Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the United States. I am pleased to have three members of the Environment and Public Works Committee--the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer--as original cosponsors of this bill. I also thank Senators Dayton, Kerry, Schumer, and Durbin for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4 majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non-

navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands, streams, ponds, and other bodies of water.

This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory birds.

In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other waters. The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs, familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands.

In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands. An estimated 60 percent of the wetlands in my home State of Wisconsin lost Federal protection. Wisconsin is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland Managers has been collecting data from States across the country. For example, Nebraska estimates that it will lose protection for more than 40 percent of its wetlands. Indiana estimates it will lose 31 percent of total wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands. Delaware estimates the loss of protection for 33 percent or more of its freshwater wetlands.

These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most of the Nation's ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would have a devastating effect on our environment.

In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to state and local governments. My home State of Wisconsin has passed legislation to assume the regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of wetlands nationwide are unclear and confusing, jeopardizing the migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands.

Since 2001, the confusion over the interpretation of the SWANCC decision has grown. On January 15, 2003, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raising questions about the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Simultaneously, they released a guidance memo to their field staff regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

The agencies claim these actions are necessary because of the SWANCC case. But both the guidance memo and the proposed rulemaking go far beyond the holding in SWANCC. The guidance took effect right away and has had an immediate impact. It tells the Corps and EPA staff to stop asserting jurisdiction over isolated waters without first obtaining permission from headquarters. Based on this guidance, waters that the EPA and Corps judge to be outside the Clean Water Act can be filled, dredged, and polluted without a permit or any other long-standing Clean Water Act safeguard.

The rulemaking announced the Administration's intention to consider even broader changes to Clean Water Act coverage for our waters. Specifically, the agencies are questioning whether there is any basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over additional waters, like intermittent streams. The possibility for a redefinition of our waters is troubling because there is only one definition of the term ``water'' in the Clean Water Act. The wetlands program, the point source program which stops the dumping of pollution, and the non-point program governing polluted runoff all depend on this definition. Even though the Administration rescinded this proposed rulemaking in December 2003, the policy guidance remains in effect.

If we don't protect a category of waters from being filled under the wetlands program, we also fail to protect them from having trash or raw sewage dumped in them, or having other activities that violate the Clean Water Act conducted in them as well.

Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S.--the understanding that Congress held when the Act was adopted in 1972--as reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC decision.

The proposed legislation is very simple. It does three things. First, it adopts a statutory definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding definition of waters in the EPA and Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it deletes the term ``navigable'' from the Act to clarify that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and to reinforce that original intent. Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and wetlands on all relevant constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property Clause, the Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to have the support of so many environmental and conservation groups, as well as organizations that represent those who regulate and manage our country's wetlands, such as: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American Rivers, the National Audubon Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Defenders of Wildlife, the Ocean Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Izaac Walton League, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers. They know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the Federal Government's role in protecting our water. This legislation is a first step in doing just that.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the United States. I am pleased to have three members of the Environment and Public Works Committee--the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer--as original cosponsors of this bill. I also thank Senators Dayton, Kerry, Schumer, and Durbin for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4 majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non-

navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands, streams, ponds, and other bodies of water.

This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory birds.

In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other waters. The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs, familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands.

In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands. An estimated 60 percent of the wetlands in my home State of Wisconsin lost Federal protection. Wisconsin is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland Managers has been collecting data from States across the country. For example, Nebraska estimates that it will lose protection for more than 40 percent of its wetlands. Indiana estimates it will lose 31 percent of total wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands. Delaware estimates the loss of protection for 33 percent or more of its freshwater wetlands.

These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most of the Nation's ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would have a devastating effect on our environment.

In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to state and local governments. My home State of Wisconsin has passed legislation to assume the regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of wetlands nationwide are unclear and confusing, jeopardizing the migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands.

Since 2001, the confusion over the interpretation of the SWANCC decision has grown. On January 15, 2003, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raising questions about the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Simultaneously, they released a guidance memo to their field staff regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

The agencies claim these actions are necessary because of the SWANCC case. But both the guidance memo and the proposed rulemaking go far beyond the holding in SWANCC. The guidance took effect right away and has had an immediate impact. It tells the Corps and EPA staff to stop asserting jurisdiction over isolated waters without first obtaining permission from headquarters. Based on this guidance, waters that the EPA and Corps judge to be outside the Clean Water Act can be filled, dredged, and polluted without a permit or any other long-standing Clean Water Act safeguard.

The rulemaking announced the Administration's intention to consider even broader changes to Clean Water Act coverage for our waters. Specifically, the agencies are questioning whether there is any basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over additional waters, like intermittent streams. The possibility for a redefinition of our waters is troubling because there is only one definition of the term ``water'' in the Clean Water Act. The wetlands program, the point source program which stops the dumping of pollution, and the non-point program governing polluted runoff all depend on this definition. Even though the Administration rescinded this proposed rulemaking in December 2003, the policy guidance remains in effect.

If we don't protect a category of waters from being filled under the wetlands program, we also fail to protect them from having trash or raw sewage dumped in them, or having other activities that violate the Clean Water Act conducted in them as well.

Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S.--the understanding that Congress held when the Act was adopted in 1972--as reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC decision.

The proposed legislation is very simple. It does three things. First, it adopts a statutory definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding definition of waters in the EPA and Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it deletes the term ``navigable'' from the Act to clarify that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and to reinforce that original intent. Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and wetlands on all relevant constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property Clause, the Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to have the support of so many environmental and conservation groups, as well as organizations that represent those who regulate and manage our country's wetlands, such as: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American Rivers, the National Audubon Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Defenders of Wildlife, the Ocean Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Izaac Walton League, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers. They know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the Federal Government's role in protecting our water. This legislation is a first step in doing just that.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. Some of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005, is similar to legislation I introduced last Congress and will solve the problem for today and into the future.

Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland,'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and 25 percent of the country's butter a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of cheese, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hard-working farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist.

One concern that I have heard from Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. These programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned

income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years.

Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers who are at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies.

Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers--Social Security Act 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a)--have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC per year, making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits because they must average 2 QCs per year to be eligible.

Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs.

Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. In addition, by linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again.

Along with providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It actually provides a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run.

Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law.

When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. When these provisions were developed, Congress intended self-employed individuals to have the ability to pay enough to earn a full 4 QCs. Unfortunately the Tax Code has not kept up with the times and due to inflation many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. Some of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005, is similar to legislation I introduced last Congress and will solve the problem for today and into the future.

Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland,'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and 25 percent of the country's butter a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of cheese, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hard-working farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist.

One concern that I have heard from Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. These programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned

income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years.

Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers who are at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies.

Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers--Social Security Act 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a)--have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC per year, making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits because they must average 2 QCs per year to be eligible.

Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs.

Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. In addition, by linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again.

Along with providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It actually provides a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run.

Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law.

When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. When these provisions were developed, Congress intended self-employed individuals to have the ability to pay enough to earn a full 4 QCs. Unfortunately the Tax Code has not kept up with the times and due to inflation many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, today I cast my vote in support of the 2005 supplemental bill for Iraq, Afghanistan, and tsunami relief. I do so despite my strong objections to the administration's policy of continuing to fund our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency supplemental bills, as if the needs of our men and women on the ground in these troubled countries comes as some sort of surprise. These needs should be addressed in the regular budget request so that they can actually be paid for, not placed on the tab of the American people so that debt can pile up.

The American people deserve honesty in budgeting, and they deserve straight answers about just how long they should expect the United States to continue shouldering this extremely heavy burden in Iraq. Some have suggested that calling for straight answers somehow undermines the mission at hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. A clear vision, clear goals, and clear plans are essential to success. I hope the administration will articulate them soon.

But this tremendously irresponsible budgeting and dangerously vague overall strategy do not change the fact that our troops on the ground need timely support, and I will cast my vote to see that they get it. I was in Afghanistan and Iraq less than two months ago, and I was inspired by the commitment and professionalism of the service men and women I met there.

I was pleased the Senate adopted my amendment that would correct a flaw in current law that unintentionally but severely restricts the number of families of injured service members that qualify for travel assistance. Too many families are being denied help in visiting their injured loved ones because the Army has 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. My amendment will provide at least one trip for families of injured service members evacuated to a U.S. hospital so that these families can quickly reunite and begin recovering from the trauma they've experienced.

I want to make plain that I also believe that our diplomats on the ground in tough situations deserve our support and certainly deserve the resources they need to provide for their own security. Any suggestion that we can pursue our political strategy on the cheap while leaving the military alone responsible for the success or failure of

the U.S. intervention in Iraq is foolish. But I did vote to reduce some of the funds for the State Department provided in this bill, including funds for the embassy in Iraq--an embassy that will be the most expensive U.S. embassy in the world. These expenses simply do not belong in an emergency supplemental. They are predictable, they are ongoing, and they can be provided through the regular appropriations process.

I regret the managers of the bill did not seize the opportunity to extend the mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction in this bill. Transparency and accountability in the reconstruction effort is not about finding new things to criticize. It is about responsible stewardship of U.S. taxpayer resources, and it is about getting reconstruction right. Ultimately, it is about achieving our goals in Iraq. We need ongoing, vigorous, focused oversight of the reconstruction effort. While I was unable to get my amendment passed, I will continue to work to ensure that this need is met.

Finally, I strongly support the tsunami relief provisions in this bill. The scale of this December 2004 tsunami disaster was nearly overwhelming, and the human losses were horrifying. I know that most of us here in the Congress and most Americans are firm in our resolve to be strong, consistent partners to the survivors and the affected communities.

Mr. President, not many people can lay claim to a day, but Gaylord Nelson can. On April 22, 1970, Gaylord Nelson created a day to celebrate the glory of the Earth. Nelson biographer Bill Christofferson asks ``Where did Nelson get his lifelong interest and dedication to the environment? By osmosis, [Nelson] would say, while growing up in Clear Lake Wisconsin.''

It's true that Wisconsin has a tradition of great conservationists, Aldo Leopold, author of Sand County Almanac; Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society; and John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club. But because of Gaylord Nelson, Wisconsin can lay claim to the genesis of Earth Day, a day of national and international remembrance of the importance of our natural resources and a clean environment.

While these great leaders are well known for their conservation vision, Wisconsinites across the State do their part every day to make that vision a reality. From the backyards and parks of our cities and suburbs to our forests and farms, we take our stewardship of the land seriously. For example, our farmers continue to work with the support of Federal, State and local partnerships to prevent pollution, improve wildlife habitat, and protect wetlands and open spaces, investing millions of dollars in hundred of thousands of acres each year, all while ensuring the land is healthy enough to produce food and raw materials for generations to come.

I know that the people of Wisconsin, living in such a beautiful and ecologically diverse State, feel a special connection to our natural resources and share a long tradition of our State government achieving excellence in its conservation policies. Conservation is part of our culture in Wisconsin, and the people in Wisconsin are very environmentally savvy. Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72 counties, and protecting the environment is a top issue.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Nelson. He is a former member of this body, and I am privileged to hold his Senate seat. He is a distinguished former Governor of the State of Wisconsin, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a personal hero of mine. I salute Gaylord Nelson for changing the consciousness of a Nation. He is the living embodiment of the principle that one person can truly change the world.

During his 18 years of service in the Senate, Gaylord Nelson brought about significant change for the ``greener'' in both our Nation's law and the institution of the Senate itself. He is the co-author of the Environmental Education Act, which he sponsored with the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and he sponsored the amendment to give the St. Croix and the Namekagon Rivers scenic protection. In the wake of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, Gaylord Nelson, along with Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, directed national attention to the documented persistent bioaccumulative effects of organochlorine pesticides used in the Great Lakes by authoring the ban on DDT in 1972. He was the primary sponsor of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Act, protecting one of northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas.

And Senator Nelson, of course, was the founder of Earth Day. Thanks to him, here we are 35 years later taking time out of our lives to think about conservation. An astonishing 20 million Americans, 10 percent of the U.S. population, participated in the first observance of Earth Day on April 22, 1970. American Heritage magazine described the event as ``one of the most remarkable happenings in the history of democracy.'' The day was marked by marches, rallies, teach-ins, and concerts. Fifth Avenue was closed for 2 hours and over 100,000 people celebrated Earth Day on Union Square in New York City.

Earth Day is an event that in addition to changing the environmental consciousness of the country literally stopped the Senate. Members of both bodies voted to adjourn their respective Houses in the middle of the legislative week to attend Earth Day events, an adjournment that would be extremely rare today. Twenty-two Senators participated by giving Earth Day speeches across the country. The National Education Association, NEA, estimated that 10 million school children celebrated in the first Earth Day. The States of New Jersey and New York created State environmental agencies that week.

Earth Day has become an important part of who we are. From Milwaukee,

WI, to Mumbai, India, millions of people across the world are taking Senator Nelson's legacy to heart. They are volunteering tomorrow and this weekend to conserve the environment whether it is in their backyard, local river, or park.

I hope that on this Earth Day 2005, the Congress will re-dedicate itself to achieving the bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment that existed for nearly 2 decades. The Clean Water Act, for example, passed the Senate in 1971 by a vote of 86-0. When President Nixon vetoed it, the Senate overrode his veto, 52-12. The Endangered Species Act, which is under such attack right now, was passed by the Senate on a 92-0 vote in 1973.

Unfortunately, in recent years we have faced numerous proposals to roll back the environmental and health and safety protections upon which Americans depend. From clean water to clean air, the list of environmental rollbacks is stunning and disturbing. We need to work together to protect the environment, not revert to the times when we saw the Cuyahoga River catch fire, when at least one of the Great Lakes was considered ``ecologically dead,'' and when dumping of toxic wastes into rivers was standard operating procedure.

Gaylord Nelson stated on the 30th Anniversary of Earth Day:

We have finally come to understand that the real wealth of

a nation is its air, water, soil, forests, rivers, lakes,

oceans, scenic beauty, wildlife habitats, and biodiversity.

Take this resource away, and all that is left is a wasteland.

That's the whole economy. That is where the economic activity

and all the jobs come from. These biological systems contain

the sustaining wealth of the world.

As we continue to degrade them, we are consuming our

capital. And in the process, we erode our living standards

and compromise the quality of our habitat. We are veering

down a dangerous path. We are not just toying with nature; we

are compromising the capacity of natural systems to do what

they need to do to preserve a livable world.

Last night, Senator Nelson issued a statement to mark the 35th anniversary of Earth Day and calling Earth Day 2005 ``a wake up call.'' Senator Nelson said:

On environmental issues, our intelligence is reliable. Our

scientists have the facts, if we will only listen. It is a

``slam dunk'' that we cannot continue on our present course.

But without Presidential and Congressional leadership, even

an enlightened public cannot cope with the greatest challenge

of our time.

I agree with this assessment, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Senator Nelson's 35th anniversary of Earth Day statement be printed in the Record.

I hope that Wisconsinites and citizens across America take Senator Nelson's words to heart. I hope that they use this Earth Day to collect their thoughts and voice their opinions about the need to protect the environment and need for Congressional leadership on this issue.

Wisconsinites value a clean environment, not just for purely aesthetic or philosophical purposes, but because a clean environment ensures that Wisconsin and the United States as a whole remains a good place to raise a family, start a business, and buy a home. We understand that by protecting our environment we are protecting our economy. And, it is important on this Earth Day 2005 that we continue to fight for strong environmental laws, and we press for strong environmental leadership in Congress. Let's continue to move forward, not roll back.

Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system.

The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been the region around Eau Claire, WI.

My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation has long since changed and the provision persists at the detriment of the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin.

The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk production.

This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.

This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices often lead to excess production.

The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.

The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin.

The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.

While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960s, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.

That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production.

The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly.

In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this outdated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

I support this legislation for a number of reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times wrote:

Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first

daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all

Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado

Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include

some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not

fully protected.

We must ask our elected officials to redress this

circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect

those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This

wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we

can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.

Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that:

``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin.

That's part of what makes them special.''

He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness:

``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of

sorts. The anti-environmental factions in Congress are trying

hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the

nation's most splendid areas.''

Ten years later, Wisconsinites are still watching this test case. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness simply ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin, as it is for other Americans.

I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system.

The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been the region around Eau Claire, WI.

My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation has long since changed and the provision persists at the detriment of the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin.

The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk production.

This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.

This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices often lead to excess production.

The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.

The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin.

The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.

While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960s, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.

That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production.

The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly.

In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this outdated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

I support this legislation for a number of reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times wrote:

Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first

daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all

Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado

Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include

some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not

fully protected.

We must ask our elected officials to redress this

circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect

those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This

wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we

can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters.

Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that:

``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin.

That's part of what makes them special.''

He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness:

``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of

sorts. The anti-environmental factions in Congress are trying

hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the

nation's most splendid areas.''

Ten years later, Wisconsinites are still watching this test case. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness simply ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin, as it is for other Americans.

I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and I call up

amendment No. 416 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment.

I send a modification to the desk.

I sent a copy to the desk.

My amendment is designed to correct a flaw in the current law that unintentionally but severely restricts the number of families of injured servicemembers that qualify for assistance to travel to the bedside of their wounded loved ones.

This issue came to my attention when Tina Justice, the wife of Wisconsin Army National Guard 1LT Christopher Justice, contacted my office late last fall. First Lieutenant Justice and eight other members of Company B of the 118th Medical Battalion were traveling in a three vehicle convoy near Baghdad on September 12, 2004 and were waiting to clear a roadblock when they noticed a suspicious vehicle racing towards them. Members of Company B quickly responded, but the driver was still able to blow up his vehicle. The swift reaction undoubtedly saved many lives that day, but eight of the nine members of Company B still sustained injuries from the powerful blast, three severe enough to require evacuation to the United States.

First Lieutenant Justice was one of the three soldiers seriously injured and evacuated, first to Germany, and finally to Walter Reed, where he underwent several surgeries for his injuries. All three injured Wisconsin guardsmen received exceptional medical care from the outstanding medical staff at Walter Reed. The guardsmen were also very grateful to be able to see their families who quickly rushed to be with them during this very traumatic time. Tina Justice was one of those who immediately went to Walter Reed to be with

her husband, bringing along her 4-year-old daughter and 1-year-old son.

Congress has enacted legislation to help family members of injured servicemembers like First Lieutenant Justice. We have passed a law that provides Federal assistance to help pay for the travel and transportation costs of family members of very seriously or seriously ill or injured servicemembers. With her husband being injured seriously enough to require evacuation to Germany and then Walter Reed, Mrs. Justice naturally assumed that she would qualify for help under this provision. However, she found something quite different. According to the Army, her husband's injuries, which required evacuation to Europe and then to the U.S., did not qualify as ``serious,'' and therefore she would not be eligible for reimbursement. Despite her many attempts to reverse this decision, the Army continued to deny her claim.

After much frustration, Mrs. Justice contacted my office. When I heard about the case, I believed there must have been some sort of bureaucratic mix-up. After all, it makes no sense that the Army would spend all that money to evacuate personnel out of the theater, on to Germany, and finally to the United States if that person was not seriously injured. However, my inquiries to the Army and to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not satisfactorily resolve Mrs. Justice's problem.

The Justices are not alone. I was also recently contacted by the Carter family from Ladysmith, WI. Their son, SPC Andrew Carter, sustained shrapnel injuries to his legs and feet while serving his country in Iraq and was evacuated to Walter Reed. He and his family were also frustrated by the fact that they did not qualify for travel cost reimbursement because Specialist Carter's injuries weren't classified as serious by the Army.

The Army Surgeon General's office finally helped shed some light on the problem. Although the law provides travel benefits for family members of very seriously or seriously injured military personnel, what constitutes a very serious or serious injury to the Army is very different from what the average American may think. The Army's technical definition of very seriously ill or injured, VSI, is that the soldier is in imminent danger of death. In order to be classified as seriously ill or injured, SI, the soldier must require a very high level of care, such as being in the intensive care unit, but be expected to survive. All other injuries, including those that may require extensive and multiple surgeries and months of hospital care are listed as not seriously ill or injured, NSI.

Now I think that the average American would agree with the VSI classification. However, if someone has taken major shrapnel and other wounds from a suicide car bomber requiring several surgeries and is evacuated all the way to the United States from Iraq, my guess is that the average American would call that pretty serious. I know I did and I know that Mrs. Justice, the Carters, and others have as well. I also think that Congress, in passing laws to allow family members to visit their injured loved ones, had a definition of VSI and SI in mind more closely aligned to that of the average American rather than the technical definition used by the Army. What we have, therefore, is a well-intentioned law that is creating expectations that just aren't being met because our definitions don't match up.

The denial of travel benefits, known as Invitational Travel Orders, ITO, to families like the Justices and Carters, because their loved ones' injuries aren't bad enough comes at the absolute worst time for the injured men and women and their families. They are in the midst of an extremely traumatic time, trying to come to grips with what has happened and working to heal physically and emotionally. They need to be concentrating on these important tasks, not worrying about whether or not they can even afford to be there and fighting the bureaucracy for travel cost reimbursement.

The unfortunate and avoidable aftereffect of the current policy is that the injured troops and their families feel unappreciated by the Defense Department and by the country for which the servicemember almost lost their life.

The amendment I introduce today will help rectify this problem and more closely align expectations with what families are provided. This legislation would make an addition to current law by allowing for one ITO for up to three family members of a servicemember medically evacuated from a war zone to the United States, whether that injured person is listed as VSI, SI or NSI. It is important that families get this first trip and don't have to worry about whether or not they can afford to pay for it. This amendment would provide that first trip.

During that first trip, families can also acquaint themselves with the many fantastic public and private programs there to help them. The Red Cross, Fisher House, Operation Hero Miles, many veterans and military service organizations, the list goes on, all provide those injured in the line of duty and their families with many resources. Families can use that first trip to learn about and tap into these resources to assist them with future needs. I know the Justices and Carters deeply appreciated the help from these and other organizations.

Some may be worried that this amendment will simply crowd out the good work being done by private organizations with another Government program. This is an understandable concern. However, after consulting with some of these organizations, I am confident that this legislation will not do so. It will, in fact, complement current private efforts to assist servicemembers and their families. The experiences of the Justices and Carters also show that this proposed legislation fills a void in the current assistance efforts.

We are all very conscious of supporting our troops and making sure that those who have been injured receive the best possible medical care. This should be a priority. At the same time, we must not forget the families of these servicemembers. They, too, make great sacrifices and must cope with the changes in their lives brought about by the injuries and recovery of their loved ones. The amendment I introduce today will help reduce some of the burden faced by injured troops and their families so that they can concentrate on the important work of healing.

I ask the managers if they are willing to accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their support. I hope they will be willing to work to keep this small but important amendment in the conference report.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I again thank the managers very much. I would like to make a brief statement about another amendment.

Mr. President, I also want to speak very briefly regarding an amendment that I had filed, amendment No. 459. Chairman Cochran raised a point of order against the amendment today, but I want to spend just a few minutes to explain what this amendment was about, because it concerns the success or failure of the U.S. effort in Iraq, and it concerns every American taxpayer.

In 2003 I offered an amendment to the supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that established an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority so that there would be one auditing body completely focused on ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently, and that this effort is free of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Then the CPA phased out and, happily, Iraqi sovereignty was transferred back into Iraqi hands. Congress agreed that continued oversight of the reconstruction effort was important, and agreed to an amendment that I offered last year to turn the CPAIG into the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. But even today, many months after that change, in many ways the reconstruction effort has only just begun. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of about a month ago, only a little more than $6 billion of the nearly $21 billion reconstruction fund had actually been expended. The work of the Special Inspector General must continue.

My amendment is simple and largely technical. This amendment would adjust the termination date for the Special IG to link to expenditures rather than obligated funds. Obligations are dramatically outpacing expenditures in the reconstruction effort today. If we let the Special IG sunset after the bulk of the money is obligated but not expended, we will not have a clear picture of what these billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars actually achieved on the ground. The imminent disappearance of auditors can also create a real incentive for cutting corners in actually implementing projects. So we need to make sure that Congress signals its support for the Special IG continuing to see this reconstruction effort through.

Transparency and accountability in the reconstruction effort is not about finding new things to criticize. It is about responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources, and it is about getting reconstruction right. Ultimately, it is about achieving our goals in Iraq. Congress appropriated reconstruction funds in an emergency supplemental. Congress created this IG in an emergency supplemental. It is entirely appropriate to make these technical changes to the IG's mandate in this supplemental to ensure that Congressional intent--which is to have ongoing, vigorous, focused oversight of the reconstruction effort--is respected.

I am deeply disappointed that the managers of this bill did not see fit to devote any effort to this important amendment. The amendment had been cleared on the Democratic side, but apparently there was some problem, or some lack of interest, that prevented this amendment from being accepted. This is troubling. It is difficult to understand why anyone would oppose solid oversight of the reconstruction effort. The IG's team needs some sense of certainty as the obligation rate soars and their termination grows closer and closer, yet the bulk of reconstruction funds remain unexpended. The Senate addressed this issue in the $87 billion 2003 supplemental for Iraq, and then made an important adjustment by unanimous consent last year while we considered the DOD Authorization bill. This needs to get done, and I will continue to work to make sure that happens.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we solemnly remember the men and women who perished in the Armenian genocide 90 years ago. A million and a half Armenians were systematically massacred at the hands of the Ottoman Empire and more than 500,000 fled their homeland.

When the Armenian genocide occurred from 1915 to 1923, the international community lacked a name for such atrocities. In January 1951, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide entered into force to affirm the international commitment to prevent genocide and protect basic human decency. Today, we have the words to describe this evil, and we have an obligation to prevent it. But we must also have the will to act.

During the Holocaust, and later in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, the world has seen the crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide recur again and again. Too often, the will to stop atrocities has been lacking, or far too late in coming. Today, as we read report after report detailing the horrific plight of the people of Darfur, Sudan, we must muster the will and the sense of urgency required to save lives.

The international community has made the first steps, but it has a long way to go in punishing and, especially, preventing genocide. As we move forward, we must learn the lessons of Armenia's genocide. We cannot be misled by the rhetorical veils of murderous leaders, thrown up to disguise the agenda at hand. We cannot respond to evidence of methodical, brutal violence by wringing our hands and waiting for some definitive proof that these events qualify as genocide. Enforcing a collective, international commitment to prevent and stop genocides from occurring is imperative. We owe the victims of the Armenian genocide this commitment.

This is why we must remember the Armenian genocide. To forget it is to enable more genocides and ethnic cleansing to occur. We must honor its victims by reaffirming our resolve to not let it happen again.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am introducing that would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng is labeled accurately with where the root was harvested. The ``Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2005'' is similar to bills that I introduced in previous Congresses and developed after hearing suggestions from ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.

I would like to take the opportunity to discuss American ginseng and the problems facing Wisconsin's ginseng growers so that my colleagues understand the need for this legislation. Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes. As a dietary supplement, American ginseng is widely touted for its ability to improve energy and vitality, particularly in fighting fatigue or stress.

In the U.S., ginseng is experiencing increasing popularity as a dietary supplement, and I am proud to say that my home State of Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin produces 97 percent of the ginseng grown in the United States, and 85 percent of the country's ginseng is grown in just one Wisconsin county, Marathon County. Ginseng is also grown in a number of other States such as Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

For Wisconsin, ginseng has been an economic boon. Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because it is of the highest quality and because it has a low pesticide and chemical content. In 2002, U.S. exports of ginseng totaled nearly $45 million, much of which was grown in Wisconsin. With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead.

Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious

problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.''

Here's how the switch takes place: Wisconsin ginseng is shipped to China to be sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers too often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with Asian- or Canadian- grown ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The lower quality ginseng is then shipped back to the U.S. for sale to American consumers who think they are buying the Wisconsin-grown product.

There is good reason consumers should want to know that the ginseng they buy is American-grown considering that the only accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown is to test for pesticides that are banned in the United States. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and quintozine (PCNB) have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in the U.S.

To capitalize on their product's preeminence, the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has developed a voluntary labeling program, stating that the ginseng is ``Grown in Wisconsin, U.S.A.'' However, Wisconsin ginseng is so valuable that counterfeit labels and ginseng smuggling have become widespread around the world. As a result, consumers have no way of knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase-- where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous pesticides.

My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2005, proposes some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw agricultural commodity, be sold at retail with a label clearly indicating the country that the ginseng was harvested in. ``Harvest'' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants were cultivated in a foreign country, they may have been treated with chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing foreign-produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision.

These common sense reforms would give ginseng growers the support they deserve and help consumers make informed choices about the ginseng that they consume. We must ensure that when ginseng consumers reach for a high-quality ginseng product--such as Wisconsin-grown ginseng--they are getting the real thing, not a knock-off.

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

Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am introducing that would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng is labeled accurately with where the root was harvested. The ``Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2005'' is similar to bills that I introduced in previous Congresses and developed after hearing suggestions from ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.

I would like to take the opportunity to discuss American ginseng and the problems facing Wisconsin's ginseng growers so that my colleagues understand the need for this legislation. Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes. As a dietary supplement, American ginseng is widely touted for its ability to improve energy and vitality, particularly in fighting fatigue or stress.

In the U.S., ginseng is experiencing increasing popularity as a dietary supplement, and I am proud to say that my home State of Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin produces 97 percent of the ginseng grown in the United States, and 85 percent of the country's ginseng is grown in just one Wisconsin county, Marathon County. Ginseng is also grown in a number of other States such as Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

For Wisconsin, ginseng has been an economic boon. Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because it is of the highest quality and because it has a low pesticide and chemical content. In 2002, U.S. exports of ginseng totaled nearly $45 million, much of which was grown in Wisconsin. With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead.

Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious

problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.''

Here's how the switch takes place: Wisconsin ginseng is shipped to China to be sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers too often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with Asian- or Canadian- grown ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The lower quality ginseng is then shipped back to the U.S. for sale to American consumers who think they are buying the Wisconsin-grown product.

There is good reason consumers should want to know that the ginseng they buy is American-grown considering that the only accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown is to test for pesticides that are banned in the United States. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and quintozine (PCNB) have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in the U.S.

To capitalize on their product's preeminence, the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has developed a voluntary labeling program, stating that the ginseng is ``Grown in Wisconsin, U.S.A.'' However, Wisconsin ginseng is so valuable that counterfeit labels and ginseng smuggling have become widespread around the world. As a result, consumers have no way of knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase-- where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous pesticides.

My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2005, proposes some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw agricultural commodity, be sold at retail with a label clearly indicating the country that the ginseng was harvested in. ``Harvest'' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants were cultivated in a foreign country, they may have been treated with chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing foreign-produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision.

These common sense reforms would give ginseng growers the support they deserve and help consumers make informed choices about the ginseng that they consume. We must ensure that when ginseng consumers reach for a high-quality ginseng product--such as Wisconsin-grown ginseng--they are getting the real thing, not a knock-off.

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

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a measure that will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the Nation.

When dairy farmers across the country voted on a referendum six years ago, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing cooperatives cast their votes for them.

This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular vote. It may serve the interest of time, but it doesn't always serve the interests of their producer owner-members.

While I think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some circumstances, I have serious concerns about its use in every circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other States tell me that they do not agree with their cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote count.

I have learned from farmers and officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that if a cooperative bloc votes, individual members have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. Co-ops and their individual members do not always have identical interests. Considering our nation's longstanding commitment to freedom of expression, our Federal rules should allow farmers to express a differing opinion from their co-ops, if they choose to.

The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2005 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot to opt to vote separately from the co-op.

This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Co- ops could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their right to vote individually. And to the extent that co-ops

represent farmers' interests, in the majority of cases farmers are likely to vote the same as their co-ops. But whether they join the co- ops or not in voting for or against a measure, farmers deserve the right to vote according to their own views.

I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a measure that will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the Nation.

When dairy farmers across the country voted on a referendum six years ago, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing cooperatives cast their votes for them.

This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular vote. It may serve the interest of time, but it doesn't always serve the interests of their producer owner-members.

While I think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some circumstances, I have serious concerns about its use in every circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other States tell me that they do not agree with their cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote count.

I have learned from farmers and officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that if a cooperative bloc votes, individual members have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. Co-ops and their individual members do not always have identical interests. Considering our nation's longstanding commitment to freedom of expression, our Federal rules should allow farmers to express a differing opinion from their co-ops, if they choose to.

The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2005 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot to opt to vote separately from the co-op.

This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Co- ops could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their right to vote individually. And to the extent that co-ops

represent farmers' interests, in the majority of cases farmers are likely to vote the same as their co-ops. But whether they join the co- ops or not in voting for or against a measure, farmers deserve the right to vote according to their own views.

I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act.

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