'' to the insurgents, then why wouldn't they try to induce us to throw them that lifeline?

We cannot know all the reasons behind the choices made by the diverse elements waging Iraq's insurgency. But one thing is clear: Ultimately, we will withdraw from Iraq, and it will not be secret when we do. Does the administration believe that the insurgents will be entirely defeated at that point? Is it really our policy to stay in Iraq until every last insurgent and every last terrorist is defeated? Recently Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made news when he said that the insurgency could well last a decade or more, and that ultimately, ``foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency,'' rather it is going to be defeated by the Iraqis themselves. I think this analysis makes good sense, especially given the fact that our very presence in Iraq is helping to recruit more foreign jihadists every day. But the Secretary's candor made waves, because for long, costly months we lacked clarity on this critical point regarding just what the remaining U.S. military mission is in Iraq. Is it to defeat the insurgency, or is it to give the Iraqis the tools to do that themselves?

If the remaining military mission is to train Iraqis to provide for their own security, we ought to be able to articulate a clear plan for getting that job done. If we know how many troops we need to train, and we know how long it takes to train effectively, then we ought to have some sense of how long it will take to accomplish our mission.

When I was in Baghdad in February, a senior coalition officer told me that he believes the U.S. could ``take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents'' by providing a clear, public plan and timeframe for the remaining U.S. mission. He thought very clearly, that this could rob them of their recruiting momentum. I also think it could rob them of some unity. All reports indicate that the forces fighting U.S. troops and attacking Iraqi police, soldiers, and civilians are a disparate bunch with different agendas, from embittered former regime elements to foreign fighters. The one thing that unites them is opposition to America's presence in Iraq. Remove that factor, and we may see a more divided, less effective, more easily defeated insurgency.

Intense American diplomatic and political engagement in and support for Iraq will likely last long after the troops' mission is accomplished and they are withdrawn. I expect that we will continue some important degree of military and security cooperation with the Iraqis, as we work with them and with others around the world to combat terrorist networks, whether they are operating in Iraq or Afghanistan or England. And we have to be working diligently to combat a burgeoning culture of corruption in Iraq, or the rule of law doesn't stand a chance. We need to make reconstruction work and deliver real democracy dividends for the Iraqi people. The situation in Iraq is complex, and it requires a long-term political commitment from the U.S. What my resolution addresses is just one piece of the puzzle for achieving our interests in Iraq and helping the people of Iraq and the region move toward a more stable future.

I certainly don't have all the answers to the complex problem we confront in Iraq. But I know that it's time to restore confidence in the American people that this President and this administration know where we are going and how we plan to get there. It's time to put Iraq in the context of a broader vision for our security. It's time to regain a position of strength. That starts with sustained attention, focus, and debate--and we should be doing that right here in this Congress, right now.

Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, a bill to bring Senate campaigns into the 21st century by requiring that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. We are very pleased to be joined in our effort in this Congress by the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran. This step is long overdue, and I hope the Senate will act quickly on this legislation.

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

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

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

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

It is time for the Senate to relinquish its backward attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make

our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs and candidates for the other body.

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

Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, a bill to bring Senate campaigns into the 21st century by requiring that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. We are very pleased to be joined in our effort in this Congress by the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran. This step is long overdue, and I hope the Senate will act quickly on this legislation.

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

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

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

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

It is time for the Senate to relinquish its backward attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make

our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs and candidates for the other body.

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