Floor Statements

Mr. President, like Senator McCain, I see this rulemaking on 527s quite simply as a test of the FEC's willingness to enforce the law. As we have noted many times, the Supreme Court in the McConnell v. FEC decision concluded that the FEC improperly interpreted federal election law and allowed the growth of the soft money loophole that made necessary our 7-year reform effort.

We have been watching the agency closely since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed into law in March 2002, looking for signs that it will not repeat its past mistakes. For the most part, we have been sorely disappointed. The announcement yesterday that the FEC general counsel's office wants the commission to delay action on the rulemaking for 90 days is the latest example of this agency's failure to carry out its responsibilities.

It is important to remember that the issues the FEC has been considering recently arise not under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that we passed a few short years ago, but rather under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. The question of whether an organization is a political committee subject to the Federal election laws is sometimes a complicated question, but it is not a new one.

The McConnell decision made it clear that the FEC's previous approach, which was to allow 527s to avoid registering as political committees if they didn't use ``express advocacy,'' was wrong. The FEC needs to enforce the law so that groups whose major purpose is to influence Federal elections are subject to the Federal election laws.

I believe that when an organization tells the IRS that its primary purpose is to influence candidate elections in order to qualify for 527 status, it should not in most cases be able to turn around and tell the FEC that its major purpose is not to influence elections. To me, that just doesn't make sense.

It is unfortunate that the FEC initially approached this issue in a way that frightened legislative advocacy groups into thinking that they might become political committees and have to completely change their fundraising and operations. It is also unfortunate that the nonprofit community in opposing the erroneous FEC proposals took the position that nothing should be done about 527s that are very much involved in election activities but are seeking to operate outside of the election laws.

Senator McCain and I, working with Representatives Shays and Meehan, our reform partners in the House, filed comments with the FEC arguing that there are narrow and targeted things that the FEC should do to protect the integrity of the election laws, without affecting legitimate 501(c)s. A bipartisan proposal announced recently by Commissioners Michael Toner and Scott Thomas takes this approach.

The Toner-Thomas proposal addresses only 527 organizations. It does not change the regulations that apply to 501(c)s. In addition, the proposal would change the allocation rules that apply to 527s that have both a Federal and a nonfederal account. It simply cannot be a correct interpretation of the law that an organization that has publicly declared that it will carry out partisan voter mobilization activities in battleground states this fall can use 98 percent soft money to pay for those activities. The Toner-Thomas proposal would require that at least half of the expenditures on these activities come from a hard money account. That certainly makes sense given that the groups themselves proclaim that their purpose is to influence the presidential election.

But now, the FEC's general counsel has proposed that the FEC delay its vote on the rulemaking for 90 days. This will only assure that the FEC will do nothing about 527s until after the 2004 elections. That is not an acceptable result. It is crucial that the FEC act now. It should adopt the Toner-Thomas proposal, but at the very least, it should modify the allocation rules applicable to 527s doing voter mobilization. There is absolutely no reason to postpone action on that issue.

I hope that some day it will not be a cause for celebration when the agency charged with enforcing the election laws look like it might actually do its job. Unfortunately, the FEC has not been an effective agency, and this latest proposed delay only confirms that it may not be up to the task that Congress has given it. Senator McCain and I have introduced legislation to replace the FEC with a very different regulatory agency. I was pleased to read this week that the chairman of the Rules Committee agrees that the Senate should take a very hard look at the FEC and consider legislation to fundamentally change it.

For now, however, we will be watching closely to see how the FEC deals with the challenge of the 527s. I once again commend the Senator from Arizona for his dedication to this cause.

Mr. President, while I strongly supported a timely finish to debate on this measure, I voted against the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1637. The debate over the past few days leading up to this vote has made it clear that the total time needed to consider the amendments remaining on this measure totaled less than 2 hours. So there was no need to invoke cloture on this legislation. Unfortunately, cloture does mean that critical amendments, including my own amendment to strengthen our Buy American law, would no longer be in order.

To be clear, I do not support delaying consideration of the underlying bill. As I indicated to both leaders, I was willing to enter into a short time agreement for consideration of my amendment, and I understand that others who were offering amendments were also willing to limit the time on their amendments. But cloture not only limits the time available to debate this bill, it also means that the Senate will not be able to consider my amendment, as well as other worthy proposals that relate directly to the loss of manufacturing jobs that has wracked so many communities in Wisconsin and across the country.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in calling attention to the horrifying crisis in Darfur, a part of western Sudan where over a million people have been displaced by a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by government-backed militia forces and official Sudanese forces.

Human Rights Watch has documented massacres, widespread rape, massive forced displacement, and indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilians in Darfur. Amnesty International indicates that the ceasefire agreement signed on April 8 has not stopped the attacks against civilians on the ground, stating that ``attacks on villages continue; indiscriminate and deliberate killings of civilians continue; looting continues and rapes continue.'' Doctors Without Borders, which is actually on the ground delivering services in parts of Darfur, warns of desperate malnutrition and tells us that the absence of food aid on the ground is especially alarming because measles have broken out among the displaced, and measles can seriously aggravate malnutrition.

Because so many homes and farms and mosques and entire villages have been burned and totally destroyed, and because normal life has been so thoroughly disrupted, because fear still dominates the lives of so many civilians, and because the rainy season is beginning--making much of Darfur completely inaccessible by road--literally hundreds of thousands could die of starvation. The humanitarian task before the world would be mammoth even if a major political breakthrough backed by what we have not seen to date--actual effective action taken by the government of Sudan to put a stop to the attacks on civilians. Without such action, the crisis deepens each day.

And even as the government of Sudan has failed to take effective action to stop the attacks and protect the Sudanese people, they also have denied humanitarian organizations and international investigators access to Darfur, deliberately undermining the world's efforts to help those who are suffering and starving. The government's aim appears to be to drive ethnic Africans out of Darfur, and to shield this abhorrent agenda from the eyes of the international community.

It is a disgrace that this same government was just elected to a third term on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Africans have as great a stake in the commission's work and aims as any people anywhere in the world. They deserve far better representation.

Mr. President, crimes against humanity have been and continue to be perpetrated in Darfur, and the criminals responsible for these atrocities--the planners directing this horror at the highest levels-- should be brought to justice.

I am proud to have joined with my colleague, Senator Brownback, who is deeply committed to Sudan, in introducing S. Con Res. 99. And I am so pleased to have been able to work as part of a bipartisan group, including Senators Frist, Daschle, Biden, Lugar, Alexander, Kennedy and DeWine on Sudan issue over the years. I mention as well that Senator Durbin has been enormously helpful at this time, issue, and discussion possible. I hope that today, by calling for urgent action to implement a humanitarian response plan that does not bow to the constraints imposed by the wishes of the Sudanese Government, we can encourage those working to respond to the needs on the ground. And by calling for a Security Council resolution addressing the situation in Darfur, this resolution will make it crystal clear to the Sudanese government that the current situation is simply unacceptable.

Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the State Department and the White House to bring an end to Sudan's long and tragic north-south conflict. But the hopes that we all harbor of achieving a just and lasting end to that crisis simply cannot be meaningfully realized in the context of the kind of brutality we see in Darfur.

At the same time, any hopes that the government of Sudan harbors of an easing of economic pressure or isolation stand no chance--no chance at all, Mr. President--of being realized until the situation in Darfur changes, the attacks are stopped, and the international community--from humanitarian aid agencies to cease-fire monitors to U.N. investigators--has full, unfettered access to the region. We need to see real change--not rhetorical change, not change on paper, not change on some days not more of the same on others. And we need to see it right away.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Electricity Reliability Act of 2004, S. 2236. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and I hope that the Senate acts on this bill soon. Although we cannot agree on the comprehensive energy bill that has been before the Senate, we can agree on

many provisions in the bill. Mandatory reliability standards are a perfect example of what we all agree should be part of our national energy policy.

Our citizens deserve a reliable, safe power grid. This is one of the country's most pressing energy needs. We have to do all that we can to prevent blackouts like the one that hit the east coast and Midwest last August and the Electric Reliability Act of 2004 takes a crucial step toward that goal. The bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--the explicit authority to create mandatory electric reliability standards. FERC can also approve the formation of electric reliability organizations, which will, subject to FERC review, enforce these standards. Strong and enforceable electric reliability standards will help ensure that our citizens and businesses do not have to worry about their respective lives and livelihoods being disrupted by blackouts.

In fact, a joint investigation by a United States-Canadian task force found that the lack of mandatory reliability standards contributed to the August 14, 2003, blackout. This massive outage affected 50 million people in eight U.S. States and parts of Canada. The task force report found that an Ohio-based utility and regional grid manager together violated at least six reliability standards on the day of the blackout. Examples of the reliability violations that contributed to the blackout included: not reacting to a power line failure within 30 minutes, not notifying nearby systems of the transmission problems, failing to analyze what was happening to the grid, inadequately training operators, and failing to adequately monitor transmission stations. Since the industry is largely self-regulated, violations of these voluntary reliability standards carry no penalties. This legislation would hold utilities accountable for reliability violations.

Let's act now and pass this legislation before we face a blackout like we saw last summer. We should work together to pass the elements of the broader energy bill that are necessary and widely supported. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Cantwell's bill and to join me in asking that this legislation come to the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to explain my votes on two amendments that were offered to S. 150, the Internet access tax bill that the Senate debated last week. I was pleased to support the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, No. 3050. I support the renewable fuels title of this amendment and the measures that increase the supply of ethanol. I also support language to consolidate the number of reformulated gasoline blends. I have worked closely with Congressman Paul Ryan in an effort to reduce the number of Federal reformulated gasoline blends and increase gasoline supplies. In recent years, fuel supply shocks such as pipeline problems and refinery fires have contributed significantly to gasoline price spikes in southern Wisconsin. Chicago and southeast Wisconsin use a specialized blend of reformulated gasoline to meet Federal Clean Air Act requirements that is not used elsewhere in the country. When supplies of this type of gasoline run low, Wisconsin is unable to draw on supplies of gasoline from other areas.

I could not, however, support the amendment offered by the Senator

from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, No. 2051. This so-called ``scaled down'' version of the energy bill consists of 900 pages and contains many of the worst provisions of the H.R. 6 conference report that failed to get cloture last fall. The entire Wisconsin congressional delegation voted against the bill last fall, and I cannot support the amendment either.

In addition to its fiscal implications, I am deeply concerned that the amendment repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This critical act protects consumers against abuses in the utility industry. Repeal of PUHCA would leave ratepayers vulnerable and spur further consolidation in an industry that has already seen a number of mergers. Furthermore, the bill does not protect consumers from Enron-style electricity trading practices and market manipulation. The Senate recently went on record in support of an amendment by Senator Cantwell to bar such abusive practices and I am disappointed that the Domenici amendment fails to include similar protections.

Also the amendment has serious environmental impacts. For example, the amendment undercuts the Clean Air Act by postponing ozone attainment standards across the country. This issue was never considered in the House or Senate bill, but it was inserted in the energy conference report. This rewrite of the Clean Air Act is not fair to cities like Milwaukee that have devoted significant resources to reducing ozone and cleaning up their air. And as asthma rates across the country increase, this provision could severely undercut efforts to safeguard the air quality of our citizens.

In addition to undermining air quality protection, the amendment allows for siting of transmission lines in national parks, grants exemptions from the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act for oil and gas companies, and pays oil and gas companies for their costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

I am also concerned that the taxpayers would pay $2 billion in transition assistance for MTBE manufactures. MTBE is found in all 50 States, and high levels are affecting drinking water systems all over the Midwest, including 5,567 wells in 29 communities in Wisconsin, even though the State only used MTBE gasoline for the first few weeks of the phase I program that began in January 1995.

This amendment also fails to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The Senate energy bill contained a requirement that power companies provide at least 10 percent of their power from renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. The technical term is a renewable portfolio standard. The amendment doesn't contain any renewable portfolio. standard. There's no doubt that we can and should do better on renewable energy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

For these reasons, I supported the Daschle amendment that contained the energy bill's renewable fuels title, but I opposed the Domenici amendment. I appreciate the need to develop a new energy strategy for this country, and I hope that Congress will pass the portions of the energy bill legislation that have widespread support so that we can address the pressing energy needs of our country in a sensible way.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Elliott Maraniss, a journalist whose work invariably served the cause of justice. Though he passed away on May 1, his work, and his commitment to the community he served, will leave an indelible mark on our State.

Maraniss, who rose to become editor of Madison's Capital Times newspaper, first made his mark in Wisconsin as a reporter for that paper, with award-winning investigative stories about river pollution, controversy at the UW-Medical School, and a UW-Madison boxing scandal. He went on to serve as city editor, managing editor, and finally editor, a post he held from 1978 until he retired in 1983. As an editor he was known for being a mentor, for spotting talented new reporters, and for caring deeply about his staff.

His leadership and integrity in the newsroom were legendary, and it was on those qualities, as well as his journalistic skills, that he built his outstanding career.

His commitment to justice was lifelong, and he inspired many others through his work. A World War II veteran, he saw injustice firsthand in the still-segregated Army, where he served as captain of an all- African-American unit. Later in life he entered the political realm, working for Milwaukee Mayor Henry Maier after retiring from the Capital Times.

I extend my condolences to his wife, Mary, and to his family and friends. His passing is a great loss for all those who knew him, and for everyone who understands the powerful contributions that journalists can make when they are fiercely committed to the truth, and to the cause of justice. So today I join his many family and friends in paying tribute to his memory. He will be long remembered for his outstanding service to the Capital Times and to his community, and for his many contributions to the State of Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I share the sense of outrage and disgust that has been expressed by so many Americans since the allegations and horrifying pictures of deeply troubling abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have come to light.

I am particularly sickened by the damage that has been done to the brave men and women of the United States military. The depraved acts of a few risk tarnishing the reputation of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women who behave honorably every day, even in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. These acts also put our troops at risk, by casting them in the role of abusers, making it more difficult to gain the trust and cooperation of Iraqis. Anytime the Geneva Convention is violated, the framework of basic standards on which all military personnel and their families depend is weakened.

I am also troubled by the irreparable damage done to American power. Our power does not come only from military might or economic muscle. We also derive power from what we stand for. Our commitment to basic human rights, to human dignity, and to the rule of law gives us power to persuade and to lead and to inspire. When this commitment is called into question, American power is diminished, and this is a terrible loss.

Now that these appalling acts have been exposed and reported around the world, we must proceed to show the world something else--that our military, our political system, and our society do not condone this behavior, that we are capable of a full and transparent accounting for what has happened and how it has happened, that we will take action to correct the failures in the system, and that we are committed to addressing these abuses through the rule of law.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Harkin amendment, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.

The Bush administration's final overtime regulation is much the same as its proposed regulation. The largely cosmetic changes that the administration grudgingly made at the eleventh hour did not change the rule's result: the loss of overtime benefits for millions of American workers, many of whom rely on overtime to help support their families. Making a bad proposal a little better does not mean a good result for American workers. As a recent editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel rightly pointed out, ``. . . why hurt anybody? Gain for some workers

shouldn't mean pain for others.'' I could not agree more. And this rule will lead to uncertainty for millions of hard-working Americans and their families who rely on overtime pay to get by.

It is true that the new rule increases the minimum salary threshold to $23,660, thereby ensuring that workers who are earning less will be guaranteed overtime pay. While this is a positive step, it is regrettable that this increase does not keep up with inflation, especially since it has been 29 years since the last adjustment.

In addition, this rule exempts so-called ``highly compensated'' employees who earn more than $100,000 per year and have one job duty that can be classified as administrative, executive, or professional. This is a new exemption which is not indexed for inflation, thus leaving even more workers open to a loss of overtime benefits in the future.

But those who are in the most jeopardy of losing their overtime benefits may be those workers whose salaries fall between $23,660 and $100,000. These workers are not guaranteed overtime, and the new duties tests included in the final rule could strip overtime pay from millions of these low- and middle-income Americans.

The final rule changes the process by which a worker can be declared to be exempt from the wage and hour protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), thus opening the door to denial of overtime benefits to millions of workers who currently are entitled to this extra pay for working more than 40 hours per week.

In essence, this rule, which we will allow to move forward if we do not pass the Harkin amendment, will create a larger force of employees who can be required to work longer hours for less pay. This could also mean fewer opportunities for paid overtime for the workers who would remain eligible for it.

Who are these workers? They are veterans, registered nurses, journalists, financial services employees, assistant managers, team leaders, chefs, insurance claims adjusters, and computer employees, just to name a few. And several industries successfully lobbied the administration to include specific exemptions for their employees-- exemptions that have been pending in Congress for a number of years and that have not been adopted. And the rule contains a roadmap for employers who wish to find ways around paying overtime to those workers who are still eligible for it.

The administration's public relations campaign on this rule does not reflect the reality of this rule. It will deny overtime to millions. It will, despite the administration's claims to the contrary, have a negative effect on veterans, on blue collar workers, and on union members. I find it interesting that the Department of Labor's materials for this rule call it ``Fair Pay: Overtime Security for the 21st Century Workforce.'' There is little that is fair about this rule for the millions of workers who are poised to lose their overtime pay if this rule takes effect as scheduled in August.

I am also deeply concerned about the process by which this rule was finalized. A small number of Members of Congress and the administration were able to run roughshod over the will of a bipartisan majority of the Senate and the House to resuscitate this proposal by deleting language that would have blocked it from the omnibus spending bill. I regret that the administration resorted to veto threats and backroom negotiations to save this proposal, which is the latest in a series of assaults on working Americans that have been perpetrated by this administration. Right out of the gate, the President made it his first legislative priority to overturn a federal ergonomics standard that was more than ten years in the making. In addition, this administration has launched a campaign to aggressively contract out Federal jobs, systematically dismantle the Federal civil service system, gut worker protections, and undermine collective bargaining rights. And this administration contends that outsourcing jobs to other countries is good for the American economy.

With so many long-term unemployed workers and others working more than one job and depending on overtime just to make ends meet, it is unfortunate that the administration dug in its heels on a proposal to deny overtime to many of those who need it most. And it is unfortunate that the final rule does so little to improve the proposed rule, which a majority of the Senate and the House are on record against.

I urge support for the Harkin amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 2358, the Anti-Gang Act. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities.

Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The Anti-Gang Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics.

The Anti-Gang Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorney Generals to remain in public service and allow them to take their wealth of experience and use it to combat gang violence.

The Anti-Gang Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute that was never intended to be used against violent street gangs with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The Anti-Gang Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement before seeking an indictment and that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

Finally, the Anti-Gang Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence without being able to tell us why this is necessary and what effect it might have on the criminal justice system. With this review, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juveniles.

Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks and walk their streets without fearing that ever-spreading gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The Anti-Gang Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 2358, the Anti-Gang Act. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities.

Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The Anti-Gang Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics.

The Anti-Gang Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorney Generals to remain in public service and allow them to take their wealth of experience and use it to combat gang violence.

The Anti-Gang Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute that was never intended to be used against violent street gangs with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The Anti-Gang Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement before seeking an indictment and that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

Finally, the Anti-Gang Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence without being able to tell us why this is necessary and what effect it might have on the criminal justice system. With this review, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juveniles.

Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks and walk their streets without fearing that ever-spreading gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The Anti-Gang Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, people around the world are joining together to solemnly remember and honor the men, women and children who perished in the Armenian genocide. Eighty-none years ago, 1\1/2\ million Armenians were systematically massacred at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Over 500,000 more were forced to flee their homeland of 3,000 years. Before genocide was defined and codified in international law, Armenians experienced its horror.

Yet it appears that the international community did not learn the lessons of Armenia's genocide. Throughout the 20th century, the international community failed to act as governments in Germany, Yugoslavia and Rwanda attempted to methodically eliminate people because of their religion or ethnicity. Minority groups were abandoned by the international community in each instance to be overwhelmed by violence and despair. In Armenia, as in Rwanda and the Holocaust, the perpetrating governments scapegoated their minority groups for the difficulties they faced as societies. They justified their campaigns of hatred with political and economic reasons in an attempt to rationalize their depravity.

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

In the shadow of the Holocaust, in 1948, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. What Winston Churchill once called a ``crime without a name'', was now called ``genocide'' by the Convention and defined as ``acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.'' The Convention required its parties to create domestic legislation to hold perpetrators of genocide accountable for their actions and to place these perpetrators before domestic courts or international tribunals.

The international community has a long way to go in punishing and especially, preventing genocide. But we have made the first steps. As we move forward, we must learn the lessons of Armenia's genocide. Can we recognize the rhetorical veils of murderous leaders, thrown up to disguise the agenda at hand? Have we, the international community, learned that we must not stand by, paralyzed, as horrors occur, but work collectively to prevent and stop genocides from occurring? We owe the victims of the Armenian genocide this commitment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, today to introduce legislation that will help improve and streamline Federal support for community-based emergency medical services. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for local officials and EMS providers to help Federal agencies improve existing programs and future initiatives.

Congress has long recognized the important role played by EMS providers. However, Federal support for EMS has been unfocused and uncoordinated, with responsibility scattered among a number of different agencies. In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited the need to increase coordination between the federal agencies involved with EMS issues but not much progress has been made since that report was issued. The Federal Government doesn't even have a good handle on how much it is spending on EMS or what the needs are for EMS. The bill we introduce today is a good first step towards addressing the deficiencies in our current EMS policies.

This legislation establishes a federal interagency committee whose purpose will be to coordinate federal EMS activities, identify EMS needs, assure proper integration of EMS in homeland security planning, and make recommendations on improving and streamlining EMS support. Although Federal law, PL 107-188, called for the establishment of a working group on EMS, this legislation goes further in detailing the role and function of the interagency committee. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will certainly iron out any overlap that may exist.

This legislation also establishes an advisory council for the interagency committee that includes representatives from throughout the EMS community. The advisory committee, made up of non-Federal representatives from all EMS sectors and from both urban and rural areas, will provide guidance and input to the interagency committee on a variety of issues including the development of standards and national plans, expanding or creating grant programs, and improving and streamlining Federal EMS efforts. The advisory council is a critical component of this legislation because it is the channel through which local EMS practitioners can directly impact and help reform national EMS policy.

I want to thank the American Ambulance Association, the Association of Air Medical Services, the Emergency Nurses Association, the National Association of EMS Physicians, the National Association of State EMS Directors, and the National Registry of EMTs for their support of this bill. I also want to thank all of those Wisconsinites who provided so much helpful input in coming up with this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Marvin Birnbaum of the University of Wisconsin, Fire Chief Dave Bloom of the Town of Madison, and Dan Williams, chair of Wisconsin's EMS advisory board for their advice and guidance.

EMS providers are a critical component of our Nation's first responder network. We must act now to streamline and coordinate federal EMS support and work to better understand the needs of the EMS community. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, today to introduce legislation that will help improve and streamline Federal support for community-based emergency medical services. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for local officials and EMS providers to help Federal agencies improve existing programs and future initiatives.

Congress has long recognized the important role played by EMS providers. However, Federal support for EMS has been unfocused and uncoordinated, with responsibility scattered among a number of different agencies. In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited the need to increase coordination between the federal agencies involved with EMS issues but not much progress has been made since that report was issued. The Federal Government doesn't even have a good handle on how much it is spending on EMS or what the needs are for EMS. The bill we introduce today is a good first step towards addressing the deficiencies in our current EMS policies.

This legislation establishes a federal interagency committee whose purpose will be to coordinate federal EMS activities, identify EMS needs, assure proper integration of EMS in homeland security planning, and make recommendations on improving and streamlining EMS support. Although Federal law, PL 107-188, called for the establishment of a working group on EMS, this legislation goes further in detailing the role and function of the interagency committee. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will certainly iron out any overlap that may exist.

This legislation also establishes an advisory council for the interagency committee that includes representatives from throughout the EMS community. The advisory committee, made up of non-Federal representatives from all EMS sectors and from both urban and rural areas, will provide guidance and input to the interagency committee on a variety of issues including the development of standards and national plans, expanding or creating grant programs, and improving and streamlining Federal EMS efforts. The advisory council is a critical component of this legislation because it is the channel through which local EMS practitioners can directly impact and help reform national EMS policy.

I want to thank the American Ambulance Association, the Association of Air Medical Services, the Emergency Nurses Association, the National Association of EMS Physicians, the National Association of State EMS Directors, and the National Registry of EMTs for their support of this bill. I also want to thank all of those Wisconsinites who provided so much helpful input in coming up with this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Marvin Birnbaum of the University of Wisconsin, Fire Chief Dave Bloom of the Town of Madison, and Dan Williams, chair of Wisconsin's EMS advisory board for their advice and guidance.

EMS providers are a critical component of our Nation's first responder network. We must act now to streamline and coordinate federal EMS support and work to better understand the needs of the EMS community. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I want to speak today on S. 2290, the revised, but still misnamed, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. Reluctantly, I will oppose the motion to proceed to this bill.

I say ``reluctantly'' because I support the concept of a national trust fund to compensate victims of asbestos-related diseases and address the severe strain that cases brought by those victims have placed on our legal system and our economy. Ten thousand Americans now die each year--a rate approaching 30 deaths per day--from diseases caused by asbestos. My home State of Wisconsin ranks 16th in the Nation in asbestos-related deaths.

I was encouraged when the defendant companies in some of the many lawsuits that have been filed, their insurers, and organized labor began serious negotiations back in 2002 to try to develop legislation for a national trust fund that the Congress could enact on a consensus basis to address this serious problem. This was an issue that called out for a bipartisan solution.

Unfortunately, those discussions were short-circuited before an agreement could be reached. What began then was a process that has turned the asbestos issue into a partisan issue when it really shouldn't be. A bill very much slanted toward the defendants and insurers was introduced last spring by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Although I disagreed with the chairman's decision to call a halt to negotiations, I do give him credit for at least allowing the Judiciary Committee to work on the bill, in contrast to the process that was followed on the series of ill-advised medical malpractice bills that have been brought directly to the floor during this Congress. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing and then an extraordinary four meetings to mark up the bill. Two dozen amendments were debated and voted on.

The bill that emerged in July 2003 after that intensive work by the committee still did not win my support. But all of the committee members who voted against it agreed that it was much improved over the original bill. The committee's work could have been the foundation for further bipartisan negotiation that might have led, if all parties were willing to come to the table and compromise, to a bill that could be overwhelmingly approved by the Senate.

So what happened over the last 10 months? Well, the first thing that happened is that the insurers went to the Republican leadership and said they couldn't live with even the limited improvements that the committee approved. So no sooner had an amended bill come out of committee then its supporters started backing away. Instead of trying to make the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee more acceptable to victims of asbestos in a serious effort to solve what we all agree is a difficult and important problem, the proponents of this legislation went backward.

And so in many respects the bill that the Senate is being asked to take up is worse than the committee bill. Important amendments adopted in committee that provide some certainty that money will be available to future victims of the horrible diseases caused by asbestos, and we know with certainty that there will be thousands of such victims, were removed by the sponsors of S. 2290. By what definition does that represent ``fairness''?

Let me talk for a minute about some of the specific provisions that have led me to conclude that I cannot in good conscience vote to proceed to this bill.

The first issue is money. CBO estimates that between $124 billion and $136 billion will be needed to pay an expected 1.7 billion asbestos claims over the 27-year life of the fund. Some experts think that estimate might be too low. S. 2290 provides for a maximum of only $114 billion for the fund. The bill reported from the committee, as a result of amendments offered in committee by Senators Feinstein and Kohl, included total funding of $154 billion. How can it be fair for a compensation fund to be doomed to failure from the start because it is underfunded?

Another issue is related to the issue of the adequacy of the fund. Senator Biden offered an amendment that was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the committee. It basically said to people who have claims that if the fund isn't adequately funded they will not be left empty-handed. It called for a return to the tort system for claimants who do not receive the payments that the bill calls for. S. 2290 substitutes a much weaker sunset amendment that would leave victims waiting for years and years without compensation before they are permitted to again pursue their claims in court. How is that fair?

I am concerned in addition that this bill treats certain companies such as Halliburton very favorably by capping their liability to the fund at a fraction of what they have already set aside to pay claims to asbestos victims. These companies have already agreed to settle claims against them and agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation. Those settlements have been on hold as Congress considers this legislation and if it passes, the companies will save literally billions of dollars that they otherwise were prepared to pay to asbestos victims. How is that fair?

I am also very concerned that this bill would overturn longstanding settlements under which some victims have been receiving regular payments for years. How can it be fair to people who have settled their claims already, or who have even received jury verdicts in their favor that are now on appeal, to have to start over in an administrative process that could take years to get up and running and years to complete? An amendment offered by Senator Feinstein in committee would have postponed the effective date of the bill until the fund was up and running. That would have allowed at least some far-advanced cases to proceed to final judgment. The deletion of the Feinstein amendment is another step backward taken by the sponsors of this bill.

We have an asbestos crisis not only because lawsuits are threatening the financial well being of American companies but because people are getting sick and dying. Some companies knew that exposure to asbestos caused asbestosis, a tragic lung disease, as early as 1918. In 1966, the Director of Purchasing for Bendix Corporation, now a part of Honeywell, stated in an internal memo `` . . . if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products, why not die from it.'' There are countless other industry documents that have been uncovered to show that the industry knew it was endangering its workers' health by continuing to use asbestos. A 1958 National Gypsum Memo, for example, stated: ``Because just as certain as death and taxes is the fact that if you inhale asbestos dust you get asbestosis.''

We need to make sure that any national solution to the asbestos litigation issue keeps faith with people who have been injured by this dangerous product. And we now know that the problem is not limited to people who worked with asbestos. It is also the families of the men and women who

worked with asbestos who have contracted asbestos-related diseases. Even consumers who used hair dryers, electric blankets, attic insulation, home siding and ceiling and floor tiles have suffered injury from asbestos exposure. These victims need compensation, and this hazardous substance needs to be banned once and for all.

We all want to see a resolution to this crisis, we want these victims to get the compensation they deserve. That is why I am so disappointed in the final version of this bill. Instead of working toward a negotiated solution that the whole Senate can support, the sponsors of this bill have assured its failure by going backward. Again I ask, how is that fair? Reluctantly, I will vote against the motion to proceed, and I hope the message that comes from the failure of this bill is not that no solution to the asbestos problem is possible, but rather that the only way to reach a solution is to involve all the interested parties, and Senators from both sides of the aisle, and try to arrive at a truly fair bill.

Mr. President, Wisconsin has inspired some of the greatest conservationists this Nation has ever known. Wisconsinites have had a powerful influence on the environmental movement. I now hold the Senate seat held by Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, and a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. I am pleased that Wisconsin can lay claim to the genesis of Earth Day, a day of national and international remembrance of the importance of our natural resources and a clean environment. I know that the people of Wisconsin, living in such a beautiful and ecologically diverse State, feel a special connection to our natural resources and share a long tradition of our State government achieving excellence in its conservation policies.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Gaylord Nelson, a former member of this body and a distinguished former Governor of the State of Wisconsin, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for changing the consciousness of a nation. He is the living embodiment of the principle that one person can literally change the world.

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

And Senator Nelson, of course, was the founder of Earth Day. Thanks to him, here we are, 34 years later, taking time out of our lives to think about conservation. Earth Day is an event which in addition to changing the environmental consciousness of the country literally stopped the Senate. Members of both bodies voted to adjourn their respective Houses in the middle of the legislative week to attend Earth Day events, an adjournment that would be extremely rare today. Here in this body, the Congressional Record indicates, at 3:31 pm. on Tuesday, April 20, 1970, our colleague the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, adjourned the Senate until Friday, April 23, 1970. In the other body, Chamber action was adjourned from the middle of the day on April 21, 1970, the actual date of the first Earth Day, through April 23 of that year.

In addition to Gaylord Nelson, the list of Wisconsin environmentalists includes Sierra Club founder John Muir, whose birthday is the day before Earth Day. Also notable is the writer and conservationist Aldo Leopold, whose Sand County Almanac helped to galvanize the environmental movement. Finally, Wisconsin also produced Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society.

Conservation is part of our culture in Wisconsin, and the people Wisconsin are very environmentally savvy. Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72 counties, and protecting the environment is a top issue.

Earth Day has become an important part of who we are. From Milwaukee, WI, to Mumbai, India, millions of people across the world are taking Senator Nelson's legacy to heart. They are volunteering this weekend to conserve the environment--whether it is in their backyard, local river, or park.

I hope that on this Earth Day 2004, the Congress will re-dedicate itself to achieving the bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment that existed for nearly two decades. The Clean Water Act, for example, passed the U.S. Senate in 1971 by a vote of 86 to 0. When President Nixon vetoed it, the Senate overrode his veto, 52 to 12. The Endangered Species Act, which is under such attack right now, was passed by the Senate on a 92 to 0 vote in 1973.

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

In the upcoming months, I hope that Wisconsinites and citizens across America use this Earth Day to collect their thoughts and voice their opinions about pending Federal legislation and its impact on the environment. Wisconsinites value a clean environment, not just for purely aesthetic or philosophical purposes, but because a clean environment ensures that Wisconsin and the United States as a whole remains a good place to raise a family, start a business, and buy a home. It is important on this Earth Day 2004 that we keep the need for strong environmental laws in mind. Let's continue to move forward, not roll back.