Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I would like to honor and thank U.S. Representative Jerry Kleczka for his outstanding service to the people of Milwaukee as he retires from Congress.

For nearly 20 years, Jerry has served tirelessly representing Wisconsin's 4th district. The native of Milwaukee's south side got an early start in Wisconsin politics. He was elected to the State legislature in 1969 when he was just 24 years old. He served in the State assembly for 5 years before moving to the State senate in 1975. During his

time there, Jerry served with distinction as chairman of the powerful Joint Finance Committee and as assistant majority leader.

In 1984, Jerry was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he would go on to serve 10 terms. During his tenure, Jerry successfully passed legislation banning ``drive-thru'' baby deliveries and worked hard to protect seniors living in public housing from physical harm. Thanks to his hard work, Milwaukee became the first city in the Nation to provide elderly-only public housing. Jerry leaves the House as a member of the influential Committee on Ways and Means, where he fought for Social Security and affordable health care.

Jerry has embodied Wisconsin's progressive tradition during his 35 years of public service. The son of a factory worker, Jerry always stayed true to the hardworking Wisconsin families who counted on him to fight for them in Congress. He developed a trusting and open relationship with his Milwaukee constituency and is widely known for his superior constituent services. Jerry's unquestionable dedication and hard work will be truly missed. Not only am I thankful for the time we have served together in the U.S. Congress, but I am grateful for our friendship that goes back to our days spent together in the Wisconsin Legislature. Wisconsin will forever appreciate Jerry's 35 years of public service. I wish him the best of luck in all of his future pursuits.

Mr. President, last week, on November 11, the Nation paused to honor those brave Americans who have so selflessly served our country in the Armed forces. For more than 200 years, men and women have proudly worn the uniform of the United States. In peacetime and in wartime, these men and women have served and sacrificed on our behalf, often far away from their homes and from their families. Too many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice. We owe them--and their families--our deepest, heartfelt gratitude.

As we marked Veterans Day here in the United States with appropriate ceremonies and recognitions, men and women from Wisconsin and across our country were serving on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Their dedication to this great country--like that of those who served before them--should inspire us all.

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

In addition, I am committed to ensuring that our current military personnel receive adequate health care and transition services, including mental health services, as they return from deployments and when they return to civilian life. I am pleased that the recently enacted defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2005 includes a provision that I authored which represents a first step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that are provided to our military personnel. My provision requires the Government Accountability Office to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. This study will focus on two issues: how to achieve the uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health assessments as part of the larger transition program.

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

services in return. This GAO study will help us to have a better picture of the services that are being provided and what needs to be done to improve these important programs, and I look forward to reviewing it.

We should honor America's brave veterans and their families not only on Veterans Day, but throughout the year. As we reflect upon the meaning of this day, let us keep all of our veterans and their families in our thoughts. These men and women are examples of the best that our country has to offer, and they deserve our support both during times of conflict and after the battles have ended and our troops have come home.

Mr. President, I will support this conference report, but I do so with a great deal of reluctance.

One of the more frequently used phrases voiced on the Senate floor is that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That hackneyed expression is flung about when the body is asked to support a measure that may not be everything that it should be. It would be an overstatement to suggest that this measure even rises to that level. This bill falls far short of being good, but it is necessary. At its most fundamental, it meets two essential tests. First, it repeals the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extra Territorial Income, USC/ELI, tax provisions that have resulted in the imposition of increasingly punitive tariffs on American-made products, including products made in Wisconsin.

Second, it provides a needed tax break for domestic manufacturers, a group that has been especially hard hit in recent years. If this absolutely vital sector is to have a chance to get back on its feet, providing this tax incentive is essential.

I regret that much of the rest of this bill is wholly unmerited. There are some exceptions, of course, but if Congress had focused its efforts on just those two essential tasks--repealing USC/ETI, and providing some tax incentives for domestic manufacturers--the bill would have been much better.

I was pleased to cosponsor S. 970, introduced by Senator Hollings, which was just such a bill. And I was encouraged when the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, offered a proposal based on S. 970, along with some sensible improvements.

But as this measure has worked its way through the legislative process, it has only degenerated. Dozens of special interests have nosed their way into this bill, and have taken advantage of what is essentially a ``must-pass'' measure. I can only say that I am glad we are passing this measure now, before it gets any worse.

There are many candidates for worst tax policy in this measure, but at the very top of that list must be those provisions that actually provide a tax incentive for those corporations that move their operations overseas. Such a policy is never justified, but in the current economic climate it is particularly hurtful and counterproductive. During the debate on this measure in the Senate, I was pleased to support the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, in his effort to eliminate one of these perverse incentives and I was pleased to support an amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which was similarly targeted. I regret the body rejected those sensible proposals.

I will vote for this bill with the hope that its net effect will be to improve the climate for domestic manufacturers. But we should remove all doubt by acting at the next opportunity to close down the tax provisions in this bill that provide incentives for corporations to move facilities overseas.

On this same subject I was disappointed that conferees stripped Senate provisions relating to the disturbing trend of the outsourcing of American jobs. These provisions would have prohibited federal funding from being used to support the outsourcing of goods and services contracts that are entered into by the Federal government, or by the States if those contracts are being supported by Federal dollars.

With this bill, Congress had an opportunity to support American workers by ensuring that taxpayer money is not used to encourage companies to relocate American jobs. With the deletion of this outsourcing provision, we missed an opportunity for the Federal Government to set a strong example of buying its goods and services from American companies that use American workers.

I also regret that the administration was again successful in blocking language included in the Senate-passed bill that would have reversed the harmful provisions of the Department of Labor's new overtime rule. Despite repeated bipartisan opposition to this rule in both Houses of Congress, members of the conference committee stripped this provision, which would have prevented millions of workers from losing their overtime benefits under the Bush administration's rule.

Finally, let me briefly mention the energy tax provisions. I remain committed to supporting legislation to encourage alternative energy research and production. With respect to overall energy policy, we must develop cleaner, more efficient energy sources and promote conservation.

During Senate debate on this bill, I voted for the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to strike the energy tax title to the Senate version because the bill did not extend the energy tax credits in a more fiscally responsible way. I support many of the tax credits in the conference report, such as the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit fix and provisions that would specifically benefit rural cooperatives and small renewable fuel producers. I also support provisions that would result in the increased supply of renewable fuels like biodiesel and ethanol.

I remain concerned, however, about the fiscal and environmental costs of this section of the bill. The oil and gas incentives in the bill, for example, would cost taxpayers billions and allow companies to deduct the costs of mineral exploration and marginal oil wells. The conference report still includes a ``nonconventional fuel credit'' to the synfuels industry and coalbed methane industry, which could cost the taxpayers over $2.5 billion. The bill also opens a loophole for energy companies to take advantage of a manufacturing

tax credit. The revenues dedicated to these tax expenditures would have been better used to relieve the burden of debt we are heaping onto our children and grandchildren.

It is the very need for the central provisions of this bill that has invited the kind of abusive provisions we have seen included in it. Were this bill something less than absolutely necessary, we could just defeat it, and hope for something better down the road.

But we do need to pass it. We have to stop these trade sanctions, and we need to help our manufacturers. For that reason, I will vote for this flawed legislation.

Mr. President, while the Senate has passed some important legislation over the last few days, I deeply regret that the Senate will leave town today without extending the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program. Wisconsin's dairy farmers have relied on the safety net provided by the MILC Program to get them through the lowest milk prices in recent years, and this program needs to be extended.

I applaud my colleagues, the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, for his efforts to extend the MILC Program. Wisconsin farmers count on the safety net the MICL Program provides, and I hope that the Senate will take up and pass an extension of MILC before that program expires on September 30, 2005.

Mr. President, as the Nation faces crude oil prices of over $53 per barrel, the Federal Government must commit to helping families fight high home heating oil costs. This week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel projected that home heating oil costs will increase by 18 percent this winter. Despite the higher energy costs consumers will face this winter, States are reducing benefit levels in order to try to serve an increased number of households. Congress must act now to help low-income families and the elderly pay for high home heating costs.

To combat these high prices, I urge my colleagues to support a bill introduced today by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, to extend and increase the authorization of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. LIHEAP provides a vital safety net for our Nation's low-income households, who spend approximately 17 percent of their annual income on residential energy costs. Last winter, my home State of Wisconsin received more than $40 million in Low Income Energy Assistance and the program served over 112,656 Wisconsin households. I strongly support extending the LIHEAP program and efforts to increase the authorization to $3.4 billion each year to ensure that low-income families and the elderly have this crucial support to heat their homes. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, over the past year, I have come to this floor on a number of occasions to discuss the loss of manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin and around the country and ways in which I think that Congress should act to stem the flow of these jobs to foreign countries.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost more than 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country has lost more than 2.8 million manufacturing jobs during that same time period. 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 2005 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 that 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.

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 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 is flexible in what the grant funds could be used for, 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, including: the National Association of Workforce Boards, the American Health Care Association, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the

Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, and the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill, and the text of the letters of support from the above-mentioned groups, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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, over the past year, I have come to this floor on a number of occasions to discuss the loss of manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin and around the country and ways in which I think that Congress should act to stem the flow of these jobs to foreign countries.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost more than 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country has lost more than 2.8 million manufacturing jobs during that same time period. 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 2005 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 that 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.

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 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 is flexible in what the grant funds could be used for, 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, including: the National Association of Workforce Boards, the American Health Care Association, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the

Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, and the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill, and the text of the letters of support from the above-mentioned groups, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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, I want to voice my strong support for S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, and to commend my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee for their careful work in drafting this important legislation. In producing this bill, Senators Collins and Lieberman have managed to combine urgent action with careful deliberation. I hope that this difficult balance can be maintained in conference.

While the authors of this bill deserve our thanks, the fact is that we would not be debating desperately needed intelligence reforms today had it not been for the work of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States--and for the work of the many concerned Americans, including families of 9/11 victims, who fought to establish the Commission and to protect its independence and authority. The 9/11 Commission worked hard to produce a thorough account of the facts concerning what the various elements of the U.S. Government knew, what action was taken to address the terrorist threat, and where communication and coordination broke down. All Americans deserve answers to these questions. And we have a duty to act on the Commission's recommendations and to put this country on a firmer, smarter footing to fight the terrorist forces that have attacked this country and wish to attack us again.

At the same time, we know that reorganization for its own sake is simply disruptive and distracting--a smokescreen of busy work and changing flow charts that can obscure serious flaws rather than remedy them. And needlessly trampling on the civil liberties, protected by our Constitution and guarded by generations of Americans, in the name of reform would be a horrible mistake. Hundreds of thousands of brave men and women have died defending our freedoms throughout our history. We cannot fail to guard those precious freedoms now.

The Senate bill creates a civil liberties board to evaluate new policies and ensure that civil liberties concerns are considered as the President and executive agencies propose and implement policies to protect the Nation against terrorism. The Commission specifically recommended the creation of such a board within the executive branch that would have as its primary mission the protection of our citizens' civil liberties. I am pleased that Senator Kyl agreed to withdraw an amendment that would have undermined this provision. The supporters of this amendment suggested that efforts to protect our privacy and civil liberties will undermine the work of the intelligence and law enforcement community. I respectfully disagree. Americans reasonably expect their Federal Government to protect them from terrorism while respecting their privacy and civil liberties. We can, and must, do both.

The Collins-Lieberman bill is the right approach. It is important that the privacy and civil liberties oversight provisions in this bill be included in the final legislation that goes to the President's desk.

Similarly, it would be a grave mistake for the conference to add extraneous provisions increasing the power of the Government, such as those contained in another amendment offered by Senator Kyl that derive from the so-called PATRIOT II proposal. We have not had the kind of full and informed debate on these proposals that the 9/11 Commission called for. For this bill to remain true to the Commission's recommendations, it cannot be used as a way to bypass the very deliberation that the Commission said is essential.

Even after we finish work on this bill, our work will be far from complete. The Commission's intelligence reform proposals have been the focus of most of the media attention surrounding the 9/11 report, and they are at the heart of the legislative efforts in which we are currently engaged. But the Commission's call for more focused, effective ways to attack the terrorists and their organizations, and, critically, to prevent the continued growth of terrorism, deserve equally intense examination and action.

We need to make a long-term commitment to denying terrorists sanctuaries, and to cultivating new generations of partners, not enemies, overseas. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I know that we do not have the intelligence resources or the diplomatic resources that we should around the world. We do not really have any policy at all to deal with Somalia, a failed state in which terrorists have operated and found sanctuary. And there is a great deal of work to be done to help countries in which we know terrorists have operated to improve the basic capacities of border patrols who could stop wanted individuals, and customs agents who could help stop weapons proliferation and auditors who could freeze terrorist assets. And we can do more to help root out the corruption that undermines these safeguards at every turn.

I am pleased that the Senate accepted an amendment that I offered to this bill, which arises from my experience with African affairs. I know many Africanists are concerned about terrorist activity in the Sahel, and the U.S. Government is working with partners in that region to address this issue. Some of these same terrorists are based in north Africa, above the Sahel, which various parts of the U.S. Government and our own congressional committees consider to be a different region of the world, one usually lumped together with the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. In other words, getting counter-terrorism right in Mali really requires understanding a number of things about Algeria, and getting it right in the Horn of Africa requires an understanding of Yemen as well as Kenya. But the policymakers who specialize in these places don't necessarily work together.

These geographic stovepipes hamper good policy, and cap fragment the picture that our intelligence community is able to piece together. And it is not just Africa, and it is not just terrorism. Where National Intelligence Centers are established with a specific regional focus, the National Intelligence Director needs to ensure that regular contact and cooperation among linked centers is institutionalized, not ad hoc. My amendment strengthens information sharing, and signals Congress's intent to ensure that the centers that are eventually established are as effective as possible.

There is also much more to getting our policies right when it comes to homeland security and emergency preparedness, and that work will continue long after we complete work on this bill. We still lack a comprehensive homeland security plan with clear priorities, deadlines, and accountability.

Without such plans, it is not possible to properly target our homeland security dollars to meet our most pressing needs. We are getting on the right track, however. The Commission recommended that future transportation security budgets be based on a thorough assessment of threats and vulnerabilities, and I am pleased that the Senate adopted my amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Department of Homeland Security bill to require just that. Senator McCain also included a provision to require a national transportation security strategy, and I was pleased to support it. These steps will help, but there is more we must do.

I was also pleased to support the amendment offered by Senator Collins to coordinate and simplify the homeland security grant process, which is based on a bill I cosponsored. This important amendment will make it much easier for local first responders to get funding by reducing the many, and often redundant, grant application steps. The amendment also gives local officials far more flexibility in spending homeland security dollars, including paying for overtime costs associated with homeland security tasks and training. Successful programs, such as FIRE Act grants, the COPS program, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant program, are protected in this legislation. The amendment allocates funding based on threat, as recommended by the Commission, but also maintains baseline funding so that States and local officials can have a predictable stream of funding to meet the homeland security needs faced by all jurisdictions. This amendment will help simplify and rationalize the current homeland security grant system. However, I agree with Senator Lieberman that more resources must be allocated to meet our homeland security needs.

I hope that the conference is able to quickly agree upon a final version of this bill that follows the Senate's approach and does not contain extraneous and controversial provisions. And I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that what we have learned from the 9/11 Commission becomes a part of how we do business every day. This intelligence reform bill is a very good start, not the end, of the efforts we must make to bring about real changes that will enhance our security and the security of our children.

Mr. President, September 3, 2004, marked the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. I have introduced a resolution, S. Res. 387, commemorating this important milestone, and I hope the Senate will approve this resolution, which has 18 cosponsors, before we adjourn for the year.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the many people who have

helped us preserve over 106 million acres of wilderness for future generations to hike, to hunt, to fish, and to enjoy.

People such as Howard Zahniser, Olaus and Mardy Murie, Ceila Hunter, and Bob Marshall had the vision to protect our wild places. Legislators such as John Saylor and Hubert Humphrey listened to them and made their vision a reality.

As a Senator from Wisconsin, I feel a special bond with this issue. My State has produced great wilderness thinkers and leaders, such as the writer and conservationist Aldo Leopold, whose ``A Sand County Almanac'' helped to galvanize the environmental movement; like Sierra Club founder John Muir; and like Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society.

Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico said that his support of the wilderness system was the direct result of discussions he had held almost 40 years before with Leopold. And then-Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall referred to Leopold as the instigator of the modern wilderness movement.

For others, the ideas of Olson and Muir--particularly the idea that preserving wilderness is a way for us to better understand our country's history and the frontier experience--provided an important justification for the wilderness system.

I am privileged to hold the Senate seat held by Gaylord Nelson, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. He is a well-known and widely respected former Senator and two-term Governor of Wisconsin, and the founder of Earth Day. What I find so remarkable is that, even after a distinguished career in public service, he continues to work for conservation. He is currently devoting his time to the protection of wilderness by serving as a counselor to the Wilderness Society--an activity which is quite appropriate for someone who was a co-sponsor, along with former Senator Proxmire, of the bill that became the Wilderness Act.

I am proud of Wisconsin's part in making this legislation law, and I am proud to carry on that tradition through the Senate Wilderness Caucus.

I also wish to thank my colleagues the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, all of whom served in the Senate in 1964 and voted for the Wilderness Act.

That Act was the first piece of legislation in the world to preserve wild places. Forty years after the act passed, wilderness still enjoys widespread, bipartisan support. Just recently the Bush administration announced its recommendation for wilderness designation of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin, a place that is near and dear to my heart and to the hearts of many Wisconsinites. I thank my former staffer Mary Frances Repko, who for 9 years worked tirelessly to promote, protect, and push for a wilderness study for the Apostles Islands, and to preserve America's public lands.

In closing, I would like to remind colleagues of the words of Aldo Leopold in his 1949 book, ``A Sand County Almanac.'' He said, ``The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not the television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little is known about it.'' We still have much to learn, but this anniversary of the Wilderness Act reminds us how far we have come and how the commitment to public lands that the Senate and the Congress demonstrated 40 years ago continues to benefit all Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.

Recently, the release of the 9/11 Commission report gave us all reason to redouble our efforts to focus on the importance of the foreign policy and foreign assistance priorities that are addressed in this bill. The commission's intelligence reform proposals have been the focus of most of the media attention surrounding the 9/11 report, but the commission's call for more focused, effective ways to attack the terrorists and their organizations, and, critically, to prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism, deserve equally intense examination and certainly deserve action. If we are to leave our children a safer world, we must take the long view in this struggle, and we must find ways to regain the kind of international support and resolve that emerged in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. That support--so critical to any effort to deny terrorists sanctuary, to unravel their financial networks, and to effectively piece together the intelligence picture that can reveal their plans and weaknesses--has dipped dramatically in recent years, and we have sustained terrible losses of an extraordinarily valuable type of American power: our power to persuade, to lead, and to inspire. Throwing our support behind citizens fighting corruption abroad, helping to strengthen networks committed to fighting international crime, investing in the future by supporting child survival and health initiatives--all of these efforts, if pursued wisely, can help create a more secure world for the next generation.

In this context, it is important to note that the entire Foreign Operations Appropriations bill amounts to less than the amount that the U.S. has already appropriated for reconstruction projects in just one country: Iraq. When I reflect on this disparity, and then reflect on the fact that resources in this bill are in many cases stretched very thin--for example, the appropriators, who I know strongly support the Peace Corps, were unable to meet the administration's requested funding level for that important program--I am concerned about the balance and focus of U.S. policy in the midst of what is a truly global struggle against the terrorists who attacked this country.

I strongly support the provisions in this bill that provide resources for the fight against HIV/AIDS, and believe that the U.S. must continue to ramp up assistance--and to ensure that this assistance is effective--to honor the commitments that the President has made to the millions around the world struggling with this horrific pandemic.

I am pleased that this bill fully funds the President's request for assistance for Israel, as well as requests for Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the U.S. relationship with each of these important countries is complex, there can be no question that continued U.S. investment in the future of these states makes good sense.

I continue to have concerns about the assistance provided to Colombia under the Andean Counterdrug Initiative because of ongoing reports of human rights violations by armed groups in Colombia and links between paramilitary groups and the Colombian Armed Forces. I hope that the administration will take seriously the provisions in this bill conditioning the obligation of much of this assistance on whether human rights, alternative development, and fumigation requirements are met.

I am pleased that an amendment I cosponsored, expressing the need for international support for the people of Haiti, was included in this bill. The latest disaster in Haiti, in which over 1,000 were killed in severe flooding caused by Tropical Storm Jeanne, has only intensified the suffering Haitians face on a daily basis from political insecurity and extreme poverty. This tragedy underscores the need for the international community to make a serious and sustained commitment to the future of Haiti.

As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I am especially pleased that this bill provides $5 million to establish pilot programs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Burundi, and Liberia to address sexual and gender-based violence. My office worked with the appropriators on this important provisions.

I also strongly support provisions in the bill calling for improvements in the human rights situation in Uganda, and particularly calling for greater efforts devoted to civilian protection and child protection in the North. These provisions dovetail with the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act, a bill I authored which was passed by the Senate and House and signed into law this summer.

Mr. President, I will support this conference report. I regret that the important tax cut extensions included in this measure have been used as a political device by the White House and Congressional leadership. We could have had a more fiscally responsible, fully offset package of middle class tax cuts, but the White House and Congressional leadership have blocked that.

Instead, we are forced to choose between two bad options: failing to extend these needed tax breaks, and adding still more to the mountain of debt that has been piled up in the last 4 years.

Let me note that the reason we must extend these important tax cuts, the reason they were not simply made a permanent part of tax law, was because of the choice made in 2001 and 2003 to use the reconciliation process to jam through a partisan tax agenda. Had leadership pursued the usual procedure for tax bills, bringing legislation to the floor subject to the normal amendment process, we would still have enacted significant tax relief, but they would have been permanent.

But, the leadership chose to abuse the special reconciliation process, which was intended not to shelter a tax cut from amendment but to protect the difficult work of enacting deficit reduction packages. Reconciliation was used in order to push through a tax agenda that was skewed. And because they chose that process, they were forced to sunset the tax cuts. So instead of a sensible, and sustainable tax policy, we have this herky-jerky off-again on-again set of tax cuts. That's why we have to come back and extend them. It is why we have this bizarre estate tax policy which phases down the estate tax over several years, then eliminates it completely for a year, and then fully reinstates it back to pre-2001 levels.

This is no way to craft tax policy, Mr. President. We should have reinstated the PAYGO rule earlier this year, as a bipartisan majority of this body went on record supporting. The PAYGO rule was instrumental in helping to reduce and finally eliminate annual budget deficits during the last decade. We need to bring it back.

Mr. President, Congress could have fully offset the cost of this measure, but it was prevented from doing so for political reasons. I hope the next Congress will stop this nonsense, find sufficient offsets for this tax bill so that our children and grandchildren won't get stuck with the tab, and then reinstate the PAYGO rule that helped us reduce and finally eliminate annual budget deficits just a few years ago.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be working with my partner in reform, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and also with the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, who was so instrumental in getting the 527 disclosure bill passed in 2000. We are introducing today the 527 Reform Act of 2004. This bill will do what the FEC could and should do under current law, but, once again, has failed to do.

It sometimes seems like our mission in life is to clean up the mess that the FEC has made. We had to do that with BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which passed in 2002, closing the soft money loophole that the FEC created in the late '70s and expanded in the '90s. We are doing it again with the regulations that the FEC put in place after BCRA passed. Just this past weekend an extraordinary court decision came down that threw out 15 of the 19 FEC regulations challenged by Representatives Shays and Meehan in a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act. That decision was an extraordinary rebuke to a Federal agency.

And now we are here to introduce a bill that will make absolutely clear that the Federal election laws apply to 527 organizations. Let me emphasize one thing. We believe that current Federal election law requires these groups to register as political committees and stop raising and spending soft money. But the FEC has failed to enforce the law, saying it is too complicated or that it is too late in the election cycle to take action. Those excuses are unacceptable, so we must act in the Congress.

This bill will require all 527s to register as political committees unless they fall into a number of narrow exceptions. The exceptions are basically for groups that Congress exempted from disclosure requirements because they are so small or for groups that are involved exclusively in State election activity.

Once a group registers as a political committee, certain activities such as ads that mention only Federal candidates will have to be paid for solely with hard money. But the FEC permits Federal political committees to maintain a non-Federal account to pay a portion of the expenses of activities that affect both Federal and non-Federal elections. Our bill sets new allocation rules that will make sure that these allocable activities are paid for with at least 50 percent hard money.

Finally, the bill makes an important change with respect to the non- Federal portion of the allocable activities. We put a limit of $25,000 per year on the contributions that can be accepted for that non-Federal account. And we prohibit corporate or union funds from being given to those non-Federal accounts. So no more will million dollar soft money contributions be used to pay for get-out-the-vote efforts in the Presidential campaign.

Nothing in this bill will affect 501(c) advocacy groups. The bill only applies to groups that claim a tax exemption under section 527. And it would be effective in the next election cycle, not this one.

The soft money loophole was opened by FEC rulings in the late '70s. By the time we started work on BCRA, the problem had mushroomed and led to the scandals we saw in the 1996 campaign. When we passed BCRA, I said we would have to be vigilant to make sure that the FEC enforced the law and that similar loopholes did not develop. That is what we have been doing for the past 2 years, and what are again doing today.

I have no doubt that if we don't act on this 527 problem now, we will see the problem explode into scandals over the next few election cycles. This time we're not going to wait.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be working with my partner in reform, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and also with the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, who was so instrumental in getting the 527 disclosure bill passed in 2000. We are introducing today the 527 Reform Act of 2004. This bill will do what the FEC could and should do under current law, but, once again, has failed to do.

It sometimes seems like our mission in life is to clean up the mess that the FEC has made. We had to do that with BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which passed in 2002, closing the soft money loophole that the FEC created in the late '70s and expanded in the '90s. We are doing it again with the regulations that the FEC put in place after BCRA passed. Just this past weekend an extraordinary court decision came down that threw out 15 of the 19 FEC regulations challenged by Representatives Shays and Meehan in a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act. That decision was an extraordinary rebuke to a Federal agency.

And now we are here to introduce a bill that will make absolutely clear that the Federal election laws apply to 527 organizations. Let me emphasize one thing. We believe that current Federal election law requires these groups to register as political committees and stop raising and spending soft money. But the FEC has failed to enforce the law, saying it is too complicated or that it is too late in the election cycle to take action. Those excuses are unacceptable, so we must act in the Congress.

This bill will require all 527s to register as political committees unless they fall into a number of narrow exceptions. The exceptions are basically for groups that Congress exempted from disclosure requirements because they are so small or for groups that are involved exclusively in State election activity.

Once a group registers as a political committee, certain activities such as ads that mention only Federal candidates will have to be paid for solely with hard money. But the FEC permits Federal political committees to maintain a non-Federal account to pay a portion of the expenses of activities that affect both Federal and non-Federal elections. Our bill sets new allocation rules that will make sure that these allocable activities are paid for with at least 50 percent hard money.

Finally, the bill makes an important change with respect to the non- Federal portion of the allocable activities. We put a limit of $25,000 per year on the contributions that can be accepted for that non-Federal account. And we prohibit corporate or union funds from being given to those non-Federal accounts. So no more will million dollar soft money contributions be used to pay for get-out-the-vote efforts in the Presidential campaign.

Nothing in this bill will affect 501(c) advocacy groups. The bill only applies to groups that claim a tax exemption under section 527. And it would be effective in the next election cycle, not this one.

The soft money loophole was opened by FEC rulings in the late '70s. By the time we started work on BCRA, the problem had mushroomed and led to the scandals we saw in the 1996 campaign. When we passed BCRA, I said we would have to be vigilant to make sure that the FEC enforced the law and that similar loopholes did not develop. That is what we have been doing for the past 2 years, and what are again doing today.

I have no doubt that if we don't act on this 527 problem now, we will see the problem explode into scandals over the next few election cycles. This time we're not going to wait.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today our Nation marks the grand opening of the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian. This new museum, the first museum opening on the National Mall since 1987, is truly spectacular, with awe-inspiring architecture, striking landscaping, and remarkable holdings that richly reflect the range of Native American culture and traditions. By opening this museum, we have finally recognized the contribution of Native people to our Nation. This recognition is long overdue.

The museum is not simply about the history of the American Indian, it is also a forward-looking museum, which

recognizes the vitality of tribal life throughout the world. This vitality is clearly evident in my State of Wisconsin, which is home to eleven federally recognized tribal governments: the Brad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Forest County Potawatomi Indian Community, the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Sokaogan Chippewa (Mole Lake) Community of Wisconsin, the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and the Stockbridge Munsee Community of Wisconsin.

I am proud to represent the members of Wisconsin's tribes, many of whom are gathering here to support and participate in this important occasion. The influence of the Native Americans who have lived in Wisconsin for so many years is evident in the names of our cities and towns, lakes and rivers, and counties and parks. Wisconsin's native peoples' traditions are part of who we are and these vibrant communities make vast contributions to Wisconsin's culture.

Congress authorized the Smith- sonian's National Museum of the American Indian on November 28, 1989 with passage of the National Museum of the American Indian Act. I congratulate my colleagues, the senior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, who championed the creation of this museum as a member of the other body, and the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for their vision in writing the legislation that made this museum a reality.

The Museum opens today with a celebration that is expected to draw as many as 20,000 Native Americans to Washington. Many are calling the grand opening today the largest tribal gathering in history.

I commend the Congress and the Nation for finally recognizing our Native people and their past, present, and future contributions to America's culture, history, and tradition.

Mr. President, I would like to call attention to a disease that currently affects the memories and functioning capacity of almost five million Americans, and that is Alzheimer's disease.

In the next 50 years, it is estimated that over 16 million Americans will be diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I believe that we need to do more to understand this disease so that we can bring about effective treatments and preventive measures, and so that we can provide relief to those who care for individuals with Alzheimer's.

Alzheimer's not only affects our Nation's physical health, it also negatively impacts family resources and our country's overall economic health. According to the Alzheimer's Association, our country spends over $100 billion annually in direct and indirect costs on caring for those with Alzheimer's.

As our population ages, more and more Americans will suffer from this terrible disease. It is urgent that we bring more resources to bear to find effective treatments and, most of all, to find a cure. In recent years, medical researchers have made critical strides in Alzheimer's research. I believe that we need to continue to make biomedical research into Alzheimer's a national priority, and because of this I support the efforts of Senators Mikulski and Bond to provide $1.4 billion in Federal funding for Alzheimer's research. I have long advocated for more resources both for research into Alzheimer's and to help those who care for loved ones afflicted with the disease. I support S. 2533, the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act, not only because it provides those resources, but because it provides hope to families that someday we will bring an end to this debilitating disease.

The research currently being conducted at the National Institutes of Health holds much promise for identifying potential treatments and eventually, I hope, a cure for Alzheimer's. However we will not make the progress necessary to truly make breakthroughs with Alzheimer's unless we provide sufficient Federal funding for the research underway at NIH.

As a strong proponent of fiscal discipline, I understand the current constraints on the Federal budget. However, I believe that providing resources to increase our Federal investment in Alzheimer's research and to offer caregiver support are critical budget priorities. It is my sincere hope that Congress passes the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act before this session of Congress is over.