Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to speak further on my amendment which I offered yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support my senior homeowner protection amendment, amendment No. 17.

As I explained yesterday, my amendment would protect senior homeowners who need to file for bankruptcy relief. It would help to ensure that these older Americans do not have to lose their hard-earned homes in order to seek the protection of the bankruptcy system.

The homestead exemption in the bankruptcy laws is supposed to protect homeowners from having to give up their homes in order to seek bankruptcy relief. But in too many States, the homestead exemption is woefully inadequate. The value of this exemption varies widely from State to State. Federal law currently creates an alternative homestead exemption of just under $20,000, but each State gets to decide whether it will allow its debtors to rely on this already low Federal alternative, and most do not. In many States, the amount of equity a homeowner can protect in bankruptcy has lagged far behind the dramatic rise in home values in recent years. For example, in the State of Ohio the homestead exemption is only $5,000, and in the State of North Carolina the homestead exemption is a mere $10,000. Even for States that have no State exemption but allow debtors to use the $20,000 Federal exemption, like New Jersey, the number is just too low in this age of rising housing costs.

My amendment would create a uniform Federal floor for homestead exemptions of $75,000, applicable only to bankruptcy debtors over the age of 62. States could no longer impose lower exemptions on their seniors. If a State's exemption is higher than $75,000, however, that exemption would still apply. My amendment creates a floor, not a ceiling.

Older Americans desperately need this protection. Americans over the age of 65 are the fastest-growing age group filing for bankruptcy protection. Job loss, medical expenses and other crises are wreaking havoc on the finances of our seniors. In the 1990s, the number of Americans 65 and older filing for bankruptcy tripled. They need our help.

Older Americans also are far more likely to have paid off their mortgages over decades of hard work, making the homestead exemption particularly important for them. In fact, more than 70 percent of homeowners age 65 and older own their homes free and clear. For these seniors, their home equity often represents nearly their entire life savings, and their home is often their only significant asset. That means seniors are hit hardest by the very low homestead exemptions in some states.

It has become apparent that when there is no substantive argument against a worthy amendment, we will hear arguments cautioning against the unraveling of delicate compromises and agreements. It has become a convenient and frequent refrain on the floor of the Senate, that amendments cannot be tolerated. That is very troubling, particularly because in the Judiciary Committee we were implored to hold our amendments for the floor and promised that supporters of the bill would work with us to try to resolve our concerns. There is a bait and switch going on here. Bills that come before this body are not sacrosanct. If there is a substantive argument to be made against my amendment, I am eager to hear it and debate it. But it is just not right to say that an amendment will be defeated because the bill must remain ``clean'' to pass.

It is especially wrong to make that argument when it is just not true. Some amendments might be termed poison pills, but that term does not apply to this amendment.

To be frank, my amendment simply has no bearing whatsoever on the other provision of the bill that addresses the homestead exemption-- that is, the provision whose delicate balance we have been so strongly cautioned not to disrupt.

Section 322 of the bill addresses abuses resulting from the fact that some States have unlimited homestead exemptions. An agreement on that provision--often called the Kohl amendment after my senior colleague from Wisconsin, who led the fight against these abuses--was reached in the 2002 conference. Senators from the States that had unlimited homestead exemptions, such as Florida and Texas, objected strenuously to a Federal ceiling preempting their States' unlimited exemptions. They agreed to the provision only when it was modified to its current version, in which the Federal cap applies only to people engaging in fraud and people who purchase property shortly before filing for bankruptcy.

My amendment has no bearing whatsoever on that compromise deal. The Senators who initially objected to Senator Kohl's attempt to limit wealthy debtors' abuse of the homestead exemption are from States where the homestead exemption is already unlimited. In those States, my uniform Federal floor would have absolutely no effect. The unlimited exemption would still apply.

On the other side of the negotiations were people like Senator Kohl who were attempting to prevent wealthy debtors from abusing the homestead exemption by buying multi-million dollar mansions in States with unlimited homestead exemptions. I have not heard them object to giving seniors a uniform homestead exemption that is less than the Federal ceiling provided in Section 322. Once again, my amendment has absolutely no effect on the deal that was cut.

I would also point out that supporters of the bill are perfectly willing to override State decisions with regard to homestead exemptions in certain circumstances. This bill already requires that a Federal maximum exemption apply to prevent abuse by wealthy debtors seeking to hide their assets in a mansion and get rid of their debts through bankruptcy. Why can't we insist on a Federal floor to protect senior citizens? It makes no sense to suggest that this amendment violates State prerogatives on the homestead exemption since the bill already does just that.

So I am having a hard time figuring out who would object to my amendment, and what delicate compromise is going to be undone if my amendment passes. Is anyone going to stand on the floor of the Senate and defend the right of States to harm the elderly by forcing them to sell their homes in order to seek bankruptcy protection? Are we really going to take the States rights argument that far?

So my amendment has nothing to do with compromises already made in this bill. It would not unravel the bill, or upset the compromise on the homestead exemption. Now the credit card companies probably don't like this amendment because it will protect

some seniors from having to sell their homes to pay their debts. Once again, the Senate has a choice to make. Will we stand with our senior citizens or with the credit card companies and big banks?

I also want to explain a bit more why I have limited the amendment to debtors age 62 and over. The argument was made yesterday by the Senator from Alabama that a single mother or a young family also would benefit from a larger exemption. But seniors are the people who need the exemption most. Most people in their 20s and 30s do not have $75,000 of equity in their homes, if they own homes at all. Certainly those who are filing for bankruptcy do not. Seniors, on the other hand, have worked their whole lives to payoff their mortgages and guarantee themselves a comfortable place to live in their retirement. They survive on their modest social security benefits precisely because they have no mortgage or rental payments. Are we now going to force them to forfeit their homes because they face such high medical expenses that they have to seek bankruptcy protection?

In addition seniors are typically living on fixed incomes and simply don't have the ability to rebuild wealth that younger people have. Nor can they afford to make payments on a new mortgage. If forced to sell their homes, many older Americans will not be able to afford to rent a habitable, safe place to live. Some can barely afford to the pay the property taxes on their current paid-off homes because of rising real estate assessments.

We need to protect our senior citizens in their retirement years. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, first, I want to correct the record. The Senator from Utah is incorrect that I never supported a version of the bankruptcy bill. I did, in 2002 when there was a vote on the Senate floor. Our late colleague from Minnesota and I used to have a little contest about who was the only one to vote ``no'' on a bill the most. This was a case where Senator Wellstone voted ``no'' and I actually voted ``aye'' for a version--a reasonable, balanced version--of a bankruptcy bill when it appeared on one occasion during the past 7 years. Unfortunately, that bill was not accepted and was basically rejected out of hand by those in the House who insisted on an unbalanced, unfair bill.

That is exactly what we have before us today. I reject the argument that this amendment in any way, shape, or form endangers this bill. How can that be the case?

The Senator from Utah has said this bill affects States rights with regard to the homestead exemption. This bill does affect the rights of Florida and Texas to have an unlimited homestead exemption, as it should. The Federal Government has an interest here in making sure wealthy people cannot abuse the system. I support that goal of stopping fraud.

The Federal Government also has an interest in making sure our senior citizens have absolute minimum protection for their homes when they are forced into bankruptcy, particularly because of unanticipated health care costs.

I am not creating some new precedent in this bill. This bill already changes state rules on the homestead exemption, and my amendment has absolutely no impact on the delicate balance achieved with regard to the high end of the homestead exemption.

This amendment is not intended to harm the bill, and, in fact, it does not harm the bill. It is simply trying to bring an element of fairness and balance to the bankruptcy laws with regard to senior citizens who might lose their homes.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield.

Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I am very concerned about the impact of this bankruptcy bill on our senior citizens. Older Americans, far more than the rest of us, often face crushing debt burdens because of the high cost of prescription drugs and other medical expenses, and they need the safety net of bankruptcy relief to deal with their resulting financial troubles. In fact, Americans over 65 are now the fastest growing age group filing for bankruptcy protection.

Older Americans, far more than the rest of us, are often homeowners who have paid off their mortgages over decades of hard work. Their home equity often represents nearly their entire life savings, and their home is often their only significant asset. It is critical we ensure these older Americans are not forced to give up their hard-earned homes--the homes where they have raised their children and planned to spend their retirement--in order to seek the benefit of our bankruptcy system. These are not just pieces of real estate to these people; these are their havens, their sanctuaries, their life's work. Yet the bankruptcy law in its current form does not adequately protect older Americans from a horrible dilemma.

For older homeowners, the homestead exemption in the bankruptcy laws is what should protect them from having to make the horrible decision to give up their homes in order to seek bankruptcy relief. This exemption legally protects the homestead--a personal residence--or some portion of its value from the claims of most creditors. It should mean that senior citizens faced with bankruptcy because they cannot pay off their massive medical expenses are allowed to keep their homes.

In too many cases, this homestead exemption is woefully inadequate. The value of this exemption varies widely from State to State. While Federal law currently creates an alternative homestead exemption of just under $20,000, that low amount is just that, an alternative. Each State gets to decide whether it will allow its debtors to rely on this Federal alternative, and many do not. As a result, some States allow a much higher exemption, but many have a much lower exemption.

In States such as Florida and Texas, there is a homestead exemption with an unlimited dollar value, meaning that any money invested in a home cannot be obtained by creditors. I should note, of course, that this creates other problems, which I will address in a few minutes. But other States allow a very limited value homestead exemption. In many States, the amount of equity a homeowner can protect in bankruptcy has lagged far behind the dramatic rise in home values in recent years. For example, in the State of Ohio, the homestead exemption is only $5,000, and in the Presiding Officer's State of North Carolina, the homestead exemption is $10,000. In this day and age, those paltry exemptions will do no good. We obviously have a problem, and it is hitting our older friends and family members the hardest.

Think about it: In these low homestead exemption States, even indigent elderly homeowners who own a home free and clear worth only $30,000 or $40,000 cannot file for chapter 7 bankruptcy without losing their home. And they may not be able to file a chapter 13 case because they cannot afford to pay creditors the value of their home equity that is not exempt, as required by that chapter. Many elderly homeowners live solely on Social Security benefits, often no more than $800 to $1,000 per month. This is enough to subsist in their paid-off homes, while still paying taxes, utilities and other basic living expenses. But if they lose their homes, they will not be able to rent a decent place to live. Effectively, this means these older homeowners have no bankruptcy relief available to them at all. We have to address this gross inequity before we pass this bill. My amendment would create a uniform federal floor for homestead exemptions of $75,000, applicable only to bankruptcy debtors over the age of 62, protecting the lower- and middle-class senior citizens who need it most.

I will give an example that illustrates why it is so important that we fix this problem and fix it now. Let me tell my colleagues about Mary Bobbit. Mary Bobbit is a 70-year-old widow who lives in North Carolina, where the homestead exemption is only $10,000. According to a local news story, she recently lost her husband to cancer, a battle that left her with more than $175,000 in unpaid medical bills. Her only remaining asset is the home that her family built themselves 26 years ago, a home that she paid off just last year. And now she is faced with a horrible dilemma, because if she files for bankruptcy in North Carolina, she will lose the home that she and her husband worked so hard to build and pay for.

As Mary Bobbit's story shows, this is not a hypothetical problem. Despite the fact that older Americans tend to own their own homes and have greater financial experience compared to the rest of us, they are the fastest growing age group in bankruptcy. In the 1990s, the number of Americans 65 and older filing for bankruptcy tripled. Why is that?

Well, older Americans simply do not have the same resources for their retirement years that they used to. They live on fixed incomes that are not keeping up with rising costs. Fewer and fewer Americans have pensions, and many Americans who are just hitting retirement age lost much of their retirement savings when the stock market bubble burst a few years ago.

But one of the biggest reasons that older Americans go into bankruptcy is the inability to pay medical expenses. Between prescription drug costs and the costs of hospitalization, medical expenses can add up quickly for someone on a fixed income. Medicare simply is not providing the help that many of them need. In fact, medical expenses are the cause of more than half of all bankruptcies filed by debtors over the age of 50.

Another big factor in the rising bankruptcy rate of older Americans is job loss. People who are nearing retirement age and lose their jobs due to mergers and down-sizing can find it very difficult to find a new job. If you are in your late 50s and lose a job, just try to find someone to hire you at the same wages you were making before. It is not easy, and the results can be devastating.

Job loss is also a problem for the increasing percentage of older Americans who are finding that they have to return to work after retirement in order to make ends meet, giving up the American dream of security and leisure in retirement. In fact, nearly half of seniors say they plan to continue working during retirement because they cannot survive financially otherwise. Senior citizens are reporting that if they lose even a low-paying, part-time job at places like McDonald's or Wal-Mart, they may no longer be able to afford their basic living expenses.

Yet another disturbing trend is that the credit card debt of Americans over age 65 increased dramatically in the 1990s, in part thanks to the fact that they can now charge many prescription drug and other medical expenses. I am very disturbed by the idea that seniors would end up having to pay credit card interest rates of even 20 percent in order to pay for the medical treatment they need.

Older Americans are increasingly the victims of unscrupulous predatory lenders. According to the AARP, elderly Americans are three times more likely to be targeted. In fact, according to a Harvard study, nearly one in five older Americans in bankruptcy filed their petition at least in part to avoid constant, harassing, 24-hour-a-day collection calls or other actions.

All of this rather sad picture makes one thing very clear. We are not talking about people who were reckless with their spending and think they can use or manipulate the bankruptcy laws to get out of it. We are talking about responsible people who have worked toward retirement their whole lives, yet whether because of devastating medical costs, job loss, or some other tragedy, find themselves in a financial emergency and are unable to pay their debts. These people turn to the bankruptcy system only as a last resort. They should not also be forced to give up their homes for doing so.

We cannot allow this to continue. We have to fix this problem.

I believe my amendment offers a solution to help them. Federal law should protect the elderly in States where the homestead exemption is very low. The optional Federal bankruptcy exemptions allow a homeowner to protect only a little under $20,000, and even then States can simply ignore that Federal alternative and require their debtors to use the State exemptions, which are often much lower. My amendment would create a uniform Federal floor for homestead exemptions of $75,000, applicable only to bankruptcy debtors over the age of 62. States could no longer impose lower exemptions on their seniors. This would permit senior homeowners to file for bankruptcy without losing what is usually the only significant asset they have: their homes. And if my amendment were adopted, the U.S. Congress would not be the first to acknowledge that this is a problem for the elderly. Both California and Maine have recognized that elderly debtors deserve increased homestead protection. California recently raised the exemption for the elderly to $150,000, and Maine has an exemption for debtors over 60 of $70,000. It is about time we caught up with these forward-thinking State legislators and gave our seniors the protection they need.

I do want to briefly address the very serious problem that I alluded to earlier, which is that some wealthy Americans have exploited the unlimited homestead exemption available in certain States. This certainly is not a new issue; we have had years of debate over the unlimited homestead exemptions in some states that permit wealthy people to file bankruptcy and retain their mansions. One frequently cited example of abuse is Bowie Kuhn, the former baseball commissioner whose law firm went into bankruptcy. After creditors seized his home in the Hamptons and were about to attach his mansion in New Jersey, Mr. Kuhn acquired a multi-million dollar home in Florida and protected it from his creditors. Florida, of course, is one of the States with an unlimited homestead exemption. Section 322 of the bankruptcy bill attempts to address this problem, but does so only for a relatively small number of people. It treats the poor and middle class harshly while still letting some wealthy debtors, who are clearly abusing the system, shelter millions of dollars. I agree with my senior colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, and the distinguished Senator from Alabama that this loophole must be addressed. Unfortunately, I do not think the homestead exemption limitation in this bill does the job as well as it could, but I am afraid we will have to turn to that issue on another day.

My amendment addresses the flip side of the homestead issue. It has no effect whatsoever on the homestead provision agreed to by Senator Kohl in the 2002 conference, which remains in this new bill. Rather than being concerned with the relatively small number of high-profile wealthy abusers of the system, my amendment is aimed at the thousands upon thousands of elderly homeowners who are being squeezed by medical bills and rising home prices into an untenable position.

Let's be honest. Despite all the investment opportunities available to many in this country, for a very large number of seniors, the only retirement plan they have is this: pay off your house, and live on Social Security. People in that situation can survive, but not if they get hit with a financial emergency, usually a severe medical problem, and live in a State that has a low homestead exemption. We need to help them, and we need to do it now.

The bankruptcy system should provide a safety net for families truly in need of relief. This senior homeowner protection amendment is a reasonable solution to a growing problem. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for this amendment from the AARP be printed in the Record.

Let me thank the Senator from Alabama, not only for his willingness to engage on the merits of this amendment, but for his willingness to engage on a number of difficult subjects, whether it be the homestead exemption or landlord-tenant issues. When the Senate takes up legislation, we typically start with a good discussion in committee, make some progress toward agreement, and then come to the floor. And when we go to the conference committee between the Houses, we also sometimes manage to come up with an agreement.

It is regrettable, through no fault of the Senator from Alabama, that in this case we are starting this process on the floor. I think had these amendments been taken seriously in committee, we could have found some common ground and not had to take up the time of the whole body, but this is where we are.

I do believe this amendment is a reasonable extension of something in which the Senator from Alabama is already involved. His principal concern about this amendment is apparently that we would be overriding State law in the area of homestead exemptions. But the Senator, as he has indicated, has been a party to an agreement that would do exactly that when it comes to the high end of homestead exemptions. It is not as if I picked a new area where I am suggesting that State laws are inadequate. What I am arguing is that if we are going to be dealing with some of these outrageous abuses of the bankruptcy system perpetrated by the very wealthy, let's also take the opportunity to make sure that the average senior citizen in this country, who desperately wants to protect their home and has to go into bankruptcy, has some minimum protection.

To me, this is not an extreme proposal. We only pass these bankruptcy bills once in a great while. As I understand it, the last one was passed in 1978. There clearly is a trend across the country in places like Maine and California, where legislators are recognizing that there is a special, severe problem for many of our seniors. I agree with the Senator from Alabama, it would be terrific if we could extend this protection to everybody. Perhaps that is something we should consider. But there is a particular problem when it comes to seniors, who have no way of making money anymore, and who are beset with unexpected medical bills, whether it be prescription medicine or some other bills. They are stuck. They don't have any other way to save their home. This problem just cries out for a minimum Federal standard of the kind this amendment proposes.

I hope my colleagues consider this amendment. It is offered in good faith. It is not something that should in any way upend the overall bill because we have already engaged in a discussion about the changes that need to be made at the high end of the homestead exemption, and the bill already includes such a provision. So I ask my colleagues to give an independent and fresh look at this, given how important it is to senior constituents in every State of the Union.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate the 44th anniversary of the Peace Corps. For decades now, Peace Corps volunteers have generously and honorably served our country by working to build an understanding between the U.S. and foreign nations, and to create better lives for people around the world. Peace Corps volunteers reflect many of the very best impulses of the American people, and I am pleased to honor these volunteers of all backgrounds and ages. I am especially proud to commend the 252 sworn-in volunteers from Wisconsin. Since the Peace Corps' inception in 1961, the people of the State of Wisconsin have served as an important foundation for this program. The University of Wisconsin-Madison provided a training camp for new volunteers during the 1960s and over 2,600 of its alumni have participated in this program. UW Madison is second in the Nation in the number of current serving volunteers, 142. Wisconsin has an historic legacy in the Peace Corps, and I commend those who have done Wisconsin proud.

In 1960, President Kennedy challenged Americans to serve their country by living and working in developing countries. His vision continues to inspire generations. Today, over 178,000 Americans have answered his call by joining the Peace Corps. When I have the opportunity to travel abroad, I am amazed by the lasting impact that this organization and these eager men and women have had around the world.

Serving in 138 countries, Peace Corps volunteers contribute to developing countries, as varied as Ecuador, Mauritania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, and Tonga, through a range of talents and skills, from serving as teachers to agriculture workers to HIV/AIDS educators. I am particularly impressed that over 3,100 volunteers specifically

work to combat global HIV/AIDS. I have traveled to Africa to see up close the devastation this international pandemic has caused, and I continue to be active on this important and urgent issue. I commend all the men and women volunteers who selflessly work to better communities around the world.

On March 1, 2005, as the Peace Corps celebrates its 44th anniversary, its work is particularly relevant to the challenges before our country and our world today. It is so important for Americans to become involved in world affairs, especially through programs such as the Peace Corps. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his successor Condoleezza Rice both acknowledge that Americans must make a serious investment in reaching across borders and turning around growing anti- American sentiments abroad. I am constantly impressed by Peace Corps volunteers who devote themselves to personally bridging the gap between people of our country and those beyond our borders, proving by their work our country's commitment to positive changes and mutual understanding. These volunteers amplify the effects of their service when they share their Peace Corps stories and experiences with people back home--with family and friends, in corresponding with classrooms, or in recruiting new volunteers to carry the Peace Corps mission forward.

I congratulate Peace Corps and its volunteers for 44 years of effective and admirable service, and I urge all of my colleagues to continue to work to support this unique and inspiring organization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris Iavarone, a legal intern with my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Army Reserve's 652d Engineer Company from Ellsworth, WI, for winning the 2004 Department of Defense, DOD, Reserve Family Readiness Award. This award is given by DOD to only one unit from each Reserve component in recognition of their exceptional family support program.

Our men and women in uniform continue to serve courageously around the world and make great sacrifices to do so. We owe these folks a great debt of gratitude. However, they are not alone in making these sacrifices--their families, too, bear a great burden. The families must not only deal with the emotional toll of having their loved ones serving in a dangerous area, they must also deal with the daily tasks that keep a family functioning. The toll can be especially great on Reserve Component families who have to deal with all sorts of challenges when their loved ones transition to active duty.

The members of the 652d Engineer Company and their families personally know about sacrifice. Four of its members were killed in action during Operation Iraqi Freedom, including 2 on Christmas Day 2003, and 20 received Purple Heart Medals. The 652d Engineer Company's Family Readiness Group, FRG, provided crucial support to the families of these soldiers. We must also remember the confusion and uncertainty that was particularly acute with the early deployments. The FRG was key in helping families navigate through the many pre- and post-deployment issues. Their excellent work was an essential factor in allowing the 652d Engineer Company to carry out its mission.

So, Mr. President, I want to thank the 652d Engineer Company and the FRG for their service and to congratulate them again on receiving this award and on a job well done.

Mr. President, I have come to this floor repeatedly to talk about the ongoing crisis in our domestic manufacturing sector and about ways in which Congress should act to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs and the shuttering of domestic manufacturing companies.

My State of Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2000. The country has lost more than 2\1/2\ million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, including more than 25,000 jobs last month alone. And this hemorrhaging of jobs shows no signs of stopping.

Much of this job loss can be blamed on the dismal trade policies of recent years, which have contributed to many American companies--some of them household names--moving their operations overseas or shutting their doors entirely. These policies have a ripple effect in the communities that have lost manufacturing plants. The closure of the local plant is felt not only by those who worked there and their families, but by the community as a whole.

Mr. President, Florence, WI is a town in the far northeastern corner of my home State, just a few miles from the border with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. A few weeks ago, that small community got a sharp introduction to the realities of our country's trade policies. Pride Manufacturing, the world's largest maker of golf tees, announced that it would be closing down its plant in Florence and moving that operation and the hundred or so jobs that go with it to China.

That announcement probably was not noticed by many people outside of my home State--one company in one small community in Wisconsin leaving for China does not raise many eyebrows in Washington or on Wall Street. But it is a serious matter for the families whose livelihood is directly affected by the move. And it will certainly have an impact on the community in which they live. Some families may try to stay, but some may be forced to look elsewhere for jobs. The local school district is already trying to cope with declining enrollment and the challenges of being a largely rural district. The prospect of losing additional families will only make matters worse. Local businesses that relied on the patronage of those families will be hit. Car dealers, grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores--everyone in that community will potentially be affected by the loss of Pride Manufacturing.

There are too many stories like this taking place around my State and around our country. There are too many boarded-up factories and too

many parents struggling to make ends meet and to provide for their children after the plant closes and the jobs go to other countries. Congress can and should do more to support these hard-working Americans and their employers. These are the people who are bearing the brunt of the bad trade agreements and other policies that have encouraged companies to close or to leave the United States.

In response to this crisis, this week I am introducing a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. These measures alone will not solve this problem, but I believe that they represent a first step in helping to save a core sector of our economy.

My first proposal would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters. It is a break with the so- called NAFTA model and instead advocates the kinds of sound trade policies that will spur economic growth and sustainable development. The major trade agreements into which our country has entered in recent years have resulted in a race to the bottom in labor standards, environmental standards, health and safety standards, in nearly every aspect of our economy. A race to the bottom is a race in which even the winners lose. We should ensure that future trade agreements do not continue down this perilous road.

The principles set forth in this resolution are straightforward and achievable. These principles include: calling for enforceable worker protections, preserving the ability of the United States to enact and enforce its own trade laws, ensuring that foreign investors are not provided with greater rights than those provided under U.S. law, providing that food entering into our country meets domestic food safety standards, and preserving the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to maintain essential public services and to regulate private sector services in the public interest.

Mr. President, my second bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers. The Buy American Act of 1933 is supposed to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and workers by buying American-made goods. This is an important law, but it contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for Government agencies to buy foreign-made goods.

The Buy American Improvement Act would make it harder to waive the Buy American Act. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

My bill would also, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to Congress. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act. And, in an effort to bring transparency and accountability to the process, it would require agencies to report on their purchases of foreign-made goods.

It is bad enough that our trade policies have encouraged companies to shut down or relocate overseas. Many of the same flawed trade agreements that have sent American jobs overseas have also weakened the Buy American Act.

Last year, the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Lieberman and I asked the GAO to study the effect of trade agreements on domestic source requirements such as those contained in the Buy American Act. That study, which was released this week, found that the Government is required to give favorable treatment to certain goods from a total of 45 countries as a result of 7 trade agreements and 21 reciprocal defense procurement agreements.

In other words, at the same time that Congress has been paying lip service to the Buy American Act, it has been carving out exceptions to that Act in our trade and defense procurement agreements. It is time for Congress to step up and support efforts to strengthen, not undermine, the Buy American Act.

In addition, Congress must make every effort to help workers who have lost their jobs as a result of our trade policies. Many of these workers require retraining for new jobs that will enable them to support their families.

My third bill, the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act, would authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds, because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program.

By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the fast-growing health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care in our communities.

I hope that my colleagues will support each of my proposals, and I look forward to working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to find additional ways to support our domestic manufacturers and their employees. I know that there are towns like Florence, WI, all over the country, and I hope that we will finally act this Congress to support the jobs that are the bedrock of those communities.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Earlier this week, I introduced S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters, and S. 395, which would strengthen the Buy American Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained for jobs in high-demand health care fields.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, the country has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors.

There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system.

In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets.

I strongly support the work of these agencies and have urged the administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2006 does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across our country receive the resources they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful.

I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care.

As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health.

As our population ages, and the baby boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going

to need an additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010.

As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. Currently, health services is the largest industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002. It is estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new jobs--more than any other industry.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the surging job growth within health care will translate into a real need for workers) and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an additional 67,430 health care positions by 2012. This represents a 30 percent increase in jobs in health care, over twice the rate of growth for Wisconsin jobs overall.

Mr. President, workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities.

As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family oriented standard of living.''

I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures that the cost of these grants would be offset.

This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program.

This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities.

I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, inc1uding the National Association of Workforce Boards, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, and the Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin.

Mr. President, in order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Earlier this week, I introduced S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters, and S. 395, which would strengthen the Buy American Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained for jobs in high-demand health care fields.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, the country has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors.

There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system.

In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets.

I strongly support the work of these agencies and have urged the administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2006 does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across our country receive the resources they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful.

I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care.

As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health.

As our population ages, and the baby boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going

to need an additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010.

As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. Currently, health services is the largest industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002. It is estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new jobs--more than any other industry.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the surging job growth within health care will translate into a real need for workers) and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an additional 67,430 health care positions by 2012. This represents a 30 percent increase in jobs in health care, over twice the rate of growth for Wisconsin jobs overall.

Mr. President, workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities.

As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family oriented standard of living.''

I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures that the cost of these grants would be offset.

This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program.

This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities.

I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, inc1uding the National Association of Workforce Boards, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, and the Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin.

Mr. President, in order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the second in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Yesterday, I submitted S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing effort to find ways to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. This is an important law but, regrettably, it contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign- made goods.

My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing act by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 80,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my state since 2000. And the country has lost more than two-and-one-half million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, including more than 25,000 jobs last month alone. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows no signs of stopping. Congress should do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods.

There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source--including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas.

The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such a waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically.

My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act--a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies.

Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent.

In addition, my bill would make permanent the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was extended as part of the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign- and domestic-made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process.

The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet.

My bill also seeks to prevent dual-use technologies from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern by prohibiting the awarding of overseas contracts or sub-contracts that would require the transfer of information relating to any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process. It only makes sense that we would not award contracts that require the transfer of sensitive technology without following our own export licensing process. It is possible that this technology could later be used by some countries to make their own products to sell to countries that cannot obtain such goods from the United States. This loophole in our export control laws should be closed.

Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would require to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all federal agencies.

I am pleased that my legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups. The groups are committed to ensuring that we have a strong domestic manufacturing base that provides good-paying, stable jobs for American workers, and they include Save American Manufacturing, the national and Wisconsin AFL-CIO, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and the United Auto Workers.

In addition to strengthening the Buy American Act, Congress should support trade agreements that do not undermine it. As I have repeatedly stated on this floor, Congress and Administrations of both parties have a dismal record of promoting trade agreements that send American jobs overseas. And many of those same flawed trade agreements have repeatedly weakened the Buy American Act and other domestic preference laws.

Last year, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Lieberman, and I asked the GAO to study the effect of trade agreements on domestic source requirements such as those contained in the Buy American Act. That study found that the United States government is required to give

favorable treatment to certain goods from a total of 45 countries as a result of trade agreements and reciprocal defense procurement agreements. The report notes that the United States is a party to seven trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, that prevents the U.S. from applying domestic preference laws fully. The report also identifies 21 Department of Defense (DoD) Memoranda of Understanding that allow DoD to procure goods and services from foreign countries.

The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws.

By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem, I believe that one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the second in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Yesterday, I submitted S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters.

The bill that I am introducing today, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing effort to find ways to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. This is an important law but, regrettably, it contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign- made goods.

My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing act by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 80,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my state since 2000. And the country has lost more than two-and-one-half million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, including more than 25,000 jobs last month alone. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows no signs of stopping. Congress should do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods.

There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a procurement up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowest-priced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and of opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States, such as in a time of war. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source--including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas.

The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such a waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically.

My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act--a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies.

Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that American- made means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent.

In addition, my bill would make permanent the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was extended as part of the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign- and domestic-made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process.

The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet.

My bill also seeks to prevent dual-use technologies from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries of concern by prohibiting the awarding of overseas contracts or sub-contracts that would require the transfer of information relating to any item that is classified as a dual-use item on the Commerce Control List unless approval for such a contract has been obtained through the Export Administration Act process. It only makes sense that we would not award contracts that require the transfer of sensitive technology without following our own export licensing process. It is possible that this technology could later be used by some countries to make their own products to sell to countries that cannot obtain such goods from the United States. This loophole in our export control laws should be closed.

Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would require to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all federal agencies.

I am pleased that my legislation is supported by a broad array of business and labor groups. The groups are committed to ensuring that we have a strong domestic manufacturing base that provides good-paying, stable jobs for American workers, and they include Save American Manufacturing, the national and Wisconsin AFL-CIO, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and the United Auto Workers.

In addition to strengthening the Buy American Act, Congress should support trade agreements that do not undermine it. As I have repeatedly stated on this floor, Congress and Administrations of both parties have a dismal record of promoting trade agreements that send American jobs overseas. And many of those same flawed trade agreements have repeatedly weakened the Buy American Act and other domestic preference laws.

Last year, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Lieberman, and I asked the GAO to study the effect of trade agreements on domestic source requirements such as those contained in the Buy American Act. That study found that the United States government is required to give

favorable treatment to certain goods from a total of 45 countries as a result of trade agreements and reciprocal defense procurement agreements. The report notes that the United States is a party to seven trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, that prevents the U.S. from applying domestic preference laws fully. The report also identifies 21 Department of Defense (DoD) Memoranda of Understanding that allow DoD to procure goods and services from foreign countries.

The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws.

By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem, I believe that one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act.

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

Mr. President, I am resubmitting a measure to help begin to address one of the central problems our Nation faces, namely the loss of family-supporting jobs because of our flawed trade policies.

Florence, WI is a town in the far northeastern corner of my home State. It is just a few miles from the border with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Like most Americans, the residents of Florence are probably too busy with their own lives to pay close attention to the trade policies of our Nation. But a few weeks ago, a hundred families in that small community got a sharp introduction to the realities of those policies. Pride Manufacturing, the world's largest maker of golf tees, announced that it would be closing down its plant in Florence, and moving that operation and the hundred or so jobs that go with it to China.

That announcement probably wasn't noticed by many people outside of my home State--one company in one small community in the far northeastern corner of Wisconsin leaving for China doesn't raise many eyebrows in Washington or Wall Street. But it is a serious matter for the families whose livelihood is directly affected by the move. And it will certainly have an impact on the community in which they live. Some families may try to stay, but some may be forced to look elsewhere for jobs. The local school district is already trying to cope with declining enrollment and the challenges of a largely rural district. The prospect of losing additional families will only make matters worse. Local businesses that relied on the custom of those families will be hit. Car dealers, grocery stores, hardware stores, clothing stores, everyone will be potentially impacted.

All because a local business is closing down as a result of the trade policies of this government.

We have seen that story repeated across Wisconsin. Our manufacturing sector has been hit particularly hard. And I know Wisconsin is not alone in that experience.

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

Indeed, those agreements undermine the very democratic institutions through which we govern ourselves.

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

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

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

The legislation I am pleased to reintroduce today addresses this problem, at least in part. It establishes some minimum standards for the trade agreements into which our nation enters. I introduced an identical resolution in the last Congress as a companion to a resolution introduced in the other body by my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Sherrod Brown).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For any who doubt this, I invite you to ask the families in Florence, WI who will watch their jobs move to China.

We can't let this continue to happen. We need to turn our trade policies around. We need to pursue trade agreements that will promote sustainable economic growth for our Nation and for our trading partners. The resolution I submit today will begin to put us on that path, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have restored the full 5 minutes I was originally given.

I ask unanimous consent to have the 5 minutes restored. I would appreciate that, because the chairman who is handling this bill on the floor asked me to stay in committee and finish the bankruptcy hearing. I feel justified in asking for my time to be restored.

Mr. President, everyone understands that this bill will allow many more class actions to be removed from State to Federal court, but as the supporters have been proclaiming all week long, there are still class actions that belong in State court, even under this bill. Unfortunately, that may not stop defendants from removing cases that should still be in State court.

When a notice of removal is filed, the case is removed to Federal court. There is no proceeding in the State court to make sure the removal is proper. It is up to the Federal court to decide that question, but only if the plaintiffs file a motion to remand to return the case back to the State court.

The amendment I have offered is designed simply to make sure that this process of removal and remand does not become a tool for delaying cases that actually belong in State court. It requires a district court to take a look at a motion to remand within 60 days of filing and then do one of two things: Decide it, which I hope will be possible in almost all cases, or issue an order stating why a decision is not yet possible. If the court issues that order, it must then reach a decision within 180 days of filing. The parties can agree on an extension of any length.

I want to make this clear because I heard Senator Grassley responding to my original argument when I came on the floor. The amendment before us actually gives the court a great deal of flexibility. It will also assure that a

motion to remand does not languish for months, or even years, before a court reviews it and says, oops, this case really should be back in State court.

As I noted last night, we have many examples of remand motions sitting unresolved for a year and then the case goes back to State court.

As the Senator from Iowa pointed out, the Judicial Conference did oppose my amendment in committee that had a strict limit of 60 days, but what I have done to try to accommodate this concern, which I believe moves in their direction, is tripled that limit in the pending amendment. I think that is eminently reasonable, as the Senator from Delaware, a strong supporter of this bill, acknowledged last night on this floor.

The bill itself provides that appeals of remand motions must be decided within 60 days. So why would there be any substantive argument against having a similar limitation at the district court level?

I heard the Senator from Utah suggesting that somehow my amendment denies due process, but I suggest that 180 days is enough time to handle any remand motion. That is time for discovery and for an evidentiary hearing. The problem is that without a deadline, the motion can sit there for a year or longer without any action.

What I am hearing from some of my colleagues who support the bill and recognize that what I am trying to do is reasonable is that they cannot upset the delicate agreement that has been reached with the House. On this one, I cannot accept that. It makes no sense to me that Senators would give up their independent judgment because of a fear of the leadership of the other body. Does anyone think, after everything this bill has been through, that the House leadership is going to refuse to pass this bill if my very reasonable amendment, simply making sure that motions to remand are decided on time, is included? Are they going to further delay this bill for this? I do not think so.

This amendment does not blow the bill up. It is not a poison pill. Everyone I have talked to says this amendment basically makes sense. So I implore my colleagues to exercise their own good judgment, accept this amendment, and persuade their colleagues on the House side and the business community, which several of my colleagues have told me privately, that this amendment makes sense.

It does not harm the bill. In fact, it makes the bill better because it means all the cases we agree on should remain in State court will actually proceed in State court without delay.

I thank the Chair for according me this additional time. I yield the floor, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside.

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

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

Mr. President, if we are going to pass this bill, I think we should do all we can to ensure citizens get their day in court promptly, whether it is in a Federal court or a State court. We are all familiar with the adage that justice delayed is justice denied. So we cannot let this bill become a vehicle for delay.

The bill includes complicated requirements for determining which cases can be removed to Federal court. We need to make sure the cases that belong in State court under this bill do not get caught up in some kind of procedural wrangling that would effectively deny justice to the plaintiffs through delay.

Current Federal court practice allows a case filed in a State court to be automatically removed to Federal court by the filing of a notice of removal. If a party believes the case does not belong in Federal court, it can then remove in Federal court to remand or return the case to the State court.

Under current law, when a Federal district court decides to grant a motion to remand the case back to State court, right now that order is not appealable. S. 5, the bill before us, makes such orders appealable for the first time in over a century. Due to the efforts of Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, and Senator Landrieu, the bill requires the court of appeals to decide appeals of remand orders within 60 days unless the parties agree otherwise. This 60-day time limit recognizes that there is a potential for delay that these newly permitted appeals could cause and that there is a need for courts to resolve quickly at the appellate level the issue of where a case will be heard.

I strongly support this idea of a time limit for decisions on appeals. But it

also highlights another great potential for delay that is caused by this bill. Before that 60-day clock begins to run on an appeal, the district court must first rule on the motion to remand the case to State court. Unfortunately, some courts take a great deal of time to decide motions to remand. The result is simply putting a case in limbo.

Take, for example, the case of Lizana v. DuPont. In this case, cancer victims in Mississippi allege they became sick because they lived next door to a DuPont manufacturing plant. DuPont then removed the case to Federal court on January 21, 2003, and the victims then moved to remand the case to State court. The Federal district court finally granted the victims' motion, a year after the motion to remand was filed.

In an Oklahoma case called Gibbons v. Sprint, a group of consumers filed a case against Sprint for installing cable lines across their land without giving proper notice or paying compensation to the landowners. Sprint then removed the case to Federal court. A remand motion was filed on October 4, 1999, and was granted, but only after a delay of nearly a year.

These are real-life examples of how an improper removal can end up delaying a case for a significant period of time. By rewriting diversity jurisdiction rules in this bill, we are handing defendants a tool for delay, even if they do not actually qualify to have their cases removed. So we need to make sure that in cases that are removed from State courts as a result of this bill, remand motions are decided promptly. At the very least, we should require that the courts review these motions and decide them quickly, if they can.

The amendment that I offered in the Judiciary Committee would have placed a 60-day time limit on district court consideration of motions to remand. This is the same limit that the new bill places on courts of appeals when decisions on motions to remand are appealed.

My committee also adopted the other components of the bill's provision on appeals. It allowed all parties to agree to an extension of any length and allows the court to take an additional 10 days for good cause shown. If courts of appeals are going to be required to rule on appeals of decisions on motions to remand in short order, I thought we should require district courts to make those decisions just as quickly. That way, we could be sure that removals will not be used as a tool for delay.

On Monday, the Judicial Conference sent a letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee concerning my amendment. Not surprisingly, it opposes the amendment. The Judicial Conference historically has opposed, as it says in its letter, ``statutory imposition of litigation priority, expediting requirements, or time limitation rules in specified types of civil cases.''

In other words, judges do not like being told by Congress how to prioritize their cases or how quickly they should do their work. And I do not blame them. But we do it when we think it is important. And here we are sending a potentially large new number of cases to Federal court. We are increasing the workload of the Federal courts, making it more likely cases will be delayed because of crowded dockets.

What the committee amendment did was to require the courts to quickly assess whether a case belongs in Federal court, whether this bill applies to it. I do not think that amendment of mine was unreasonable at all.

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the concern expressed by the Judicial Conference that in some cases 60 days may not be enough time to decide the motion. Its letter points out that, in some cases, an evidentiary hearing might be required and the time to fully brief the motion may exhaust a portion of this 60-day period. My committee amendment allowed for an automatic 10-day extension and an extension of any amount if both sides agree.

I have read the letter from the Judicial Conference and I am trying to come to a reasonable solution. I accept the possibility that the changes I have made to date perhaps are not enough. So I am not wedded to the 60-day period itself. What I am wedded to is the idea that these motions should not be permitted to languish unexamined for months and months. I have made further modifications to the amendment that I offered in committee in the hope that the sponsors of the bill would be willing to work with me to reach an accommodation on this issue.

The amendment I have proposed on the floor requires the district court to do one of two things within 60 days of a motion to remand being filed. First, the court can decide the motion. I hope many, if not most, motions to remand could be decided that quickly. But under my amendment before the body, the court has another option under this amendment. It can issue an order within a 60-day time period indicating why a decision within that time cannot be made. Perhaps the reason is that the factual record cannot be completed within that time, or that other pressing matters must receive priority in light of the court's full docket. The amendment does not presume to specify what reasons are good or adequate reasons. The justification is entirely within the court's discretion, but it must give some explanation, some reason in an order that would be issued within this 60-day period.

If such an order is issued, the court is then allowed, under the amendment before the body, to issue a decision up to 180 days after the filing of the motion. That gives the court a full 6 months to make a decision. I argue that should be enough time for even the most complex of remand motions. Once again, an extension of any length is permitted if all the parties to the case agree.

I believe these changes more than address the concerns raised by the Judicial Conference, but they also make sure that a remand motion will not languish for more than 6 months because the court simply has not gotten around to it.

My hope is that the requirement that an order be issued within the 60 days will make it more likely that the court will devote enough time to the motion to realize that it is possible for a final decision to be reached within that time. If more time is needed, 180 days should be more than sufficient.

A 6-month time limit will not cause undue hardship to our Federal courts. For those who doubt that removal will become a tool for delay, let me call their attention to testimony before the House Judiciary Committee by legal scholar Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell Law School. Professor Eisenberg testified that his research has found that even though the number of class action lawsuits is declining, efforts to remove cases are not. More importantly, he found that remand rates are increasing over time.

In recent years, more than 20 percent of diversity tort cases removed to Federal court have been remanded to State court. Now, that means that one out of five removals are improper. We have no way of knowing what will happen under this bill. Perhaps some of the 20 percent will now be properly removed to Federal court. But given the complexity of the bill's new requirements, I think it is safe to assume that a significant number of removals will still turn out to be improper.

Once a district court decides to remand a case, that remand order will almost certainly be appealed. Plaintiffs with legitimate class actions in State court therefore need the additional protection provided by my amendment in order to avoid being unfairly harmed by this bill. Some time limit on district court consideration of remand motions in class action cases is critical to minimize the denial of justice to citizens who legitimately turn to the State courts, even under this bill, to have their grievances heard.

I know there is tremendous opposition to any attempt to perfect this bill on the floor because of concerns about the other body, but I implore my colleagues who support the bill to not let their no- amendment strategy prevent them from taking a hard look at this problem. Do we want to leave unaddressed the possibility that a case could sit in Federal court with a motion to remand pending for a year or more, only to have the case properly returned to State court once the court finally takes a look at the motion? Is that a just result?

I am convinced that we can work at something if my colleagues will simply take a quick look at this issue with an open mind. This amendment does not even come close to blowing this bill up. It is certainly not a poison pill. It is just an effort to make the bill work better, and surely the supporters of this bill should have the flexibility to do that.

This bill is called the Class Action Fairness Act. To be fair to people seeking justice from courts, we should ask the courts to act quickly on remand motions at both the court of appeals and district court levels. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. President, let me say I appreciate the comments of my friend from Connecticut, as I always do. I just want to point out that the amendment I have offered, as opposed to the one I offered in committee, has increased the time for deciding these motions from 60 days to 180 days. Surely 6 months is plenty of time, even in a complicated motion. So I believe the concerns of the Judicial Conference have been addressed, unless we in the Congress are going to go along with the idea there should be no time limit at all.

At this point I simply leave it at that, hoping that prior to the time of actually voting on the amendment tomorrow I would have a few minutes to repeat and reiterate my position on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his kind remarks and for his genuine efforts to try to reach an accord. It is a shame when we have the chairman of the committee admitting that this ought to be dealt with, and one of the great advocates of this legislation admitting that this is just a question of fixing something, we can't get it done. There is something wrong with the way we are proceeding when we can't fix something that basically nobody is really against if we do it right.

I recognize what is likely to happen in the vote. But I take the Senator at his word that he is hoping we can resolve it. Perhaps this is something that can still happen on this bill. If not, we have to resolve it another way. But I thank him for his sincere efforts to solve this problem.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I honor the accomplishments of Vel Phillips, a pioneer in Wisconsin history, who turns 81 on February 18.

The celebration of Black History Month in the State of Wisconsin cannot be complete without including Vel. In 1951, Vel was the first African-American woman to graduate from the University of Wisconsin Law School. She and her husband Dale moved to Milwaukee, where they became the first husband-wife attorney team admitted to the Federal bar.

Vel's is a household name in Milwaukee, where she was first inspired to run for office doing door-to-door voter registration. She was the first woman and first African American elected to the Milwaukee Common Council. Vel literally came under fire as she fought for open housing in Milwaukee, when gunshots left a bullet lodged in her oven. But no threats, no matter how real or how terrifying, could change Vel's unshakeable commitment to making Milwaukee a more just city and to making the world a better place.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``We must be the drum majors for

peace,'' and Vel heeded his marching orders. She was arrested at a rally at the burned-out NAACP Freedom House, the site of a previous night's retaliatory firebombing. Two weeks before Dr. King's assassination, the Milwaukee Common Council passed the open housing bill.

In 1971, Vel Phillips was appointed Wisconsin's first African- American judge. In 1978, she again reached another milestone with her election as secretary of state, first statewide office held by an African American. Now, at 81, Vel continues to make a difference in Milwaukee, and it is a privilege to call her a friend.

Vel Phillips is a distinguished figure in the progress of the civil rights movement in Wisconsin. Her life of firsts and steadfast determination to make a difference is an inspiration to me and a reminder of the need to advance and protect the civil rights of all Americans as we celebrate Black History Month.