Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my staff member, Nancy Mitchell, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this legislation.

Mr. President, I supported passage of this year's defense authorization bill because it contains many provisions that our brave men and women in uniform need and deserve. But before I go into the details of why I support this legislation, I must first thank the members of the United States Armed Forces for their service to our country. They are performing admirably under difficult circumstances all over the world. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, along with their families, are making great sacrifices in service to our country. I am voting for this legislation to support these people who are serving the country with such courage.

I strongly support the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel that this bill provides. We must make sure that our professional military is paid a fair wage. This bill also makes permanent the increase in family separation allowance and imminent danger pay, another important policy for our men and women in uniform. Once again, I was proud to support the expansion of full-time TRICARE health insurance for our National Guard and Reserve. The reserve component is being used more than at any other time since World War II. Forty percent of our troops in Iraq are reserve component troops. These citizen soldiers face additional burdens when they transition in and out of their civilian life and providing them and their families with TRICARE is one way we can ease those burdens.

Another aspect of this bill that I strongly support is the increased funding for force protection equipment. Last year, concerned Wisconsinites contacted my office telling me that they or their deployed loved ones were fighting for their country in Iraq without the equipment they needed. This situation is unconscionable. I have repeatedly pressed the Pentagon to fix this situation and I and my colleagues went a long way in addressing these shortages in the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The $925 million for additional up-armored HUMVEES and other ballistic protection as well as the $600 million in force protection gear and combat clothing in this bill above what was in the President's proposed budget further ensures that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their duties on the ground.

I am pleased that the Senate approved my amendment to ensure that the Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority will continue to oversee U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq after June 30 of this year as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The American taxpayers have been asked to shoulder a tremendous burden in Iraq, and we must ensure that their dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. Today, the CPA is phasing out, but the reconstruction effort has only just begun. As of mid-May, only $4.2 billion of the $18.4 billion that Congress appropriated for reconstruction in November had even been obligated. With multiple agencies involved and a budget that exceeds the entire foreign operations appropriation for this fiscal year, U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction efforts should have a focused oversight effort. My amendment will ensure that the Inspector General's office can continue its important work even after June 30, rather than being compelled to start wrapping up and shutting down while so much remains to be done. This is good news for the reconstruction effort, and good news for American taxpayers.

I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working with me to accept the amendment that I offered with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, which represents a first step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that are provided to our military personnel. This amendment will require the General Accounting Office, GAO, to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. 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 very much look forward to reviewing the results of this study.

The Senate version of the defense authorization bill also includes a provision finally fulfilling a goal for which I have been fighting for years--making sure that every state and territory has at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, WMD-CST. I was delighted earlier this year when Wisconsin was chosen as one of 12 States to receive a WMD-CST authorized and appropriated for in FY2004 but I was also disappointed that the President's proposed budget for FY2005 included funding for only 4 of the 11 outstanding teams. I along with 28 of my colleagues, wrote the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman and ranking member asking them to fully fund all 11 remaining teams. The chairman and ranking member have been very supportive of my efforts in this area over the years and I thank them again this year for funding all 11 remaining WMD-CSTs.

This authorization bill addresses the grave threat our nation faces from unsecured nuclear materials. It includes $409 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program and $1.3 billion for the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. I was also proud to cosponsor the amendment offered by Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein that authorizes the Department of Energy to secure the tons of fissile material scattered around the world. This bipartisan initiative aims to dramatically accelerate current efforts to secure this dangerous material so that it cannot fall into the hands of those who aim to harm us. Time is of the essence and I was pleased to hear that the administration is fully supportive of this effort through the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.

I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Reed that boosts the Army's end strength by 20,000. Mr. President I did so because it has become clear that the Army is currently overstretched, and I believe that we need to ensure readiness to handle threats in the future. A recent Brookings Institution report says that the military is being stretched so thin that if we don't expand its size, it could break the back of our all-volunteer Army. One does not have to support all of the deployment decisions that brought us to this point today to see that we need to have the capacity to handle multiple crises with sufficient manpower and strength. I do not take lightly the decision to lock in a significant increase in spending. The need is great, however, and the deliberative defense authorization process, not the emergency supplemental process, is the place to do it.

I must note that, unfortunately, this bill has many of the same problems that I've been fighting to fix for years. Once again, we are spending billions upon billions of dollars for weapons systems more suited for the Cold War than the fight against terrorism. I was very disappointed that the Senate did not agree to Senator Levin's amendment that would have used a small percentage of the over $10 billion authorized for missile defense for critical unfunded homeland defense needs. This amendment, which I cosponsored, would have used $515.5 million now slated for additional untested interceptors and spent it instead on the top unfunded Department of Defense homeland defense priorities, research and development programs, radiation detection equipment at seaports, and other important defenses against terrorism. Budgeting is about setting priorities and I am sad to say that when

the Senate failed to adopt Senator Levin's amendment, it missed a golden opportunity to adjust its priorities in order to face our country's most pressing threat--the threat of terrorism.

I was disappointed that the Senate failed to reduce the retirement age for those in the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. Our country has placed unprecedented demands upon the Guard and Reserve since September 11, 2001, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Considering the demands we are placing on them, it is time that we lower the Guard and Reserve's retirement age to the same level as civilian federal employees.

Although my support for reducing the reserve component retirement age has been unwavering, because of the significant budgetary impact of this measure I had hoped that Congress would first receive reviews of reserve compensation providing all of the information that we need to address this issue responsibly. I patiently waited for several studies on the issue, including by the Defense Department, but when the studies came out they called for further study. This matter cannot continue to languish unaddressed indefinitely. As retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA, put it, ``It is time to fish or cut bait.'' I agree with MOAA's analysis that, ``Further delay on this important practical and emotional issue poses significant risks to long-term (Guard and Reserve) retention'' and I was proud to vote for the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine.

I also believe that the Senate missed an opportunity to provide a small but needed measure of relief to military families when it failed to adopt my Military Family Leave Act amendment. This amendment would have allowed a spouse, child, or parent who already qualifies for Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits--unpaid leave--to use those existing benefits for issues directly arising from the deployment of a family member. The Senate adopted a similar amendment by unanimous consent when I offered it to the Iraq supplemental spending bill. This amendment has the support of the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, the National Military Family Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.

I regret that a harmful second degree amendment was offered to my amendment and that I was not given the opportunity to have a straight up or down vote. Rather than taking up the Senate's time in a protracted debate about the second degree amendment, I withdrew my amendment so that this important defense authorization bill could move forward. However, the need addressed by my amendment remains and I will continue to fight to bring some relief to military families that sacrifice so much for all of us.

I want to bring attention to another element of the Defense Authorization bill that raises concerns for me. The Defense Authorization bill includes language that raises troop caps in Colombia from 400 to 800 military personnel and from 400 civilian contractors to 600. I am disappointed that Senator Byrd's amendment was not approved by the Senate, which would have limited the increases in these caps to 500 military personnel and 500 civilian contractors. I have serious concerns about the increase in these caps to the levels established by the bill. Most importantly, I worry about placing more Americans in harm's way in Colombia. Further deployments bring greater risks to an already overstretched military. We do not want to risk being drawn further into Colombia's civil war--certainly not without a thorough debate that the American people can follow. In addition, many of my constituents and I remain concerned that by raising these caps, the U.S. devotes greater resources to the military side of the equation in Colombia without balancing our approach through greater support for democratic institutions, increasing economic development, and supporting human rights.

There are other provisions in this bill with which I disagree and the Senate rejected a number of amendments that would have made this bill better. However, on balance this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families and that is why I will vote for it.

Mr. President, as founder of the Senate Wilderness Caucus, I introduced a Senate resolution to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which was signed into law on September 3, 1964, by President Lyndon B. Johnson. I thank the following colleagues for their support as cosponsors: Senator Sununu, Senator Hagel, Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer, Senator McCain, Senator Murray, Senator Lugar, Senator Warner, Senator Chafee, Senator Snowe, and Senator Collins.

The Wilderness Act became law seven years after the first wilderness bill was introduced by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota. The final bill, sponsored by Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, passed the Senate by a vote of 73-12 on April 9, 1963, and passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 373-1 on July 30, 1964. The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System ``to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.'' The law gives Congress the authority to designate wilderness areas, and directs the Federal land management agencies to review the lands under their responsibility for their wilderness potential.

Under the Wilderness Act, wilderness is defined as ``an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.'' The creation of a national wilderness system marked an innovation in the American conservation movement--wilderness would be a place where our ``management strategy'' would be to leave lands essentially undeveloped.

The original Wilderness Act established 9.1 million acres of Forest Service land in 54 wilderness areas. Now, after passage of 102 pieces of legislation, the wilderness system is comprised of over 104 million acres in 625 wilderness areas, across 44 States, and administered by four Federal agencies: the Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior.

As we in this body know well, the passage and enactment of the Wilderness Act was a remarkable accomplishment that required steady, bipartisan commitment, institutional support, and strong leadership. The U.S. Senate was instrumental in shaping this very important law, and this anniversary gives us the opportunity to recognize this role.

As a Senator from Wisconsin, I feel a special bond with this issue. The concept of wilderness is inextricably linked with Wisconsin. Wisconsin has produced great wilderness thinkers and leaders in the wilderness movement such as Senator Gaylord Nelson and the writer and conservationist Aldo Leopold, whose A Sand County Almanac helped to galvanize the environmental movement. Also notable is Sierra Club founder John Muir, whose birthday is the day before Earth Day. Wisconsin also produced Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society.

I am privileged to hold the Senate seat held by Gaylord Nelson, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. Though he is a well-known and widely respected former Senator and former two-term Governor of Wisconsin, and the founder of Earth Day, some may not be aware that 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 also a co- sponsor, along with former Senator Proxmire, of the bill that became the Wilderness Act.

The testimony at congressional hearings and the discussion of the bill in the press of the day reveals Wisconsin's crucial role in the long and continuing American debate about our wild places, and in the development of the Wilderness Act. The names and ideas of John Muir, Sigurd Olson, and, especially, Aldo Leopold, appear time and time again in the legislative history.

Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, chairman of what was then called the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, stated his support of the wilderness system was the direct result of discussions he had held almost 40 years before with Leopold, who was then in the Southwest with the Forest Service. It was Leopold who, while with the Forest Service, advocated the creation of a primitive area in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico in 1923. The Gila Primitive Area formally became part of the wilderness system when the Wilderness Act became law.

In a statement in favor of the Wilderness Act in the New York Times, then-Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall discussed ecology and what he called ``a land ethic'' and referred to Leopold as the instigator of the modern wilderness movement. At a Senate hearing in 1961, David Brower of the Sierra Club went so far as to claim that ``no man who reads Leopold with an open mind will ever again, with a clear conscience, be able to step up and testify against the wilderness bill.'' 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 a justification for the wilderness system.

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.

Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States is a historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference with their most basic human decisions.

I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I am saddened, therefore, to be standing on the floor today debating a constitutional amendment that is inconsistent with our Nation's history of expanding freedom and liberty. It is all the more unfortunate because it has become all too clear that having this debate at this time is aimed at scoring points in an election year. Even a leading proponent of this amendment admits that we are engaged in a political exercise, pure and simple.

Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, recently stated:

The President has bet the farm on Iraq.

So the proper solution, according to Mr. Weyrich, is to ``change the subject'' from Iraq to the Federal marriage amendment.

Mr. Weyrich also recently stated:

If [President Bush] wishes to be reelected then he had

better be up front on this issue, because if the election is

solely on Iraq, we're talking about President Kerry.

I am loathe to come to that kind of conclusion. But I believe it to be the truth.

There we have it. This proposed constitutional amendment is a poorly disguised diversionary tactic that is essentially a political stunt.

Will this proposed constitutional amendment create jobs for mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, and stop the flow of American jobs overseas?

Will this proposed constitutional amendment secure a good education for our children? Will this proposed constitutional amendment improve the

lives of American families on any of these issues? Obviously not.

Instead of Congress and the President getting to work on issues that would help American families, we are spending time--in fact a lot of time--on the Senate floor on a poorly thought out, divisive, and politically motivated constitutional amendment that everyone knows has no chance of success in this Chamber. What is even more troubling is that this effort risks stoking fear and encouraging bigotry toward one group of Americans.

So here we are, debating a constitutional amendment in search of a justification. This debate is not really about supporting marriage. We all agree that good and strong marriages should be supported and celebrated. The debate on this floor today is about whether we should amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage. The answer to that question has to be no. We do not need Congress to legislate for all States, for all time, on a matter that has been traditionally handled by the States and religious institutions since the founding of our Nation. For that reason alone, this amendment should be defeated.

At the outset, let me state in the strongest terms I can that I object to the Senate discussing and debating this proposed constitutional amendment without it first going through the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are here today debating a proposed amendment to our Nation's governing charter. In fact, this is the very first time this particular amendment has even been brought before the Senate, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the Constitution Subcommittee has debated and marked up this proposal.

One might ask why the supporters of this proposed amendment feel the need to rush to the floor and bypass the committee process. I suspect it is because they fear they do not have enough votes on the committee to approve the amendment and report it to the floor. It may also be that the time it would have taken to examine the amendment and debate it in committee would have interfered with the predetermined political schedule for considering it on the Senate floor. Or perhaps that committee consideration would expose the weaknesses in the amendment and reduce support in the Senate. But in any event, the decision to bypass the committee process is highly unusual and very much to be regretted.

Senate leadership has not previously made a habit of bypassing the committee process when it considers a constitutional amendment. In fact, in this session of Congress alone, the Constitution Subcommittee has held markups on three proposed constitutional amendments: the victims' rights amendment, the continuity of government amendment, and, most recently, the flag amendment. The Judiciary Committee should be allowed to serve its proper role in marking up proposed constitutional amendments before they are brought to the Senate floor.

Respecting the committee process for any piece of legislation is important. But it is absolutely necessary for proposed amendments to the Nation's Constitution. Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. A rush to debate and pass this amendment--particularly since it raises so many questions--is not in the best interests of this body or of this country.

I might add that in the past quarter century, only two constitutional amendments were considered by the full Senate without committee consideration. One of these amendments, involving campaign finance restrictions, was discharged from committee by unanimous consent so it could be debated at the same time as campaign finance reform legislation. The other amendment to be brought directly to the Senate floor was an amendment to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President. What happened on the Senate floor to that amendment is very instructive.

In 1979, the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah, was serving in the position that I hold today, the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee. He strongly objected to allowing a constitutional amendment to be brought to the Senate floor without first going through the Constitution Subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Hatch stated the following during the debate in 1979:

As the ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, I feel very

strongly that there are ways to propose constitutional

amendments and there are ways not to propose constitutional

amendments. In this particular case, I think this is not the

way to propose a constitutional amendment, and especially one

that has the potential of altering the basic democratic

federalism of the American political structure.

He went on to say:

To bypass the committee is, I think, to denigrate the

committee process, especially when an amendment to the

Constitution of the United States of America, the most

important document in the history of the Nation, is involved.

I could not agree more with the words of a then somewhat junior Senator who is now the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. His view then is exactly my view now, and I think the whole Senate should take his position very seriously.

His position was supported by another distinguished Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who said the following:

We are talking about amending the fundamental law of the

land--the law that controls the creation and enforcement of

all other laws, the law that embodies the procedural

consensus and most basic values of all Americans, that gives

our nation much of its unity and our government its

legitimacy. We should consider proposals to amend the

Constitution more carefully than any other measure that comes

before us.

Senator Simpson continued:

I think the American people would strongly disapprove of

what is being attempted here. This kind of procedure should

not be used for a constitutional amendment. It is bound to

adversely affect--to some degree the legitimacy of the

process. I know it will affect us all greatly if this

amendment is passed without adequate consideration by the

present Senate.

And he added the following, and having served with Senator Simpson, I can imagine the gentle irony in his voice:

Perhaps I will eventually learn that Senators do not have

time to make considered decisions even on amendments to the

Constitution. . . . However, I am not at that point yet. I

trust it will never be bad form in the U.S. Senate to demand

respect for the legislative process.

Finally, let me quote the then-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Strom Thurmond, who served in this body for nearly a half century and as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 6 years. Senator Thurmond strongly supported his colleague, the Senator from Utah. He said:

The best place to study these issues is before the full

Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate. I see no reason why

this committee should be short circuited by this bill not

being referred here. If a bill of this nature is not going to

be referred to a committee to consider it, I do not know why

we need Committees in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Thurmond concluded:

The Judiciary Committee is the proper machinery for

referral of this resolution. It is set up under our rules for

considering a measure of this kind. It should be utilized and

should not be sidestepped as is attempted to do here with

this procedure.

This debate, which took place just over 25 years ago, had a good outcome. The Senate voted to send the constitutional amendment back to the Judiciary Committee. Those Senators who urged the Senate not to bypass the committee process prevailed.

Now, a quarter of a century later, we are in a similar situation. All of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Committee Chairman a few weeks ago, urging him to follow regular order on this amendment and let the full Committee and Subcommittee on the Constitution debate and mark up this constitutional amendment. I ask that our letter be printed in the Record.

Unfortunately, our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The Judiciary Committee, which in the last decade has considered and reported to the floor constitutional amendments dealing with a balanced budget, term limits, flag desecration, and victims' rights has been bypassed for this Federal marriage amendment. I have not heard a compelling argument explaining why the committee process should be ignored in this case.

In fact, I have not heard even a remotely persuasive argument of any kind why the committee process should be bypassed.

The committee process is even more important for this amendment than for some of the amendments we have considered recently. This amendment is being considered for the first time in the Senate. Changes have been made to the language of the amendment within the past few months. Just yesterday, we heard that further changes are being contemplated by some supporters of the amendment. There is significant doubt about how this amendment will be interpreted and what effect it will have on a whole variety of state and local laws and ordinances. It is exactly in this situation that the committee process can be very helpful. Issues can be explored in depth and modifications can be offered to clarify the meaning and effect of the amendment. It is not clear what would happen in our committee if we were given the opportunity to mark up this amendment. But I know we would have a much better idea of what the amendment does and doesn't do than we have today.

The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put into place a difficult process for amending the Constitution to prevent the Constitution from being used as a tool for enacting policies better left to the legislative process. A proposed amendment must pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority. After a proposed amendment has passed both Houses, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Citizens for the Constitution, a bipartisan blue-ribbon committee of former public officials, journalists, professors, and others, has suggested a set of guidelines for evaluating proposed amendments to the Constitution. The members of this committee are people who do not necessarily agree with each other on the substantive merits of proposed amendments, but they do agree that a deliberative, respectful process should be followed.

Citizens for the Constitution reports that in the history of our nation, more than 11,000 proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress, but only 33 have received the needed congressional supermajorities and only 27 of those have been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The bar for amending our Constitution is very high indeed.

One guideline from Citizens for the Constitution, is particularly relevant to our discussion today. The guidelines ask, ``has there been a full and fair debate on the merits of the proposed amendment?'' In this case, the answer is no. There has not been a full debate. We have had four hearings in the Judiciary Committee but there are still unanswered questions about this amendment. This is especially troubling because the sponsors of the amendment have changed its text during the course of our hearings and even stated conflicting interpretations of their amendment. The committee process could help us sort these issues out and narrow them for the floor. But the committee process has been abandoned for this amendment. That is a real shame.

The current procedural situation highlights the problem with bypassing the Judiciary Committee. The Senator from Colorado introduced the first version of the Federal marriage amendment in November of last year. A revised version was then introduced the morning of a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in March of this year.

Now, after bypassing the committee to bring the amendment to the floor of the Senate, we hear that supporters want a vote on yet another version of the amendment. We had four hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the issue of same sex marriage, but none of them concerned this new text that the leadership now wants to bring to a vote. That is why we needed a subcommittee and committee markup on this amendment. So alternative language could be considered and debated. That didn't happen here and that is why there is ``disarray'' among supporters of the amendment as one press report put it this morning. So instead of an up or down vote on the amendment before us, we will most likely have a procedural vote tomorrow. And the reason for that, make no mistake, is that this amendment simply was not ready for floor consideration. It wasn't ready. It should have gone through the Judiciary Committee.

Aside from my objection to the failure to follow the proper process and allow committee consideration of this amendment, as was so eloquently argued 25 years ago by the Senator from Utah, Senator Simpson and Senator Thurmond, I also object to this amendment on the merits.

There is no doubt that the proposed federal marriage amendment would alter the basic principles of federalism that have served our nation well for over 200 years. Our Constitution granted limited, enumerated powers to the Federal Government, while reserving the remaining issues of government, including family law, to State governments. Marriage has traditionally been regulated by the States. As Professor Dale Carpenter told the Constitution Subcommittee last September, ``never before have we adopted a constitutional amendment to limit the States' ability to control their own family law.''

Yet, that is exactly what this proposed amendment would do. It would

limit the ability of states to make their own judgments as to how best to define and recognize marriage or any legally sanctioned unions.

Surely both Republicans and Democrats can agree that marriage is best left to the States and religious institutions.

One of our distinguished former colleagues, Republican Senator Alan Simpson, opposes an amendment to the Constitution on marriage. In an op-ed in the Washington Post last September, he stated:

In our system of government, laws affecting family life are

under the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal

government. This is as it should be. . . . [Our Founders] saw

that contentious social issues would be best handled in the

legislatures of the states, where debates could be held

closest to home. That's why we should let the states decide

how best to define and recognize any legally sanctioned

unions--marriage or otherwise.

Columnist William Safire has also urged his conservative colleagues to refrain from amending the Constitution in this way. Commentator George Will takes the same position.

I recognize that the current debate on same-sex marriage was hastened by a decision of the highest court in Massachusetts issued last fall. That decision, the Goodridge decision, said that the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But the court did not say that other States must do so. And it did not say that churches, synagogues, mosques, or other religious institutions must recognize same-sex unions. Even Governor Romney, who testified before the committee at our last hearing, admitted that the court's decision in no way requires religious institutions to recognize same-sex unions. No religious institution is required to recognize same-sex unions in Massachusetts or elsewhere. That was true before the Goodridge decision, and it remains true today.

I might add, that this Federal amendment would appear to interfere with the will of the people of Massachusetts who have already taken steps to respond to their court's decision. It would very likely nullify the state constitutional amendment that is currently pending in Massachusetts.

Now, the supporters of the Federal marriage amendment would have Americans believe that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry in Massachusetts, we will soon see courts in other states requiring those States to recognize same-sex marriages, too. But this is a purely hypothetical concern, hardly a sound basis for amending our Nation's governing charter.

As Professor Lea Brilmayer testified at a Constitution Subcommittee hearing, no court has required a State to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another State. And as Professor Carpenter testified, ``the Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been understood to mean that every state must recognize every marriage performed in every other state. Each state may refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another state if that marriage would violate the public policy of that state.''

In fact, Congress and most States have already taken steps to reaffirm this principle. And these actions so far stand unchallenged. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill I did not support, but it is now the law. DOMA is effectively a reaffirmation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause as applied to marriage. It states that no State shall be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage authorized by another state.

In addition, 38 States have passed what have come to be called ``State DOMAs,'' declaring as a matter of public policy that they will not recognize same-sex marriages.

There has not yet been a successful challenge to the Federal or State DOMAs. Of course, it is possible that the law could change. A case could be brought challenging the Federal DOMA or a State DOMA, and the Supreme Court could strike it down. But do we really want to amend the Constitution just in case the Supreme Court in the future reaches a particular result? We should all pause and think about the ramifications of our action before we launch a preemptive strike against the governing document of this Nation.

Former Representative Bob Barr, the author of the Federal DOMA, strongly opposes amending the Constitution. He believes that amending the Constitution with publicly contested social policies would ``cheapen the sacrosanct nature of that document.''

He also warned:

We meddle with the Constitution to our own peril. If we

begin to treat the Constitution as our personal sandbox, in

which to build and destroy castles as we please, we risk

diluting the grandeur of having a Constitution in the first

place.

My colleagues, those are the words of the author of the Federal DOMA statute. That is what he said about the wisdom of trying to amend the Constitution in this manner.

Concerns have also been raised that the Federal marriage amendment could prevent the people of a State from choosing to recognize civil unions or grant domestic partnership benefits at the State level. The proposed amendment could be construed to challenge already existing civil union and domestic partnership laws or to bar future attempts to enact such laws. Representative Barr also warned that the proposed marriage amendment could apply to not only States, but private sectors as well. Certainly, our hearings in the Judiciary Committee did not lay these concerns to rest. If anything, they made them stronger.

We should not seek to amend the Constitution in a way that would reduce its grandeur. Under our longstanding system of federalism, we should leave the regulation of marriage to the States and religious institutions and get to work on the real issues that Americans are facing and deserve our attention and action.

As I stand here, there are Americans across our country out of work, languishing in failing schools, struggling to pay the month's bills, or worrying about their lack of health insurance. Instead of spending our limited time this session on a proposal that is destined to fail and will only divide Americans from each other, we should be addressing the issues that will make our Nation more secure and the future of our families brighter.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-advised and divisive constitutional amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amanda Beaumont and Katie Kimpel on my Judiciary Committee staff be granted floor

privileges during consideration of the federal marriage amendment.

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

Mr. President, I will speak in a moment about this class action bill and why I oppose it. I want to start by noting my strong disagreement with the procedural tactics used by the majority to block amendments to the bill. I have some familiarity with the strategy of filling the amendment tree. This was done time after time, year after year, when campaign finance reform legislation was brought to the Senate floor. This is the procedure that is used to block the Senate from working its will on a bill.

The Senate has a long tradition of an open process for amendments. Any Senator has the right under our rules to offer any amendment to any bill. That is how the Senate works. It is amazing to me that the majority leader would engage in this tactic when he has not only majority support for the bill, but a supermajority in support.

Democratic supporters of the bill thankfully are not prepared to block their colleagues from offering amendments. So I guess it appears that this bill is going to be sacrificed in order to prevent amendments from being offered. I commend my Democratic colleagues who support this bill for not being intimidated by the arguments made on the Senate floor that they somehow are breaking their agreement by standing up for the rights of their colleagues to offer amendments. From the very start, it was clear that these Senators had agreed to support the motion to proceed in order to get the bill to the floor of the Senate and to vote for cloture, if that motion was again filibustered. They never agreed to vote against all amendments or to block all amendments.

Turning to the bill itself, I oppose the Class Action Fairness Act, S. 2062, and I will vote against the bill.

The main reason for my opposition is that notwithstanding its title, I do not think this bill is fair. I do not think it is fair to citizens who are injured by corporate wrongdoers and are entitled to prompt and fair resolution of their claims in a court of law. I do not think it is fair to our State courts, which are treated by this bill as if they cannot be trusted to issue fair judgments in cases brought before them. I do not think it is fair to State legislatures, which are entitled to have the laws that they pass to protect their citizens interpreted and applied by their own courts. This bill is not only misnamed, it is bad policy. It should be defeated.

Make no mistake, by loosening the requirements for Federal diversity jurisdiction over class actions, S. 2062 will result in nearly all class actions being removed to Federal court. This is a radical change in our Federal system of justice. We have 50 States in this country with their own laws and courts. State courts are an integral part of our system of justice. They have worked well for our entire history. It is hard to imagine why this Senate, which includes many professed defenders of federalism and the prerogatives of State courts and State lawmakers, would support such a wholesale stripping of jurisdiction from the States over class actions. By removing these actions to State court, Congress would shift adjudication away from State lawmakers and State judges towards Federal judges, who are often unfamiliar with the nuances of State law. In my opinion, the need for such a radical step has not been demonstrated.

Class actions are an extremely important tool in our justice system. They allow plaintiffs with very small claims to band together to seek redress. Lawsuits are expensive. Without the opportunity to pursue a class action, an individual plaintiff often simply cannot afford his or her day in court. But through a class action, justice can be done and compensation for real injuries can be obtained.

Yes, there are abuses in some class actions suits. Some of the most disturbing have to do with class action settlements that offer only discount coupons to the members of the class and a big payoff to the plaintiffs' lawyers. I am pleased that the issue of discount coupons is addressed in the bill, because the bill we considered in October 2003 did nothing about that problem. The bill now requires that contingency fees in coupon settlements will be based on coupons redeemed, not coupons issued. Attorney's fees will also be determined by reasonable time spent on a case and will be subject to court approval. The bill also allows a court to require that a portion of unclaimed coupons be given to one or more charitable organization agreed to by the parties. These are all good changes, but they do not change my view that the bill, as a whole, unfairly interferes with the States' administration of justice.

There are three possible outcomes of this bill being enacted. Either the State courts will be deluged with individual claims, since class actions can no longer be maintained there, or there will be a huge increase in the workload of the Federal courts, resulting in delays and lengthy litigation over procedural issues rather than the substance of the claims, or many injured people will never get redress for their injuries.

I don't believe any of these three choices is acceptable.

I appreciate that the supporters of S. 2062 modified the new diversity jurisdiction rules for class actions in an effort to allow plaintiffs in class actions more opportunities to remain in State court. Under the new bill, a district court must decline jurisdiction if two-thirds of the plaintiffs and the primary defendants are from the state where the action was filed, there is at least one defendant who is a citizen of that State from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed class. In addition, the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct of each defendant must have occurred in the State in which the action was originally filed. Finally, the new bill provides that district court can only decline jurisdiction if during the 3-year period preceding the filing of the action, no other similar class action has been filed against any of the defendants even if the case is filed on behalf of other plaintiffs.

These criteria are an improvement on the underlying bill. But the jurisdictional requirements for class actions to remain in State courts are still too burdensome. Under the new language, for example, a class action brought by Wisconsin citizens against a Delaware-based company for selling a bad insurance policy would probably be removed to Federal court even if Wisconsin-based agents were involved in selling the policies. And the filing of a class action in one State court may lead to the successful removal of a similar case filed in another State on behalf of plaintiffs in that State. The bottom line is that this bill will continue to send the majority of class actions to Federal court. The proponents of this bill have chosen a remedy that goes far beyond the alleged problem.

Furthermore, under S. 2062, many cases that are not class actions at all are included in the definition of ``mass action,'' a new term coined by this bill. S. 2062 simply requires that the plaintiff must be seeking damages of more than $75,000 for the case to be considered a mass action and removable to Federal court. This provision unfairly limits State court authority to manage its docket and to consolidate claims in order to more efficiently dispense justice.

A particularly troubling result of this bill will be an increase in the workload of the Federal courts. These courts are already overloaded. The Congress has led the way in bringing more and more litigation to the Federal courts, particularly criminal cases. Criminal cases, of course, take precedence in the Federal courts because of the Speedy Trial Act. So the net result of removing virtually all class actions to Federal court will be to delay those cases.

There is an old saying with which I'm sure we are all familiar: ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' I hope my colleagues will think about that aphorism before voting for this bill. Think about the real world of Federal court litigation and the very real possibilities that long procedural delays in overloaded Federal courts will mean that legitimate claims may never be heard.

One little-noticed aspect of this bill illustrates the possibilities for delay that this bill provides, even to defendants who are not entitled to have a

case removed to Federal court under the bill's relaxed diversity jurisdiction standards. Under current law, if a Federal court decides that a removed case should be remanded to State court, that decision is not appealable. The only exception is for civil rights cases removed under the special authority of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1443. The original version of this bill allowed defendants to immediately appeal a decision by a Federal district court that a case does not qualify for removal.

Fortunately, the revised bill now requires such appeals to be decided promptly. It does not, however, do anything about the fact that the lower court may take months or even years to make a decision on the motion to remand. That means that a plaintiff class that is entitled, even under this bill, to have a case heard by a State court may still have to endure years of delay while its remand motion is pending in the Federal district court. Where is the ``fairness'' in that? I plan to offer an amendment, if I even get the chance to address that problem and I hope the bill's sponsors and supporters will give it serious consideration.

It is important to remember that this debate is not about resolving questions of Federal law in the Federal courts. Federal question jurisdiction already exists for that. Any case involving a Federal statute can be removed to Federal court under current law. This bill takes cases that are brought in State court solely under State laws passed by State legislatures and throws them into Federal court. This bill is about making it more time-consuming and more costly for citizens of a State to get the redress that their elected representatives have decided they are entitled to if the laws of their state are violated.

Diversity jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different States has been with us for our entire history as a Nation. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution provides: ``The judicial Power shall extend . . . to Controversies between Citizens of different States.'' This is the constitutional basis for giving the Federal courts diversity jurisdiction over cases that involved only questions of State law.

The very first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, gave the Federal courts jurisdiction over civil suits between citizens of different States where over $500 was at issue. In 1806, in the case of Strawbridge v. Curtiss, the Supreme Court held that this act required complete diversity between the parties--in all other instances, the Court said, a case based on State law should be heard by the State courts. So this bill changes a nearly 200-year-old practice in this country of preserving the Federal courts for cases involving Federal law or where no defendant is from the State of any plaintiff in a case involving only State law.

Why is such a drastic step necessary? Why do we need to prevent State courts from interpreting and applying their own State laws in cases of any size or significance? One argument we hear is that the trial lawyers are extracting huge and unjustified settlements in State courts, which has become a drag on the economy. We also hear that plaintiffs' lawyers are taking the lion's share of judgments or settlements to the detriment of consumers. But a recent empirical study contradicts these arguments. Theodore Eisenberg of Cornell Law School and Geoffrey Miller of NYU Law School recently published the first empirical study of class action settlements. Their conclusions, which are based on data from 1993-2002, may surprise some of the supporters of this bill.

First, the study found that attorneys' fees in class action settlements are significantly below the standard 33 percent contingency fee charged in personal injury cases. The average class action attorney's fee is actually 21.9 percent. In addition, the attorneys' fees awarded in class action settlements in Federal court are actually higher than in State court settlements. Attorney fees as a percent of class recovery were found to be between 1 and 6 percentage points higher in Federal court class actions than in State court class actions.

A final finding of the study is that there has been no appreciable increase in either the amount of settlements or the amount of attorneys' fees awarded in class actions over the past ten years. The study indicates that there is no crisis here. No explosion of huge judgments. No huge fleecing of consumers by their lawyers. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It is a great piece of legislation for wrongdoers who would like to put off their day of reckoning by moving cases to courts that are less convenient, slower, and more expensive for those who have been wronged. It is a bad bill for consumers, for State legislatures, and for State courts.

This bill seems not to be about class action abuses, but about getting cases into Federal court where it takes longer and is more expensive for plaintiffs to get a judgment. The cumulative effect of this bill is to severely limit State court authority and ultimately limit victims' access to prompt justice. Despite improvements made since the last time the Senate considered this bill, the bill will still place significant barriers for consumers who want to have their cases heard in State court. Remand orders are still appealable, and the mass tort definition does not protect State courts' authority to consolidate cases and manage their dockets more efficiently. All the elements outlined in the bill before us will result in the erosion of State court authority and the delay of justice for our citizens. Therefore, I cannot support this unfair ``Class Action Fairness Act'' bill, and I will vote no.

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

Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for S. 2363 and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. For over a hundred years, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America have been empowering the youth of our Nation by giving them tools to help them become productive citizens and future leaders. Providing children a safe place to learn and grow is just the beginning for this wonderful organization, which supports and inspires its members to participate in community service, arts, and culture, and sports and fitness activities, to learn important health and life skills, and much more.

I am especially proud of the vibrant 115-year history of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Milwaukee, whose five clubs currently serve more than 22,000 Milwaukee-area members. The Milwaukee clubs have won national awards for their technology and dental programs, and have achieved tremendous success in inspiring their members to strive to attend college. An impressive 85 percent of Milwaukee Club alumni credit Club staff for helping them learn leadership skills and build self- confidence. I am pleased that the legislation passed by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate will help the Milwaukee-area clubs continue their important work.

I strongly support this bill, and I express my gratitude to Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch and Ranking Minority Member Leahy for giving this important cause the attention it deserves. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America are integral in fostering a safe and productive environment for our Nation's young people, our country's greatest resource for the future.

Mr. President, for 25 years, the bipartisan Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission has been recommending high-quality candidates for Federal judgeships in our State. First created in 1979 by Senators William Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson, the Commission is an independent panel selected by Wisconsin elected officials and the State Bar of Wisconsin to review applications for Federal District Court and Court of Appeals vacancies in Wisconsin, as well as U.S. attorney vacancies. The composition of the Commission assures that selections for these important positions will be made based on merit, not politics. Senator Kohl and I have worked hard to maintain and strengthen the Commission throughout our time in the Senate, and I am very proud that it has survived for the past quarter century, under Presidents and Wisconsin Senators from both political parties.

I am pleased to put the spotlight on the Commission today, on the occasion of the floor vote on Justice Diane Sykes, who is the latest product of this bipartisan process. I am pleased that Justice Sykes' nomination has proceeded swiftly, thanks to the collaborative nature of the Commission process. Despite some initial resistance, the Bush administration agreed to have candidates for this Seventh Circuit vacancy go through the Commission process. Under the joint leadership of Dean Joseph Kearny of the Marquette University Law School and Professor Frank Turkheimer of the University of Wisconsin Law School, the Commission worked extremely hard under a very tight deadline. It recommended four qualified candidates, including Justice Sykes. Senator Kohl and I, working with Representative Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican officeholder in the State, decided to forward all four names to the White House, and the President selected Justice Sykes from the four.

I met with Justice Sykes late last summer after the Commission had recommended her along with the other three candidates. I had a chance to question her about her background, her qualifications, and her judicial philosophy. There are a number of topics on which we do not see eye to eye, but I believe Justice Sykes is well qualified to fill this seat on the Seventh Circuit. In particular, I have great respect for her commitment to public service. Talented young lawyers have many more remunerative options that they can pursue. She has been a judge in our State since 1992.

I have always maintained that with cooperation and consultation between the President and home State Senators, the judicial nomination process can be far less contentious and, frankly, far less frustrating, than it has been over the past several years. Recognizing that ideological differences are inevitable in this process as control in the Senate and in the White House change hands, it would serve those who choose and confirm Federal judicial nominees well to follow the example of the Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission.

Mr. President, it is my hope that the work of the Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission, the nomination of Justice Sykes, and her smooth confirmation will send a signal to the White House, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and to the country, that we can, in fact, work together in a bipartisan way to fill judicial vacancies. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support S.J. Res. 39, approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. I am a cosponsor of this resolution, and I believe that these sanctions must be renewed.

The resolution states that the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC, the military junta of Burma, has failed to make substantial progress toward implementing a democratic government and that import sanctions and other restrictions against the SPDC must remain in force until ``Burma embarks on an irreversible path of reconciliation that includes the full and unfettered participation of the National League for Democracy and ethnic minorities in the country.''

The situation in Burma remains disturbing. The military junta in Burma continues to commit egregious human

rights abuses against its population. Human rights organizations have documented the systematic rape of Shan women on a massive scale by Burmese military forces and the recruitment of children, as young as 11, into the Burmese national army. Torture, extra judicial executions, forced labor and widespread political repression all characterize the Burmese political landscape. Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, NLD, and other senior NLD members remain under house arrest. Approximately 1,300 political activists, including elected members of parliament, languish in Burmese prisons, as punishment for their nonviolent pursuit of democracy.

Despite the SPDC's announcement of a new political initiative, a ``roadmap'' to democracy, they continue to break their promises of political reform. On May 17, 2003, the junta opened a constitutional convention that the junta promoted as being a first step toward democracy and democratic elections. The NLD boycotted this convention, after the junta refused to free Aung San Suu Kyi. The SPDC's continuation of the convention without the key political parties of the NLD and the United Nationalities Alliance, a group of ethnic parties that participated in the 1990 elections, demonstrates the emptiness of the SPDC's commitments to reform.

The military junta not only creates hardship for the Burmese people, but threatens stability in the region and beyond. Reports have emerged that Burma and North Korea have reestablished military and trade links after a termination of diplomatic relations in 1983. The U.S. State Department accused North Korea of seeking to sell surface to surface missiles to Burma's government and reported that Washington was aware that the Burmese regime is interested in acquiring a nuclear research reactor.

In addition, Burma continues to be a primary source of narcotics in Asia, as one of the world's largest trafficker of methamphetamine and second largest producer of opium. In their International Narcotics Strategy report for 2003, the U.S. State Department reported that major Wa traffickers, of the ethnic Wa group in northeastern Shan State, continue to operate with apparent impunity. In addition, in the Annual Presidential Determinations of Major Illicit Drug-Producing and Drug- Transit Countries for 2003, the President designated Burma as having ``failed demonstrably'' to make substantial counter-narcotics efforts. According to U.S. State Department, the government of Burma continued to be deficient in dismantling drug organizations, attacking drug- related corruption and addressing money-laundering issues. Officials in China, Thailand and India have expressed serious concerns about illicit drugs flooding into their countries from Burma and the increase of drug addiction among their youth.

Human trafficking in Burma is also of enormous concern. In the State Department's Trafficking in Persons report for 2004, Burma was placed in Tier 3, a category for those countries which are not in compliance with the minimum standards of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 and are not making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance. According to the State Department, not only is Burma a source country for persons trafficked for forced labor and sexual exploitation, but government officials and the military are complicit in trafficking. Human Rights Watch states, ``recruiters for Burma's army frequently apprehend boys at train and bus stations, markets and other public places, threatening them with jail if they refuse to join the army. . . . After brutal training, child soldiers are deployed into units, where some are forced to fight against ethnic armed opposition groups.''

Adding to regional instability, over 1.6 million person have fled Burma due to persecution and violence. In addition, it is estimated that there are between 600,000 and 1 million internally displaced persons within the country.

The United States and its international partners, including the United Nations, ASEAN and the European Union must persist in their demands for political reform in Burma. The renewal of these sanctions sends a powerful message to Burma that the United States is not satisfied with their facade of democratization. I also strongly urge the European Union to strengthen their existing sanctions on Burma. The SPDC must take immediate steps to release Aung Sang Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and to create a broad-based democratic government that respects human rights and the rule of law.

Mr. President, June is National Dairy Month, the country's oldest and largest celebration of dairy products and the people who have made the industry the success it is today. During June, Wisconsinites will hold nearly 100 dairy celebrations across our State, including dairy breakfasts, ice cream socials, cooking demonstrations, festivals and other events.

Every State in the Union has dairy farms, which together produce over 170 billion pounds of milk annually. In my home State of Wisconsin, dairy farmers produce approximately 22 billion pounds of milk and 25 percent of the country's butter a year. Some of the world's finest cheeses are produced within Wisconsin's borders, in addition to a variety of other outstanding dairy products for people to enjoy.

The nutritional benefits of milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, and other dairy products are important to keeping Americans healthy and strong. Strong scientific evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and JAMA indicates that dairy foods may play a role in reducing the risk of nine common diseases and conditions: obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, stroke, kidney stones, osteoporosis, colorectal cancer, and pregnancy-related complications. Research continues to demonstrate the health benefits of consuming dairy products, particularly for children.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked to keep my State's dairy industry healthy and strong. I have fought attempts to create and perpetuate regional disparities in dairy pricing. I have acted on the concerns of many Wisconsinites about the impact of milk protein concentrates on the Wisconsin dairy industry. I have advocated on behalf of the Wisconsin dairy industry to trade negotiators. I will continue to work to keep Wisconsin a leader in the dairy industry.

So here's to good health, a strong agricultural economy, and the pride of America's dairyland as we enjoy Wisconsin dairy products during the National Dairy Month and throughout the rest of the year.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Health Care Reform Expedited Procedures Act of 2004, legislation that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic policy issue of our time, namely health care reform.

I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold town hall meetings. Year after year, the number one issue raised at these Listening Sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. The frustration I hear, the anger and the desperation, have convinced me that we must change the system.

So many people now come to tell me that they used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they tell me that their businesses are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in. These costs are crippling our economy just as the Nation is struggling to rebound from the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs.

Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check. Costs are skyrocketing, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. So in all too many cases, employers are left to offer sub-par benefits, or to wonder whether they can offer any benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation.

One option that could help employers, especially small businesses, reduce their health care costs is to have them form health care cooperatives, where employers lower costs by purchasing care as a group. I have introduced a bill in the Senate to make it easier for business to create these cooperatives.

But this legislation certainly isn't the magic bullet that can address the whole problem. We need to come up with more comprehensive ways to address rising costs. In most cases, costs are still passed on to employees, who then face enormous premiums that demand more and more of their monthly income. People tell me that they don't understand how anyone can afford these astronomical premiums, and what can you say to that?

We can say that it's time to move toward universal coverage. I believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial

spirit to design a system that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is ending a system where nearly 44 million Americans are uninsured, and where those who are insured are struggling to pay their premiums, struggling to pay for prescription drugs, and struggling to find long term care.

We can't tolerate a system that strands so many Americans without the coverage they need. This system costs us dearly: Even though almost 44 million Americans are uninsured, the United States devotes more of its economy to health care than other industrial countries.

Leaving this many Americans uninsured affects all of us. Those who are insured pay more because the uninsured can't afford to pay their bills. And those bills are exceptionally high, because the uninsured wait so long to see a doctor. The uninsured often live sicker, and die earlier, than other Americans, so they also need a disproportionate amount of acute care.

In 2001 alone, health care providers provided $35 billion worth of uncompensated care. While providers absorb some of those costs, inevitably some of the burden is shifted to other patients. And of course the process of cost-shifting itself generates additional costs.

We are all paying the price for our broken health care system, and it is time to bring about change.

Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we should change the health care system in this country. Some propose using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a national single payer health care system is the only way to go.

I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system.

As a former State legislator, I come to this debate knowing that States are coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health care problem. So in addition to the approaches already mentioned, I think we really need to look at what our States are doing, and add to the menu of possibilities an approach under which each State decides the best way to cover its residents.

I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country, without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that States have a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are, and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their state. So I am in favor of a state-based universal health care system, where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage.

This approach would achieve universal health care, without the Federal Government dictating to all of the states exactly how to do it. The federal government would provide states with the financial help, technical assistance and oversight necessary to accomplish this goal. In return, a State would have to make sure that every resident has coverage at least as good as that offered in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, FEHBP--in other words, at least as good as the health insurance members of Congress have.

States would have the flexibility to expand coverage in phases, and would be offered a number of Federal ``tools'' to choose from in order to help them achieve universal coverage. States could use any number of these tools, or none of them, instead opting for a Federal contribution for a state-based ``single-payer'' system. In addition to designing and implementing a plan to achieve universal care, states would also be required to provide partial funding of these plans. The Federal Government would approve each State plan, and would conduct oversight of the implementation of these plans.

Federal tools that States could choose from to help expand health coverage could include an enhanced Medicaid and SCHIP federal match for expanding coverage to currently uninsured individuals; refundable and advanceable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance for individuals and/or businesses; the establishment of a community-rated health pool, similar to FEHBP, to provide affordable health coverage and expanded choices for those who enroll; and assistance with catastrophic care costs.

States could be creative in the state resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a state could use personal and/or employer mandates for coverage, use state tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring states to offer a regional health care plan.

The approach I have set forth would guarantee universal health care, but still leave room for the flexibility and creativity that I believe is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care.

As I have noted, there have been a number of interesting proposals to move us to universal health care coverage. While I will be advocating the state-based approach that I have just outlined, others have proposed alternative approaches that certainly merit consideration and debate.

And this brings us to the legislation I am introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the millions who are uninsured, Washington refuses to address the problem in a comprehensive way.

That is why I am introducing this bill. My legislation will force Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the next Congress. If a committee chair fails to introduce a bill within the first month, then the ranking minority party member of the respective committee may introduce a measure that qualifies for the expedited treatment outlined in my bill.

The measures introduced by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader will be placed directly on the Senate Calendar. The measures introduced by the two committee chairs, or ranking minority members, will be referred to their respective committees.

The committees have 60 calendar days not including recesses of 3 days or more to review the legislation. At the end of that time, if either committee fails to report a measure, the bills will be placed directly on the legislative calendar.

If the Majority Leader fails to move to one of the bills, any Member may move to proceed to any qualifying health care reform measure. The motion is not debatable or amendable. If the motion to proceed is adopted, the chamber will immediately proceed to the consideration of a measure without intervening motion, order, or other business, and the measure remains the unfinished business of the Senate until the body disposes of the bill.

Similar procedures are established for House consideration.

I want to emphasize, my bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be considered.

But what my bill does do is to require Congress to act.

It has been 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis.

It has been 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive health care reform. We cannot afford any further delay. I urge my colleagues to support the Health Care Reform Expedited Procedures Act of 2004.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Health Care Reform Expedited Procedures Act of 2004, legislation that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic policy issue of our time, namely health care reform.

I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold town hall meetings. Year after year, the number one issue raised at these Listening Sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. The frustration I hear, the anger and the desperation, have convinced me that we must change the system.

So many people now come to tell me that they used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they tell me that their businesses are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in. These costs are crippling our economy just as the Nation is struggling to rebound from the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs.

Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check. Costs are skyrocketing, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. So in all too many cases, employers are left to offer sub-par benefits, or to wonder whether they can offer any benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation.

One option that could help employers, especially small businesses, reduce their health care costs is to have them form health care cooperatives, where employers lower costs by purchasing care as a group. I have introduced a bill in the Senate to make it easier for business to create these cooperatives.

But this legislation certainly isn't the magic bullet that can address the whole problem. We need to come up with more comprehensive ways to address rising costs. In most cases, costs are still passed on to employees, who then face enormous premiums that demand more and more of their monthly income. People tell me that they don't understand how anyone can afford these astronomical premiums, and what can you say to that?

We can say that it's time to move toward universal coverage. I believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial

spirit to design a system that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is ending a system where nearly 44 million Americans are uninsured, and where those who are insured are struggling to pay their premiums, struggling to pay for prescription drugs, and struggling to find long term care.

We can't tolerate a system that strands so many Americans without the coverage they need. This system costs us dearly: Even though almost 44 million Americans are uninsured, the United States devotes more of its economy to health care than other industrial countries.

Leaving this many Americans uninsured affects all of us. Those who are insured pay more because the uninsured can't afford to pay their bills. And those bills are exceptionally high, because the uninsured wait so long to see a doctor. The uninsured often live sicker, and die earlier, than other Americans, so they also need a disproportionate amount of acute care.

In 2001 alone, health care providers provided $35 billion worth of uncompensated care. While providers absorb some of those costs, inevitably some of the burden is shifted to other patients. And of course the process of cost-shifting itself generates additional costs.

We are all paying the price for our broken health care system, and it is time to bring about change.

Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we should change the health care system in this country. Some propose using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a national single payer health care system is the only way to go.

I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system.

As a former State legislator, I come to this debate knowing that States are coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health care problem. So in addition to the approaches already mentioned, I think we really need to look at what our States are doing, and add to the menu of possibilities an approach under which each State decides the best way to cover its residents.

I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country, without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that States have a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are, and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their state. So I am in favor of a state-based universal health care system, where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage.

This approach would achieve universal health care, without the Federal Government dictating to all of the states exactly how to do it. The federal government would provide states with the financial help, technical assistance and oversight necessary to accomplish this goal. In return, a State would have to make sure that every resident has coverage at least as good as that offered in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, FEHBP--in other words, at least as good as the health insurance members of Congress have.

States would have the flexibility to expand coverage in phases, and would be offered a number of Federal ``tools'' to choose from in order to help them achieve universal coverage. States could use any number of these tools, or none of them, instead opting for a Federal contribution for a state-based ``single-payer'' system. In addition to designing and implementing a plan to achieve universal care, states would also be required to provide partial funding of these plans. The Federal Government would approve each State plan, and would conduct oversight of the implementation of these plans.

Federal tools that States could choose from to help expand health coverage could include an enhanced Medicaid and SCHIP federal match for expanding coverage to currently uninsured individuals; refundable and advanceable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance for individuals and/or businesses; the establishment of a community-rated health pool, similar to FEHBP, to provide affordable health coverage and expanded choices for those who enroll; and assistance with catastrophic care costs.

States could be creative in the state resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a state could use personal and/or employer mandates for coverage, use state tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring states to offer a regional health care plan.

The approach I have set forth would guarantee universal health care, but still leave room for the flexibility and creativity that I believe is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care.

As I have noted, there have been a number of interesting proposals to move us to universal health care coverage. While I will be advocating the state-based approach that I have just outlined, others have proposed alternative approaches that certainly merit consideration and debate.

And this brings us to the legislation I am introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the millions who are uninsured, Washington refuses to address the problem in a comprehensive way.

That is why I am introducing this bill. My legislation will force Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the next Congress. If a committee chair fails to introduce a bill within the first month, then the ranking minority party member of the respective committee may introduce a measure that qualifies for the expedited treatment outlined in my bill.

The measures introduced by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader will be placed directly on the Senate Calendar. The measures introduced by the two committee chairs, or ranking minority members, will be referred to their respective committees.

The committees have 60 calendar days not including recesses of 3 days or more to review the legislation. At the end of that time, if either committee fails to report a measure, the bills will be placed directly on the legislative calendar.

If the Majority Leader fails to move to one of the bills, any Member may move to proceed to any qualifying health care reform measure. The motion is not debatable or amendable. If the motion to proceed is adopted, the chamber will immediately proceed to the consideration of a measure without intervening motion, order, or other business, and the measure remains the unfinished business of the Senate until the body disposes of the bill.

Similar procedures are established for House consideration.

I want to emphasize, my bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be considered.

But what my bill does do is to require Congress to act.

It has been 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis.

It has been 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive health care reform. We cannot afford any further delay. I urge my colleagues to support the Health Care Reform Expedited Procedures Act of 2004.

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

I ask for regular order with regard to amendment No. 3400.

Mr. President, I understand there will be a second- degree amendment offered to my amendment which is to bring a small measure of relief to military families by allowing the FMLA-eligible family members of deployed personnel to be able to use the FMLA benefits for issues directly related to or resulting from their loved one's deployment. This has been accepted by the body previously and put into other legislation. It was certainly my hope that we would be able to move forward with this. It is something our military families desperately need. However, it is my understanding that this second- degree amendment would require protracted debate. It is in our interest to move this important Department of Defense authorization bill forward.

I yield to the Senator.

Amendment No. 3475 to Amendment No. 3400

(Purpose: To enable military family members to take time

off to attend to deployment-related business, tasks, and

other family issues.)

In light of the offering of the second-degree amendment, I am about to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, but I first indicate how important it is we provide this FMLA benefit to these families. Obviously, this issue will return, but in the spirit of trying to resolve this issue and move the bill forward, I now ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment No. 3400.

Mr. President, I now ask for the regular order with regard to amendment No. 3288.

Mr. President, for this amendment, which I offered earlier and had the yeas and nays ordered on, I now ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for his cooperation and for his support on this important amendment, which I understand will be accepted. This amendment allows the important work of the Inspector General of the CPA in Iraq to continue after the June 30 transition.

We are talking here about $20 billion of American taxpayers' dollars. Only about $4.5 billion has already been contracted for. So the remainder is still going to be expended. There are a great deal of audits and other efforts being made on the ground. That should continue. This has to do with protecting the American taxpayers.

I am delighted both the chairman and ranking member have expressed support for this amendment. I am confident, with their assurances, that this amendment will make it all the way through the process and become the law of the land so this fine work of this inspector general can continue.

Mr. President, as to the amendment as we have crafted it, which was carefully and specifically crafted, I take the chairman's comment to indicate the approach we have taken in the Senate is the approach he will be advocating in conference.

Mr. President, I urge that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working with me to accept this amendment, which represents a first step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that are provided to our military personnel. I also thank my cosponsor, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, for her contributions to this amendment.

As we debate the Department of Defense authorization bill today, thousands of our brave men and women in uniform are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. These men and women serve with distinction and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt gratitude.

We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them. I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that

tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have undertaken numerous legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and their families a priority.

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

For those reasons, last month, I introduced the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act, VETS Act, which would improve transition services for our military personnel. My legislation would help to ensure that all military personnel receive the same services by making a number of improvements to the existing Transition Assistance Program/ Disabled Transition Assistance Program, TAP/DTAP, and to the Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, by improving the process by which military personnel who are being demobilized or discharged receive medical examinations and mental health assessments, and by ensuring that military and veterans service organizations and State departments of veterans affairs are able to play an active role in assisting military personnel with the difficult decisions that are often involved in the process of discharging or demobilizing.

I am pleased that my original legislation is supported by a wide range of groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and veterans and their families. These groups include: the American Legion; the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin National Guard; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America. I will continue to work with these and other veterans and military organizations on these important issues.

The amendment that I am offering today on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe is based on that legislation. This amendment will require the General Accounting Office, GAO, to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved.

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 postdeployment and predischarge 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 amendment will require GAO to conduct an analysis of transition programs, including a history of how the programs were intended to be used when they were created and how they are being used now; whether the programs adequately address the specific needs of military personnel, including members of the National Guard and Reserve; and how transition programs differ among the services and across military installations. The GAO will also be required to make recommendations on how these programs can be improved, including an analysis of additional information that would be beneficial to members participating in transition briefings.

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

Currently, participation in this program is encouraged, but not mandatory. Thus, most of the responsibility for getting information about benefits and programs falls on the military personnel themselves. Participation in preseparation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program is a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian life. The Department of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all members participate in this important program, and my amendment would require the GAO to analyze participation rates and make recommendations on how the Department of Defense could better encourage participation, and whether participation in a transition program should be mandatory.

In addition, GAO would be required to make recommendations on any information that should be added to the transition briefings, such as information on procurement opportunities for veterans with service- connected disabilities and for other veterans. I thank the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, for making the important point that Federal law requires that a certain percentage of contracts be awarded to firms owned by veterans with service-connected disabilities. Additionally, the Small Business Administration and other agencies administer programs to make all veterans aware of procurement opportunities. I agree with her that the transition process is a commonsense place to make these personnel aware of these opportunities. For that reason, our amendment also requires that the Department of Defense include information about these contracting opportunities in its transition program.

The amendment would also require the GAO to study how the transition programs administered by the VA and by the Department of Labor fit into this transition effort. This analysis would include a discussion of the joint DOD-VA Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, which assists personnel in applying for VA disability benefits before they are discharged from the military. This very successful program has helped to cut the redtape and to speed the processing time for many veterans who are entitled to VA disability benefits.

In addition, under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use of the services provided by military and veterans service organizations as part of the transition process. But these groups tell me that they are not always allowed access to transition briefings that are conducted for our personnel. For that reason, this amendment would require GAO to include an analysis of the participation of military and veterans service organizations in preseparation briefings, including recommendations on how the Department of Defense could make better use of representatives of veterans service organizations who are recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the representation of military personnel in VA proceedings.

The demobilization and discharge process presents our service members with a sometimes confusing and often overwhelming amount of information and paperwork that must be digested and sometimes signed in a very short period of time. The opportunity to

speak with fellow veterans who have been through this process and who have been accredited to represent veterans in VA proceedings by the VA can be invaluable to military personnel as they seek to wade through this maze of paperwork. These veterans can offer important advice about benefits and other choices that military personnel have to make as they are being discharged or demobilized. I commend the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, for offering an amendment which has already been accepted to this bill that reaffirms the importance of allowing veterans service organizations to participate in transition briefings and that also encourages their involvement in counseling members of the National Guard and Reserve who have been demobilized. The Landrieu amendment is consistent with provisions in my legislation, the VETS Act, and I am pleased that the Senate has gone on record in support of allowing these dedicated members of our veterans service organizations, who have taken the time to get accredited by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in order to counsel and represent their fellow veterans, to participate in transition briefings.

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

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

I am pleased that the underlying bill contains a provision that would require postdeployment physicals for military personnel who are separating from Active-Duty service. I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support my VETS Act legislation, that our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt, high quality physical examination as part of the demobilization process. These individuals have voluntarily put themselves in harm's way for our benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense makes every effort to determine whether they have experienced--or could experience--any health effects as a result of their service.

I am also pleased that the Senate has already adopted an amendment offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Talent, that will help to improve the medical readiness of our men and women in uniform and to ensure their health is monitored before, during, and after deployments so that there is a record of any service-connected conditions or exposures.

Building on this effort, my amendment would require the GAO to include in its study of transition services an analysis of the use of postdeployment and predischarge health screenings and whether and how these screenings and the transition program could be integrated into a single, coordinated preseparation program for military personnel who are being discharged or released from active duty. The analysis would also include information on how postdeployment questionnaires are used, the extent to which military personnel waive physical exams, and how and the extent to which personnel are referred for followup health care.

I am also concerned about the implementation of current law with respect to the current requirement that postdeployment medical examinations include a mental health assessment. Our men and women in uniform serve in difficult circumstances far from home, and too many of them witness or experience violence and horrific situations that most of us cannot even begin to imagine. These men and women, many of whom are just out of high school or college when they sign up, may suffer long-term physical and mental fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences.

We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too often attached to seeking assistance is ended. To that end, this amendment requires that GAO include in its analysis a discussion of the current process by which mental health screenings are conducted, followup mental health care is provided for, and services are provided in cases of posttraumatic stress disorder and related conditions in connection with discharge and release from active duty. This will include an analysis of the number of persons treated, the types of interventions, and the programs that are in place for each branch of the Armed Forces to identify and treat cases of PTSD and related conditions.

As part of its study on these important issues, GAO is directed to obtain views from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments; the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Labor; military personnel who have received the transition assistance programs covered by this study and personnel who have declined to participate in these transition programs; representatives of military and veterans service organizations; and persons with expertise in health care, including mental health care, provided under the Defense Health Program, including personnel from the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs and persons in the private sector.

Finally, in response to concerns I have heard from a number of my constituents, this amendment also directs the Secretaries of Defense and Labor to jointly report to Congress on ways in which DOD training and certification standards could be coordinated with Government and private-sector training and certification standards for corresponding civilian occupations.

Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for working with me to include these provisions in the bill. I will continue to work to ensure that we provide those serving in our Armed Forces with the help they need and deserve in making the often- difficult transition back to civilian life.

military housing privatization

Mr. President, I support passage of this year's Defense authorization bill because it contains many provisions that our brave men and women in uniform need and deserve. But before I go into the details of why I am supporting this legislation, I must first thank the members of the United States Armed Forces for their service to our country. They are performing admirably under difficult circumstances all over the world. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, along with their families, are making great sacrifices in service to our country. I am voting for this legislation to support these people who are serving the country with such courage.

I strongly support the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel that this bill provides. We must make sure that our professional military is paid a fair wage. This bill also makes permanent the increase in family separation allowance and imminent danger pay, another important policy for our men and women in uniform. Once again, I was proud to support the expansion of full-time TRICARE health insurance for our National Guard and Reserve. The reserve component is being used more than at any other time since World War II. Forty percent of our troops in Iraq are reserve component troops. These citizen soldiers face additional burdens when they transition in and out of their civilian life and providing them and their families with TRICARE is one way we can ease those burdens.

Another aspect of this bill that I strongly support is the increased funding for force protection equipment. Last year, concerned Wisconsinites contacted my office telling me that they or their deployed loved ones were fighting for their country in Iraq without the equipment they needed. This situation is unconscionable. I have repeatedly pressed the Pentagon to fix this situation and I and my colleagues went a long way in addressing these shortages in the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The $925 million for additional up-armored HUMVEES and other ballistic protection as well as the $600 million in force protection gear and combat clothing in this bill above what was in the President's proposed budget further ensures that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their duties on the ground.

I am pleased that the Senate approved my amendment to ensure that the Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority will continue to oversee U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq after June 30 of this year as the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction. The American taxpayers have been asked to shoulder a tremendous burden in Iraq, and we must ensure that their dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. Today, the CPA is phasing out, but the reconstruction effort has only just begun. As of mid-May, only $4.2 billion of the $18.4 billion that Congress appropriated for reconstruction in November had even been obligated. With multiple agencies involved and a budget that exceeds the entire foreign operations appropriation for this fiscal year, U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction efforts should have a focused oversight effort. My amendment will ensure that the Inspector General's office can continue its important work even after June 30, rather than being compelled to start wrapping up and shutting down while so much remains to be done. This is good news for the reconstruction effort, and good news for American taxpayers.

I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working with me to accept the amendment that I offered with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, which represents a first step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that are provided to our military personnel. This amendment will require the General Accounting Office to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Department 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 large transition program. I very much look forward to reviewing the results of this study.

The Senate version of the Defense authorization bill also includes a provision finally fulfilling a goal for which I have been fighting for years--making sure that every State and territory has at least one Weapons of mass Destruction Civil Support Team, WMD-CST. I was delighted earlier this year when Wisconsin was chosen as one of 12 States to receive a WMD-CST authorized and appropriated for in FY2004, but I was also disappointed that the President's proposed budget for FY2005 included funding for only 4 of the 11 outstanding teams. I, along with 28 of my colleagues, wrote the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman and ranking member asking them to fully fund all 11 remaining teams. The chairman and ranking member have been very supportive of my efforts in this area over the years, and I thank them again this year for funding all 11 remaining WMD-CSTs.

This authorization bill addresses the grave threat our Nation faces from unsecured nuclear materials. It includes $409 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program and $1.3 billion for the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. I was also proud to cosponsor the amendment offered by Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein that authorizes the Department of Energy to secure the tons of fissile material scattered around the world. This bipartisan initiative aims to dramatically accelerate current efforts to the world. This bipartisan initiative aims to dramatically accelerate current efforts to secure this dangerous material so that it cannot fall into the hands of those who aim to harm us. Time is of essence, and I was pleased to hear that the administration is fully supportive of this efforts through the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.

I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Reed that boosts the Army's end strength by 20,000. I did so because it has become clear that the Army is currently overstretched, and I believe that we need to ensure readiness to handle threats in the future. A recent Brookings Institution report says that the military is being stretched so thin that if we don't expand its size, it could break the back of our all- volunteer Army. One does not have to support all of the deployment decisions that brought us to this point today to see that we need to have the capacity to handle multiple crises with sufficient manpower and strength. I do not take lightly the decision to lock in a significant increase in spending. The need is great, however, and the deliberative defense authorization process, not the emergency supplemental process, is the place to do it.

I must note that, unfortunately, this bill has many of the same problems that I've been fighting to fix for years. Once again, we are spending billions upon billions of dollars for weapons systems more suited for the Cold War than the fight against terrorism. I was very disappointed that the Senate did not agree to Senator Levin's amendment that would have used a small percentage of the over $10 billion authorized for missile defense for critical unfunded homeland defense needs. This amendment, which I cosponsored, would have used $515.5 million now slated for additional untested interceptors and spent it instead on the top unfunded Department of Defense homeland defense priorities, research and development programs, radiation detection equipment at seaports, and

other important defenses against terrorism. Budgeting is about setting priorities and I am sad to say that when the Senate failed to adopt Senator Levin's amendment, it missed a golden opportunity to adjust its priorities in order to face our country's most pressing threat--the threat of terrorism.

I was disappointed that the Senate failed to reduce the retirement age for those in the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. Our country has placed unprecedented demands upon the Guard and Reserve since September 11, 2001, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Considering the demands we are placing on them, it is time that we lower the Guard and Reserve's retirement age to the same level as civilian Federal employees.

Although my support for reducing the reserve component retirement age has been unwavering, because of the significant budgetary impact of this measure I had hoped that Congress would first receive reviews of reserve compensation providing all of the information that we need to address this issue responsibly. I patiently waited for several studies on this issue, including by the Defense Department, but when the studies came out they called for further study. This matter cannot continue to languish unaddressed indefinitely. As retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA, put it, ``It is time to fish or cut bait.'' I agree with MOAA's analysis that, ``Further delay on this important practical and emotional issue poses significant risks to long-term (Guard and Reserve) retention'' and I was proud to vote for the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine.

I also believe that the Senate missed an opportunity to provide a small but needed measure of relief to military families when it failed to adopt my Military Family Leave Act amendment. This amendment would have allowed a spouse, child, or parent who already qualifies for Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA benefits--unpaid leave--to use those existing benefits for issues directly arising from the deployment of a family member. The Senate adopted a similar amendment by unanimous consent when I offered it to the Iraq supplemental spending bill. This amendment has the support of the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, the National Military Family Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.

I regret that a harmful second degree amendment was offered to my amendment and that I was not given the opportunity to have a straight up or down vote. Rather than taking up the Senate's time in a protracted debate about the second degree amendment, I withdrew my amendment so that this important Defense authorization bill could move forward. However, the need addressed by my amendment remains, and I will continue to fight to bring some relief to military families that sacrifice so much for all of us.

I want to bring attention to another element of the Defense Authorization bill that raises concerns for me. The Defense Authorization bill includes language that raises troop caps in Colombia from 400 to 800 military personnel and from 400 civilian contractors to 600. I am disappointed that Senator Byrd's amendment was not approved by the Senate, which would have limited the increases in these caps to the levels established by the bill. Most importantly, I worry about placing more Americans in harm's way in Colombia. Further deployments bring greater risks to an already overstretched military. We do not want to risk being drawn further into Colombia's civil war--certainly not without a thorough debate that the American people can follow. In addition, many of my constituents and I remain concerned that by raising these caps, the U.S. devotes greater resources to the military side of the equation in Colombia without balancing our approach through greater support for democratic institutions, increasing economic development, and supporting human rights.

There are other provisions in this bill with which I disagree, and the Senate rejected a number of amendments that would have made this bill better. However, on balance this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families and that is why I will vote for it.

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

Mr. President, first, I will call up my amendment, and I ask that it then be set aside.

Mr. President, I understand, and I wish to speak about an amendment that will be offered later, amendment No. 3400. It is an amendment I am cosponsoring with Senators Murray, Dayton, Corzine, Durbin, and Lautenberg.

My amendment would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our brave military personnel who are being deployed for the ongoing fight against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other missions in this country and around the world. It is actually an amendment the Senate adopted unanimously to last year's Iraq supplemental spending bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure again this year.

The men and women of our Armed Forces undertake enormous sacrifices in their service to our country. They spend time away from home and from their families in different parts of the country and different parts of the world and are placed in harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their dedicated service.

The ongoing deployments for the fight against terrorism and for the campaign in Iraq are turning upside down the lives of thousands of Active-Duty National Guard and Reserve personnel and their families as they seek to do their duty to their country and honor their commitments to their families, and, in the case of the Reserve components, to their employers as well. Today, there are more than 160,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel on active duty.

Some of my constituents are facing the latest in a series of activations and deployments for family members who serve our country in the military. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and safe return.

Recently, many of those deployed in Iraq have had their tour extended beyond the time they had expected to stay. Sometimes this extension has played havoc with the lives of those deployed and their families. Worried mothers, fathers, spouses, and children expecting their loved ones home after more than a year of service must now wait another 3 or 4 months before their loved ones' much anticipated homecoming. The emotional toll is huge. So is the impact on a family's daily functioning, as bills still need to be paid, children need to get to school events, and sick family members have to be cared for.

Our men and women in uniform face these challenges without complaint, but we should do more to help them and their families with the many things that preparing to be deployed requires.

During the first round of mobilizations for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, military personnel and their families were given only a couple days' notice that their units would be deployed. As a result, these dedicated men and women had only a very limited amount of time to get their lives in order. For members of the National Guard and Reserve, this included informing their employers of the deployment. I commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when their employees were called to active duty.

In preparation for deployment, military families often have to scramble to arrange for childcare, to pay bills, to contact their landlords or mortgage companies, and take care of other things we usually deal with on a daily basis.

The amendment I will be formally offering later today will allow eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to be able to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as childcare.

I do not want you to just take my word for it. Here is what the National Military Family Association has to say in a letter:

The National Military Family Association has heard from

many families about the difficulty of balancing families'

obligations with job requirements when a close family member

is deployed. Suddenly, they are single parents, or, with the

grandparents, assuming the new responsibility of caring for

grandchildren. The days leading up to a deployment can be

filled with predeployment briefings and putting legal affairs

in order.

In that same letter, the National Military Family Association states:

The military families, especially those of deployed

servicemembers, are called upon to make extraordinary

sacrifices. This amendment offers families some breathing

room as they adjust to this time of separation.

Let me make sure there is no confusion now about what this amendment does and does not do. This amendment does not expand eligibility for FMLA to employees not already covered by FMLA. It does not expand FMLA eligibility to Active-duty military personnel. It simply allows those already covered by FMLA to use the benefits they already have in one additional set of circumstances, and that is to deal with issues directly related to or resulting from the deployment of a family member.

I was proud to cosponsor and vote for legislation that created the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act during the early days of my service to the people of Wisconsin as a Member of this body. This important legislation allows eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of a child, the placement of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or child. Some employers offer a portion of this time as paid leave in addition to other accrued leave, while others allow workers to use accrued vacation or sick leave for this purpose prior to going on unpaid leave.

Since its enactment in 1993, the FMLA has helped more than 35 million American workers to balance responsibilities to their families and their careers. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2.2 million and 6.1 million people took advantage of these benefits in 1999 through 2000.

Our military families sacrifice a great deal. Active-duty families often move every couple of years due to transfers and new assignments. The 10 years since FMLA's enactment has also been a time when we as a country have relied more heavily on National Guard and Reserve personnel for more and more deployments of longer and longer duration. The growing burden on these service members' families must be addressed, and I think this amendment is one way to do so.

This legislation has the support of a number of organizations, including the Wisconsin National Guard, the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of National Guard of the United States, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Military Family Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. The Military Coalition, an umbrella organization of 31 prominent military organizations, specified this legislation as one of five meriting special consideration during the Iraq supplemental debate.

We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do all we can to support them in this difficult time. I hope this amendment will bring a small measure of relief to our military families.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment when we have the opportunity to vote on it. I yield the floor.