Floor Statements

Mr. President, as founder of the Senate Wilderness Caucus, I am submitting a Senate resolution today 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 United States 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 that his support of the wilderness system was the direct result of discussions he had held almost forty 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 forty years ago continues to benefit all Americans.

I thank the Senator from Nevada for his help making it possible to bring up this amendment.

I call up amendment No. 3288 and ask for unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

I send those modifications to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent Senators Byrd, Leahy, Dodd, and Wyden be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

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

Today the CPA, as we all know, is phasing out, but the reconstruction effort has only just begun. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of May 18, only $4.2 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress appropriated for reconstruction in November had even been obligated. This amendment would 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 important work remains to be done.

It renames the Office of the CPA IG, changing it to Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The amendment establishes that this inspector general shall continue operating until the lion's share of the money Congress has appropriated to date for the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund has been obligated.

American taxpayers have been asked to shoulder a tremendous burden when it comes to the reconstruction of Iraq. Over 20 billion taxpayer dollars have been appropriated for the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund. That is more than the entire fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations annual appropriation. It is more than the entire fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations annual appropriation. This is a tremendous sum to devote to one country.

We all agreed last year that it required an entity on the ground, exclusively focused on this effort, to ensure adequate funding and oversight. We agreed that we need a qualified, independent watchdog with all the powers and the authorities that accrue to inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978. We agreed that business as usual whereby individual agency IGs attempt to oversee this mammoth effort in addition to everything else the agency does is simply not appropriate in this case. There is nothing ordinary about the nature of the U.S. taxpayer investment in Iraq. Ordinary measures will not suffice.

This amendment modifies the legislation creating this IG to ensure that it does not disappear along with the CPA, but instead continues to operate until the amount of reconstruction spending in Iraq more closely resembles other large bilateral foreign assistance programs, which are overseen by existing agency inspectors general. Specifically, it phases out the special IG after 80 percent of the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund appropriated to date is obligated. If that fund grows substantially in the next calendar, then Congress can consider the wisdom of adjusting this mandate accordingly.

Let there be no confusion--this inspector general is only tasked with overseeing how U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent. It does not have a mandate to oversee Iraqi resources. That is not what this is about. So there is nothing at all in continuing this operation that is inconsistent with the transfer of sovereignty on June 30.

Because the Department of Defense has responsibility for what is happening to some reconstruction dollars and the Department of State will have responsibility going forward, it makes good sense to have a focused IG on the ground who is able to see the entire picture at once--not being completely required to just focus on the State Department position or just focus on the Department of Defense portion. This amendment is in no way hostile to the reconstruction effort. This amendment is about trying to get it right.

Suggesting that a special inspector general's office continues to be in order in Iraq is hardly revolutionary. As I have mentioned, the reconstruction budget for Iraq is bigger than the entire FY04 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Yet five different inspectors general-- at USAID, at the State Department, at the Defense Department, at the Treasury, and at the Export-Import Bank--are charged with overseeing portions of that account. in fact, currently some 41 Federal establishments and designated Federal entities with annual budgets less than $21 billion have their own, independent, statutorily mandated inspector general, from the Railroad Retirement Board to the Smithsonian Institution. We ask for focused accountability when taxpayer dollars are a stake in these situations. We must demand the same in Iraq.

Obviously, when you are talking about $20 billion just for this Iraq situation, we have to do the same thing. We must demand the same in Iraq.

To date, the inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority has made important progress, and has a some 30 active investigations and 19 audits underway. A whistleblower hotline established by the inspector general has received hundreds of calls. This is clearly not the time to pull the plug on his important effort.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This is the critical point: to oppose this amendment is to vote for less oversight of the reconstruction effort in Iraq than we have today. It is a step backward if we don't. We cannot abdicate our oversight responsibility. The stakes are far too high for that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's remarks and openness on the amendment. I certainly understand that he needs to consult with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I am eager to hear what possible concerns there may be.

I ask, once we come back to this, that the yeas and nays be ordered for purposes of a vote at some point.

Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan is correct. It would be very unfortunate given the important auditing work that is already underway. It is essential that we act and act quickly to allow those entities to continue in a renamed form.

I am concerned. What the State Department proposes to do here is, instead of continuing the independent inspector general who would have the ability to report both to the Defense Department and the State Department--what the State Department partly wants to do is simply subsume this function within its normal inspector general and reinventing the wheel, which is not what we should be doing at this point. But I do believe the Senator has characterized correctly what we have been told the State Department would prefer to do here.

I do know that the State Department certainly doesn't have people on the ground. It is definitely the case that the inspector general for the CPA has people on the ground--substantial staff working--I believe 80 people.

Let me check that.

I thank the Senator from Michigan.

I misspoke when I said 80 staff members. There are 60 staff members at this point, including 20 auditors and investigators in Iraq.

The point the Senator from Michigan has already made is that the State Department itself indicates they would have to start from ground zero and staff up for this. We have excellent people already conducting a number of audits, and they are on the ground. It would not make sense to do it.

I am delighted the distinguished Senator from Michigan is a cosponsor. I look forward to further debate.

Mr. President, the recent release of audiotapes of Enron traders gloating about their ability to manipulate energy markets should jolt the Senate into passing S. 2015, the Energy Needs Regulatory Oversight Now or ENRON Act.

A public utility near Seattle, which is trying to get back the money it lost to Enron's unscrupulous energy trading practices, received the tapes from the Justice Department. These tapes confirm what we all suspected: Enron manipulated energy markets and gouged consumers. According to these tapes, Enron traders celebrated when a forest fire shut down a major transmission line into California in 2000. This shut down cut power supplies and raised energy prices. An energy trader sang: ``Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing.'' These taped conversations also provide evidence that Enron made secret pacts with power producers and Enron traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants to shut down. The traders also brag about their ability to manipulate markets and steal money from the ``grandmothers of California,'' who one trader called ``Grandma Millie.'' The arrogance of these traders shocks the conscience. It also demonstrates the need for Congress to protect consumers from energy market manipulation. We cannot let the market abuses that took place during the Western energy crisis of 2000 happen again.

S. 2105 requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to prohibit the use of manipulative practices like these that put at risk consumers and the reliability of the transmission grid. We learned from this crisis that electricity markets need close government oversight to ensure that companies do not engage in risky and deceptive trading schemes leading to soaring energy prices and their own possible financial failure. In both cases, consumers--the people who depend upon the electricity these companies generate or trade--are the losers.

The Senate recently went on record in support of barring abusive energy market practices when it approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 agricultural appropriations bill offered by Senator Cantwell. I am disappointed this language was stripped from the omnibus spending bill. These necessary protections were also omitted from the final energy conference report and the revised energy bill we voted on in April.

We need to send a clear message to the energy industry that this behavior will not be tolerated, and we must show consumers that we will protect them from energy market manipulation. I am proud to cosponsor S. 2015 and encourage my fellow colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. President, today I pay my respects to a beloved leader who, with grace, wit, and charisma, led our country through some of the great challenges of the twentieth century. President Ronald Wilson Reagan was a dedicated public servant whose confidence and optimism reinvigorated the American people and made him one of the most honored and respected Presidents in our Nation's history.

Although he lived most of his life in California, President Reagan was a fellow Midwesterner. Born in 1911 in Tampico, IL, Ronald Wilson Reagan attended high school in nearby Dixon and worked his way through Eureka College. There he earned his B.A., played on the football team, and participated in school plays. He eventually won a contract in Hollywood and appeared in 53 films over two decades.

The father of four children became increasingly involved in politics and in 1966 was elected the governor of California, and was reelected in 1970. His optimistic message, at a time when the country was beset by inflation and by the taking of American hostages in Iran, helped him to win the presidency in 1980. Four years later, he was reelected in a 49-state sweep.

In foreign affairs, it is impossible to separate President Reagan's legacy

from the astounding change in world affairs that began while he was in office: the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the Cold War. President Reagan spoke frankly and frequently about the bankruptcy-- both moral and economic--of the Soviet regime. His words and actions energized dissidents and activists struggling for change and for justice in the face of Communist repression and tyranny. His optimism helped to give them confidence that they were, indeed, on the right side of history.

President Reagan not only recognized the monstrous nature of Communist totalitarianism, but he also understood the horror of a geopolitical reality that made the entire world hostage to the threat of nuclear annihilation. He had the courage to act, to reach out to the Soviet leadership and to craft landmark arms control agreements, including one that, for the first time, eliminated a class of nuclear weapons.

On the domestic front, it was under the leadership of President Reagan that the solvency of the Social Security program was extended through reforms to the existing program. Although modest in their overall scope, those reforms were seen by many as politically risky, and President Reagan provided critical leadership that helped assure both a reluctant Congress and an uncertain public. Today, we should build on the Reagan reforms, and strengthen the existing program, as he did.

Another significant domestic policy challenge that President Reagan tackled was the simplification of our tax code. In the face of special interest pressures, and under the leadership of his Secretary of Treasury, Donald Regan, as well as a bipartisan group of members of the House and Senate, President Reagan was able to push through the last significant reforms to our increasingly complex tax code in 1986.

At the time, I was the Chairman of the Taxation Committee in the Wisconsin State Senate and we were holding a variety of hearings around the State, addressing parallel reforms. These hearings and reforms were driven by President Reagan's proposal. Though far from perfect, that reform effort is another model for action we need to undertake again. And policymakers in Congress and the executive branch would do well to follow President Reagan's example in this matter.

Of course, no review of President Reagan's legacy would be complete without acknowledging his Alzheimer's disease which, sadly, defined the last 10 years of his life as well as the lives of his family. As the author of Wisconsin's Alzheimer's program, I have become all too aware of the heartbreaking tragedy that this dread disease brings to a family.

President Reagan's brave, public acknowledgment of the disease, and the wonderful efforts of his wife Nancy, have done a great deal to educate the country about this horrible affliction. They have also helped to spur government investment in the research needed to find a cure, and to raise awareness of the need for long-term care services for those suffering from Alzheimer's.

President Ronald Wilson Reagan helped to transform America and the world. He and his achievements will forever be honored and remembered.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the life of Samuel Johnson, an environmental champion, an inspired business leader and one of Wisconsin's greatest philanthropists.

Sam Johnson, who passed away on May 22, 2004, was known internationally for taking his 118-year-old family business called Johnson Wax and turning it into the consumer products giant, SC Johnson & Son, Inc. Sam was as generous as he was successful. He was beloved by his home community of Racine as well as the entire State of Wisconsin for his generous donations to the communities where he did business, and to the long list of organizations and causes that he served. Sam's generosity was instrumental in revitalizing his home community of Racine.

After attending Cornell and Harvard, Sam served as an Air Force intelligence officer. When Sam returned to Wisconsin, he joined the family business, helping make products like Pledge and Glade household names. Sam became the fourth generation to take over the family business in 1966 and helped it grow into four global businesses employing over 28,000 people before retiring in 2000 and leaving the business to a fifth generation.

Sam was widely recognized as a defender of the environment. In 1975, he proactively banned the use of harmful CFCs in aerosol products 3 years before the U.S. banned the ozone-harming substances. He served as chairman of the board for the Nature Conservancy, to which he donated $1 million in 1994 and later donated 18,000 acres in Brazil. In 1993, Fortune Magazine called him ``corporate America's leading environmentalist.''

A few years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of participating in a project undertaken by Sam, as well as Fisk and Curt Johnson, two of his children. Sam and his sons took their piloting skills to Brazil to recreate and document a flight made by Sam's father, Herbert, in 1935, while searching for carnauba palm wax in Brazil. The documentary that resulted from the trip was a moving testimony to Sam's own troubles with alcoholism and distant relationship with his father. The film earned national attention and helped people across the country deal with their own problems with alcohol. I was deeply honored when I was asked to help host a screening of this incredible film.

That documentary was just one of the many achievements for which Sam Johnson will be remembered and just one of the many reasons he will be so deeply missed. I know that I am grateful for his lasting contributions to the State of Wisconsin, and for his unwavering commitment to the communities and causes he served so well.

Mr. President, I would like to express my support as a cosponsor for S. Res. 364, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that addresses growing concern about oil markets. Over the past few months, oil prices have skyrocketed to a high of over $40 per barrel. High gasoline prices are inextricably linked to high crude oil prices, and these high oil and gas prices hurt Americans across the Nation and from all walks of life. Farmers, teachers, and small business owners across the country and in Wisconsin in particular, are getting hit hard by these outrageous costs. This week the people in my home State of Wisconsin are seeing gas prices of over $2.00 a gallon. Making matters worse, a recent refinery breakdown in Minnesota may further reduce the supply of gasoline in the State.

I am proud to cosponsor this resolution because it sends a powerful message to the administration that it needs to directly, and aggressively, confront this oil and gasoline problem now. First, the resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the administration should directly confront OPEC and challenge OPEC to immediately increase oil production. The eleven countries that make up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, produce 40 percent of the world's crude oil and control three-quarters of proven reserves, including much of the spare production capacity. Ensuring access to and stable prices for imported crude oil for the United States and major allies and trading partners of the United States is vital to United States foreign and economic policy.

The 2004 OPEC production cuts have resulted in outrageous increases in oil prices. OPEC instituted its production cut in February 2004, which reduced production by 2,000,000 barrels per day.

From February to March 2004, crude oil prices rose from $28 to $38 per barrel. In April, OPEC announced its commitment to further cut oil production by 1, 000,000 barrels a day, and crude oil prices now exceed $40 per barrel. We cannot allow this foreign oil cartel to wreak havoc on our economy. The administration must use its diplomatic pressure to persuade OPEC to increase production. The actions of this cartel have real consequences for Americans.

Second, the resolution states that the administration should direct the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General to exercise vigorous oversight over the oil markets to protect the American people from price gouging. Mega-mergers throughout the oil industry have resulted in consolidation in the market, and we have, in essence, rebuilt the Rockefeller trust through these mergers. The gasoline market in Wisconsin and at least 27 other States are now considered to be ``tight oligopolies'' with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gasoline supplies. In tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices are driving independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market.

Investigations have also found large consolidated oil companies control not just the buying choices of local gas stations, but also the selling prices of gasoline distributors. As a result, independent stations must buy their gasoline directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand-name stations pay. With these higher costs, the independent stations cannot compete. The company bases prices not on the cost of producing gasoline, but on the maximum a neighborhood will pay. The FTC and the Attorney General must keep a watchful eye on these anticompetitive practices and use all the tools available to them to protect consumers from price fixing and other practices that result in escalating gas prices.

Finally, the resolution calls upon the administration to suspend deliveries of the oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and release 1,000,000 million barrels of oil a day for 30 days. History indicates that releasing oil from the SPR provides consumers with relief from high gas prices. Within hours of the first air strike against Iraq in January 1991, the first President Bush authorized a drawdown of the SPR. The day after the plan was approved, crude prices dropped by nearly $10 a barrel. During the fall of 2000, the Clinton administration decided to release oil from the SPR. The day after the oil was released from the SPR, crude prices oil prices fell from $37 a barrel to less than $ 31 a barrel. In addition, releasing the oil will not affect our security interests because the SPR is almost full. It currently holds 659 million barrels, and its capacity of the is 700 million barrels. The resolution only calls for releasing 30 million barrels. American consumers need relief from high gas prices now. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am introducing that would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng sold at retail discloses where the root was harvested. The ``Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2004'' is similar to a bill that I introduced in the last Congress, but it has been further strengthened based on suggestions I received from ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.

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

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

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

Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.''

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

For consumers concerned with purchasing ginseng grown in the U.S., there is no accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown, other than testing for pesticides that are banned in the United States. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and quintozine (PCNB) have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in the U.S.

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

My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2004, proposes some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw agricultural commodity, be sold at retail with a label clearly indicating the country that the ginseng was harvested in. `Harvest' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants were cultivated in the foreign country, they may have been treated with chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing foreign- produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am introducing that would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng sold at retail discloses where the root was harvested. The ``Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2004'' is similar to a bill that I introduced in the last Congress, but it has been further strengthened based on suggestions I received from ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.

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

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

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

Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.''

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

For consumers concerned with purchasing ginseng grown in the U.S., there is no accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown, other than testing for pesticides that are banned in the United States. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and quintozine (PCNB) have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in the U.S.

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

My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2004, proposes some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw agricultural commodity, be sold at retail with a label clearly indicating the country that the ginseng was harvested in. `Harvest' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants were cultivated in the foreign country, they may have been treated with chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing foreign- produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to express my unwavering support for the men and women who wear this country's uniform and who are so bravely serving in dangerous areas throughout the world on our behalf. I have strongly supported and will continue to strongly support efforts to ensure that these courageous men and women continue to receive all of the resources they need to perform their duties. This is a serious issue that deserves serious focus. It should not be a part of gimmickry or a political sideshow and for that reason I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.

Mr. President, I speak today on the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education. I join with all Americans in celebrating this decision, which, in many ways, inspired the modern civil rights movement.

In Brown, the Supreme Court upheld the right of all children to an equal education in our public schools. In its unanimous opinion, the Court stated ``[w]e conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' With these historic words, the doors of public schools were required to be opened to all children, regardless of their race, and efforts to end segregation in other aspects of American society gained momentum.

The slow integration of our public schools has been a difficult and sometimes painful process, with some clinging to any mechanism by which this process could be slowed or circumvented. The promise of children of all races and backgrounds coming together to study and to prepare for their futures has too often been clouded by the prejudices of adults. And while great strides have been made in the last 50 years, much work remains to be done to ensure that the phrase ``separate but equal'' is at long last relegated to the history books.

One of the most serious challenges facing public schools today is the No Child Left Behind, NCLB, Act, which includes a Federal testing mandate that has become an added burden for students and school districts.

Wisconsinites are concerned about this additional layer of testing for many reasons, including the cost of developing and implementing these tests, the loss of teaching time every year to prepare for and take the tests, and the extra pressure that the tests will place on students, teachers, schools, and school districts.

Instead of piling more tests on public school students, concerned parents, teachers and school administrators want to know when the Federal Government is going to provide the funding it promised for education programs. While I have worked with many of my colleagues in the Senate to provide more of this funding, Congress still falls far short of providing the resources that students need. And schools are left to face mandate after mandate without the funding that they need to carry those mandates out.

No Child Left Behind not only adds to that list of Federal mandates, it also can impose harsh sanctions on schools that do not meet yearly goals, even though the programs that would help students and schools to meet those goals are not fully funded. Lagging test scores at a given school may mean that the school is labeled as ``failing,'' which can have serious, negative consequences for a school that may already be struggling.

I support a bill introduced by my colleague Senator Durbin, which takes a different approach to the issue. This legislation seeks to ensure that schools get the funding they need to implement the mounting Federal mandates they face. The bill sets a minimum amount of funding that the Federal Government must provide for the Title I program, which supports programs for low-income and disadvantaged students. If a school doesn't get the minimum funding, it shouldn't be subject to the penalties that schools can receive under the NCLB law, and the Durbin bill would exempt schools from sanctions in any year that Title I is not funded at this minimum level.

As we saw when nationwide test results came in last fall, the legacy of Brown will not be fulfilled until we can close the gap on the racial disparities that persist in test results and also in graduation rates. Nor will education truly be equal for all students as long as we underfund special education programs and other programs critical to supporting students who are struggling to succeed in the classroom.

If lagging test scores prove that too many children are being left behind, the answer isn't to label them as failures. We must give those students the resources they need to succeed in school. Congress and the administration must do more to ensure that schools have the resources to help these students catch up with their peers before students are required to take additional annual tests required under the No Child Left Behind Act--tests that will have serious consequences for their schools. The legacy of the Brown decision is an education for all children on ``equal terms.'' Either we ensure that great legacy, or we fail the children who need our support the most.

The decision in Brown was one step in the continuing journey to America that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., dreamed would be ``a nation where [his children] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'' A few years after the Brown decision, Congress began to do its part to combat inequality. It passed civil rights laws ensuring the right to vote to all Americans, banning discrimination in employment based on race, ethnicity, religion, national origin or gender, and prohibiting discrimination in public and private housing.

Our Nation has come a long way since 1954, but we still have work to do. Congress and the administration have a particular responsibility to advance the cause of freedom, justice, and equality for all Americans. Congress and the President can demonstrate their support for freedom and justice by supporting civil rights initiatives that have been ignored for far too long.

Perhaps no issue on this agenda is more urgent than racial profiling. Racial profiling is the insidious practice by which some law enforcement agents stop African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. Reports in states from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups are being stopped by some police at rates far in excess of their share of the population and the rate at which they engage in criminal conduct.

I might add that the urgency for banning racial profiling is compounded by concerns post-September 11 that racial profiling--instead of good police work and following up on legitimate leads--is being used more frequently against Arabs, Muslims, or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim.

President Bush pledged to end racial profiling over 3 years ago during his first address to a joint session of Congress. Attorney General John Ashcroft also has acknowledged the damage caused by racial profiling and called for an end to the practice. It is time for the administration to move this effort forward.

Representative John Conyers, the distinguished ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and I have reintroduced our bill, the End Racial Profiling Act. Our bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to take steps to prevent the practice. This bill should be one of the top agenda items this Congress and the Administration should follow through on its promise to address this issue.

The vast majority of law enforcement agents fulfill their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. Racial profiling is ineffective and undermines their efforts to serve and protect all Americans.

In addition to passing the End Racial Profiling Act, Congress and the President should also address a range of civil rights-related issues in this Congress--from education, to welfare, to a fair wage for an honest day's work, to improving our criminal justice system.

Congress should do more to ensure that federally funded programs comply with civil rights and other laws. In particular, we must improve the Federal welfare law to require that each State's program treats all applicants and clients fairly. While Congress rightly encouraged state- level innovation with the 1996 welfare law, we should use the pending reauthorization of that law as an opportunity to ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients.

Congress should ensure that all Americans get a fair wage for an honest day's work. Too often, parents work double shifts or more than one job for low wages in order to make ends meet and to provide the basic necessities for their families. We must at last increase the Federal minimum wage. We must work to close the wage gap between women and men.

Congress should also take action to ensure fairness and justice in the administration of the death penalty. We know that the administration of the death penalty at the Federal and State levels is flawed. With over 100 innocent people on death row later exonerated in the modern death penalty era, any reasonable person can see that the current system risks executing the innocent. That is why Congress should pass the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. Congress and the President should support a moratorium on executions while a national, blue ribbon commission reviews the fairness of the administration of the death penalty.

Congress can also do more to protect hardworking Americans from discrimination in the workplace. We should pass the Employment Non- Discrimination Act. I have been pleased to join my colleague Senator Kennedy in sponsoring this important bill that will ensure that Americans are not discriminated against by employers based on their sexual orientation. It is time that we take this step on behalf of equal opportunity and equal rights.

Congress should also take another step to ensure that all Americans have the right to vote and to be represented in their Congress. We meet today in a jurisdiction where over a half a million people are denied the right to fully participate in their Government. The majority of the people in this jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, are African American. Shutting them out of our Government is a continuing moral stain on our nation that must be addressed. We should take action on legislation sponsored by Senator Lieberman and myself, under DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's leadership, to grant full congressional representation for the District of Columbia.

Congress and the administration must take concrete steps to protect Americans' civil rights.

As Dr. King said, ``This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.''

Mr. President, let us make real the promises of democracy and of Brown--a nation with liberty, justice, and equality for all. Let's begin that work in this Congress, in this body, and let's begin now.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will enhance and strengthen transition services that are provided to our military personnel.

This past weekend, people around our country honored our military personnel by marking Armed Forces Day. That day was even more poignant this year as we recognize the service and sacrifice of the thousands of brave men and women who are currently 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. Our brave veterans have earned these benefits, and VA outreach regarding health care and other benefits is especially important as we welcome home a new generation of veterans who are serving in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. Our veterans and their families have made great personal sacrifices to protect our freedoms. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Making sure that our veterans know about the benefits that they have earned is an important first step in starting to repay this debt.

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.

My bill, the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act (VETS Act), will help to ensure that all military personnel have access to the same transition services as they prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.

I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and 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.

My bill will 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.

Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Labor, provide pre-separation 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.

My bill would ensure that members of demobilizing National Guard and Reserve personnel are able to participate in this important counseling prior to being demobilized. In addition, my bill would require state- based follow-up within 180 of demobilization to give demobilized personnel the opportunity to follow up on any questions or concerns that they may have during a regular unit training period. Currently, most of the responsibility for getting information about benefits and programs falls on the military personnel. The Department of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all members participate in this important program, and that is what my bill would do.

My bill would help to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by directing the Secretary of Defense to ensure that consistent Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition Assistance Program briefings occur across the services and at all demobilization/ discharge locations and to ensure that there are programs that are directed to the specific needs of active duty and National Guard and Reserve personnel as appropriate. It also includes a provision to ensure that personnel who are on the temporary disability retired list and who are being retired or discharged

from alternate locations will have access to transition services at a location that is reasonably convenient to them.

In addition, my bill would enhance the information that is presented to members by requiring that pre-separation counseling include the provision of information regarding certification and licensing requirements in civilian occupations and information on identifying military occupations that have civilian counterparts.

In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my constituents, the bill also directs the Secretaries of Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and certification standards could be coordinated with state laws relating to the training and certification standards for corresponding civilian occupations.

Participation in pre-separation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program is a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian life. My bill is in no way intended to lengthen the time that military personnel spend away from their families or to provide them with information that is not relevant to their civilian lives or that they otherwise do not need. In order to ensure that this information remains a valuable tool and does not become a burden to demobilizing members of the National Guard and Reserve who experience multiple deployments for active duty assignments, my bill clarifies that participation in the Department of Labor's transitional services employment will not be required if a member has previously participated in the program or if a member will be returning to school or to a job that he or she held before being called to active duty.

My bill would make similar improvements to 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, to cover all discharging military installations and military hospitals to ensure that all personnel with service-connected disabilities have the same opportunity to receive this important service. This very successful program has helped to cut the red tape and to speed the processing time for many veterans who are entitled to VA disability benefits.

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.

For example, since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War. More than ten years after the end of the Gulf War, we still don't know why so many veterans of that conflict are experiencing medical problems. Of the nearly 700,000 U.S. military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, more than 100,000 have suffered from an array of symptoms that have become known as Gulf War Syndrome. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the region face many of the same conditions that existed in the early 1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and to study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region are adequately protected from the many possible causes of Gulf War Syndrome.

Part of this process is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment 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.

For these reasons, my bill would require that the Department of Defense abide by current law and provide post-demobilization physicals to all military personnel, and would prohibit any waiver of these physicals. I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support my bill, 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 into 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.

In light of concerns raised by many that each service and each installation uses a different process for demobilization physicals, my bill would require the Secretary of Defense to set minimum standards for these important medical examinations and to ensure that these standards are applied uniformly at all installations and by all branches of the Armed Forces.

My bill also would strengthen current law by ensuring that these medical examinations also include a mental health screening and 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 mental and physical fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences.

My bill would improve mental health services for demobilizing military personnel by requiring that the content and standards for the mental health screening and assessment that are developed by the Secretary include content and standards for screening acute and delayed onset post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, specifically, questions to identify all stressors experienced by military personnel that have the potential to lead to PTSD. Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to chronic PTSD, which could have its roots in an experience from a previous deployment and which could come to the surface by a triggering event that is experienced on a current deployment. The same is true for full-time military personnel who have served in a variety of places over their careers.

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. One step in this process is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, either through DoD or through the VA, which is required in my bill.

My legislation also requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to report to Congress on planning for identification, intervention, and treatment of personnel with PTSD and related conditions and for appropriate training of DoD, military, and VA personnel with respect to PTSD and related conditions.

My bill will also ensure that the DoD and the VA take appropriate actions to ensure that personnel receive appropriate follow-up care for any other physical or mental conditions that are found--or suspected to have been found--as a result of a post-deployment medical examination, including care and treatment at a DoD or VA facility and any other care, treatment, or services that are required.

In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are eligible for medical benefits for the VA learn about and receive them, my bill requires that, as part of the demobilization process, assistance be provided to eligible members to enroll in the VA health care system.

My bill also requires that the medical records of all separating service members be transmitted to the VA and that DoD and the VA conduct a study

on how to improve coordination and cooperation between the two Departments to support the provision of benefits to members and veterans, including: compatibility of health care filing systems, consistency of claims forms, consistency of medical examination forms, and creating shared electronic database with appropriate privacy protections.

My bill would also make improvements to the DoD demobilization and discharge processes by ensuring that members of military and veterans service organizations (MSOs and VSOs) are able to counsel personnel on options for benefits and other important questions. 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. My bill would authorize a ``veteran to veteran'' counseling program that will give military personnel the opportunity to speak with fellow veterans who have been through this process and who may be able to offer important advice about benefits and other choices that military personnel have to make.

Under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use of the services provided by MSOs and VSOs 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. In order to help facilitate the new veteran-to-veteran program, my bill would require the Secretary to ensure that representatives of MSOs, VSOs, and state departments of veterans affairs are invited to participate in all TAP/DTAP and BDD programs. In addition, my bill requires that these dedicated veterans, who give so much of their time and of themselves to serving their fellow veterans and their families, are able to gain access to military installations, military hospitals, and VA hospitals in order to provide this important service. By and large, Mr. President, these groups are able to speak with our military personnel at hospitals and other facilities. But I am disturbed by reports that some of these groups were having a hard time gaining access to these facilities in order to visit with our troops. For that reason, I have included this access requirement in my bill.

I want to stress that my bill in no way requires military personnel to speak with members of MSOs or VSOs if they do not wish to do so. It merely ensures that our men and women in uniform have this option.

Finally, my bill would authorize the Secretary of Defense to create a program to help military personnel get college credit for applicable military training. The Wisconsin State Department of Veterans Affairs has such a program, called the Academic Credit for Military Experience (ACME) program. The National Veterans Training Institute cites ACME as a national model for helping veterans to obtain college credit for training that they received while in the military. Such a program would help our veterans to maximize their GI Bill benefits, to avoid taking classes that repeat their military training, and to earn their degrees that much faster.

I am pleased that this 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 ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will enhance and strengthen transition services that are provided to our military personnel.

This past weekend, people around our country honored our military personnel by marking Armed Forces Day. That day was even more poignant this year as we recognize the service and sacrifice of the thousands of brave men and women who are currently 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. Our brave veterans have earned these benefits, and VA outreach regarding health care and other benefits is especially important as we welcome home a new generation of veterans who are serving in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. Our veterans and their families have made great personal sacrifices to protect our freedoms. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Making sure that our veterans know about the benefits that they have earned is an important first step in starting to repay this debt.

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.

My bill, the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act (VETS Act), will help to ensure that all military personnel have access to the same transition services as they prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.

I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and 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.

My bill will 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.

Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Labor, provide pre-separation 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.

My bill would ensure that members of demobilizing National Guard and Reserve personnel are able to participate in this important counseling prior to being demobilized. In addition, my bill would require state- based follow-up within 180 of demobilization to give demobilized personnel the opportunity to follow up on any questions or concerns that they may have during a regular unit training period. Currently, most of the responsibility for getting information about benefits and programs falls on the military personnel. The Department of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all members participate in this important program, and that is what my bill would do.

My bill would help to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by directing the Secretary of Defense to ensure that consistent Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition Assistance Program briefings occur across the services and at all demobilization/ discharge locations and to ensure that there are programs that are directed to the specific needs of active duty and National Guard and Reserve personnel as appropriate. It also includes a provision to ensure that personnel who are on the temporary disability retired list and who are being retired or discharged

from alternate locations will have access to transition services at a location that is reasonably convenient to them.

In addition, my bill would enhance the information that is presented to members by requiring that pre-separation counseling include the provision of information regarding certification and licensing requirements in civilian occupations and information on identifying military occupations that have civilian counterparts.

In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my constituents, the bill also directs the Secretaries of Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and certification standards could be coordinated with state laws relating to the training and certification standards for corresponding civilian occupations.

Participation in pre-separation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program is a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian life. My bill is in no way intended to lengthen the time that military personnel spend away from their families or to provide them with information that is not relevant to their civilian lives or that they otherwise do not need. In order to ensure that this information remains a valuable tool and does not become a burden to demobilizing members of the National Guard and Reserve who experience multiple deployments for active duty assignments, my bill clarifies that participation in the Department of Labor's transitional services employment will not be required if a member has previously participated in the program or if a member will be returning to school or to a job that he or she held before being called to active duty.

My bill would make similar improvements to 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, to cover all discharging military installations and military hospitals to ensure that all personnel with service-connected disabilities have the same opportunity to receive this important service. This very successful program has helped to cut the red tape and to speed the processing time for many veterans who are entitled to VA disability benefits.

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.

For example, since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War. More than ten years after the end of the Gulf War, we still don't know why so many veterans of that conflict are experiencing medical problems. Of the nearly 700,000 U.S. military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, more than 100,000 have suffered from an array of symptoms that have become known as Gulf War Syndrome. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the region face many of the same conditions that existed in the early 1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and to study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region are adequately protected from the many possible causes of Gulf War Syndrome.

Part of this process is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment 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.

For these reasons, my bill would require that the Department of Defense abide by current law and provide post-demobilization physicals to all military personnel, and would prohibit any waiver of these physicals. I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support my bill, 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 into 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.

In light of concerns raised by many that each service and each installation uses a different process for demobilization physicals, my bill would require the Secretary of Defense to set minimum standards for these important medical examinations and to ensure that these standards are applied uniformly at all installations and by all branches of the Armed Forces.

My bill also would strengthen current law by ensuring that these medical examinations also include a mental health screening and 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 mental and physical fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences.

My bill would improve mental health services for demobilizing military personnel by requiring that the content and standards for the mental health screening and assessment that are developed by the Secretary include content and standards for screening acute and delayed onset post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, specifically, questions to identify all stressors experienced by military personnel that have the potential to lead to PTSD. Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to chronic PTSD, which could have its roots in an experience from a previous deployment and which could come to the surface by a triggering event that is experienced on a current deployment. The same is true for full-time military personnel who have served in a variety of places over their careers.

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. One step in this process is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, either through DoD or through the VA, which is required in my bill.

My legislation also requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to report to Congress on planning for identification, intervention, and treatment of personnel with PTSD and related conditions and for appropriate training of DoD, military, and VA personnel with respect to PTSD and related conditions.

My bill will also ensure that the DoD and the VA take appropriate actions to ensure that personnel receive appropriate follow-up care for any other physical or mental conditions that are found--or suspected to have been found--as a result of a post-deployment medical examination, including care and treatment at a DoD or VA facility and any other care, treatment, or services that are required.

In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are eligible for medical benefits for the VA learn about and receive them, my bill requires that, as part of the demobilization process, assistance be provided to eligible members to enroll in the VA health care system.

My bill also requires that the medical records of all separating service members be transmitted to the VA and that DoD and the VA conduct a study

on how to improve coordination and cooperation between the two Departments to support the provision of benefits to members and veterans, including: compatibility of health care filing systems, consistency of claims forms, consistency of medical examination forms, and creating shared electronic database with appropriate privacy protections.

My bill would also make improvements to the DoD demobilization and discharge processes by ensuring that members of military and veterans service organizations (MSOs and VSOs) are able to counsel personnel on options for benefits and other important questions. 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. My bill would authorize a ``veteran to veteran'' counseling program that will give military personnel the opportunity to speak with fellow veterans who have been through this process and who may be able to offer important advice about benefits and other choices that military personnel have to make.

Under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use of the services provided by MSOs and VSOs 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. In order to help facilitate the new veteran-to-veteran program, my bill would require the Secretary to ensure that representatives of MSOs, VSOs, and state departments of veterans affairs are invited to participate in all TAP/DTAP and BDD programs. In addition, my bill requires that these dedicated veterans, who give so much of their time and of themselves to serving their fellow veterans and their families, are able to gain access to military installations, military hospitals, and VA hospitals in order to provide this important service. By and large, Mr. President, these groups are able to speak with our military personnel at hospitals and other facilities. But I am disturbed by reports that some of these groups were having a hard time gaining access to these facilities in order to visit with our troops. For that reason, I have included this access requirement in my bill.

I want to stress that my bill in no way requires military personnel to speak with members of MSOs or VSOs if they do not wish to do so. It merely ensures that our men and women in uniform have this option.

Finally, my bill would authorize the Secretary of Defense to create a program to help military personnel get college credit for applicable military training. The Wisconsin State Department of Veterans Affairs has such a program, called the Academic Credit for Military Experience (ACME) program. The National Veterans Training Institute cites ACME as a national model for helping veterans to obtain college credit for training that they received while in the military. Such a program would help our veterans to maximize their GI Bill benefits, to avoid taking classes that repeat their military training, and to earn their degrees that much faster.

I am pleased that this 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 ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues and the American people in expressing outrage at the vicious murder of American citizen Nicholas Berg in Iraq. I extend my sincere sympathy to Mr. Berg's family and friends, who have had to confront a terrible loss in the context of a barbaric public display.

No one should be misled by the claims of the terrorists responsible for this atrocity. They purport to be retaliating for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers. But this is a lie. These people seek to kill us and kill our children because that is at the core of their agenda, because they derive power from inspiring fear and horror. They do not need a pretext for their brutality.

We express our disgust at the scandalous treatment of Iraqi prisoners because our country stands for basic principles, for the rule of law, for the dignity of the individual. We hold ourselves to high standards, and generations of Americans have shed blood to protect those standards and uphold our principles. We do not call for an investigation of these prisoner abuses in the hopes of placating terrorists. We call for an investigation and for full accountability because that is the right thing to do.

And in the broader fight against terrorism, we speak, wisely, of the need to win hearts and minds in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where millions of good and decent people question American intentions and actions. We insist, quite rightly, that the basic norms and standards of conduct embodied in the Geneva Convention not be undermined, because those same Conventions protect our own troops when they are in harm's way. But our efforts are not aimed to influence the behavior of terrorists. No one has any illusions about the nature of these people. We will not change their minds, or win their hearts, or convince them to uphold basic standards in their conduct. One has only to recall the horror of September 11, or consider the murder of Nicholas Berg, to be certain about that.

Mr. President, I would like to express my support as a cosponsor for S. 1737, the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act. Over the past few months, oil prices have skyrocketed $40 per barrel, the highest price since 1990. High gasoline prices are inextricably linked to high crude oil prices. And these high oil and gas prices hurt Americans across the Nation and from all walks of life. Farmers, teachers, and small business owners across the country and in Wisconsin in particular are getting hit hard by these outrageous costs.

The statistics are staggering. For gasoline, the increases in crude oil prices have resulted in an average national price of $1.96 per gallon. In Wisconsin, the current average price for a gallon of self- service regular unleaded gasoline in Wisconsin is $1.821, according to AAA's Fuel Gauge Report. The current average is 7.1 cents higher than a month ago at this time and 23.6 cents higher than a year ago at this time. These are the highest gas prices we have seen in 13 years.

Unfortunately, under current law, the Department of Energy can conduct investigations into gasoline prices, but it does have the power to enforce the law or sanction companies for price manipulation. On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, does have the power to protect consumers from gas price manipulation. The FTC is supposed to promote competition and free markets, but all too often, the FTC has not actively overseen energy markets to prevent price fixing and market manipulation.

Congress needs to direct the FTC to eliminate anticompetitive practices that currently cause a chokehold on the competitiveness of independent gas distributors and gas station owners. That is why I am supporting the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act, S. 1737. This legislation would modernize antitrust law to prohibit anti-ompetitive practices by single companies in the concentrated gasoline markets. The gasoline market in Wisconsin and at least 27 other States are now considered to be ``tight oligopolies'' with four companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gasoline supplies. We need to ensure that these concentrated markets are not subject to manipulation.

S. 1737 would address two major problems tied to gasoline price- fixing called ``redlining'' and ``zone pricing.'' In tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices are driving independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One anticompetitive practice is called ``redlining,'' which limits where independent distributors can sell their gasoline. As a result, independent stations must buy their gasoline directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand-name stations pay. With these higher costs, the independent station cannot compete. Investigations have also found large consolidated oil companies control not just the buying choices of local gas stations, but also the selling prices of gasoline distributors. This anti- competitive practice is called zone pricing. The company bases prices not on the cost of producing gasoline, but on the maximum a neighborhood will pay.

The Gasoline Free Market Competition Act, S. 1737, will do three things to address this problem. First, the bill would establish ``consumer watch zones'' for concentrated gasoline markets like Wisconsin. Where a few companies control a large part of the market, they can manipulate supplies and restrict competition with ease. Therefore, the FTC should watch consolidated markets more carefully.

The Gasoline Free Market Competition Act also shifts the burden of proof for price-fixing. If the FTC finds that an oil company is employing anticompetitive practices in a consumer watch zone, the company should have to prove it is not hurting consumers. Redlining and zone pricing would be presumptively illegal. Oil companies that engage in anticompetitive practices that manipulate supply or limit competition would have to prove these practices do not hurt consumers.

Finally, the act gives the FTC clear ``cease and desist'' authority to stop price-fixing. In consumer watch zones, the FTC could issue ``cease and desist'' orders to companies participating in these anticompetitive practices, forcing them to stop gouging consumers. The Congress needs to act now to ensure that anticompetitive practices do not lead to further gas price increases, as many energy analyst are predicting.

Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to strike the energy tax title from the Foreign Sales Corporation bill. I recognize the need for a comprehensive energy policy and incentives for alternative energy development. I also believe that the tax package offered by the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Montana was more balanced than the energy tax title from the H.R. 6. energy conference report. However, I am disappointed that the energy tax title in the FSC/ETI bill did not extend these tax credits in a more fiscally responsible way.

I support many of the tax credits in this legislation, such as extension of the wind energy producer credit. The wind energy tax credit is an important step in the continued effort to increase our energy security and to decrease our reliance on carbon-based energy sources. Wisconsin has a lot to offer in this area. I support tradeable tax credits for rural cooperatives, and the other provisions that would specifically benefit rural cooperatives and

small renewable fuel producers. I also support many of the other provisions that increase energy efficiency and promote renewable fuels and alternative energy sources.

The energy tax title as written, however, will cost from $15-20 billion dollars. The oil and gas incentive section would cost taxpayers $6.5 billion and allows companies to deduct the costs of mineral exploration and marginal oil wells. The nuclear power incentives total $1 billion, and the so-called ``clean coal'' incentive is $2.2 billion. In addition to these credits to mature industries, the ``non- conventional fuel credit'' that supports the synfuels industry and coalbed methane industry would cost the taxpayers an additional $2.5 billion. According to a Time magazine article entitled ``The Great Energy Scam,'' some plants merely spray newly mined coal with diesel fuel or pine-tar resin to qualify for the synfuel tax credit. We also need to consider the detrimental environmental impacts of these tax breaks. A proposed coalbed methane project in Wyoming, for example, could draw on 1 billion gallons of groundwater a day and would benefit from this provision.

I remain committed to supporting legislation to encourage alternative energy research and production. In terms of overall energy policy, I believe we must develop cleaner, more efficient energy sources and promote conservation. We need a comprehensive energy policy, but it must be balanced and fiscally responsible. I believe that we can meet these goals, but unfortunately, this energy tax title falls short of that goal. Therefore, I support the McCain amendment to strike it from the bill.