Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am honored to be the lead Democratic cosponsor of this resolution to commemorate the life, achievements and contributions of Alan Reich.

I was greatly saddened, last week, to hear about the passing of this great and passionate advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. As many Senators know very well, Alan was the founder and president emeritus of the National Organization on Disability. Over the past 25 years, both he and the National Organization on Disability have been tremendously effective advocates for the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in all aspects of American life.

The achievements of Alan Reich, and the sheer breadth of his activism and leadership, are simply remarkable. While president of the National Organization on Disability, he built a broad coalition of disability groups that successfully fought for the inclusion of a statue of President Roosevelt in a wheelchair at the FDR Memorial. He spearheaded critical research to track the progress of Americans with disabilities in key areas of life. He founded and chaired the Paralysis Cure Research Foundation; was president of what became the National Spinal Cord Injury Association; and he founded the National Task Force on Disability. Alan also led the way in taking the disability rights movement into the international arena. He chaired the World Committee on Disability, and was the first individual using a wheelchair to address the United Nations General Assembly. For these and many other achievements, Alan was awarded the George Bush Medal this past July.

I want to express my own profound respect for this remarkable individual and for all that he accomplished in his life. He played a pivotal role in the disability rights revolution that has transformed this country in important ways in recent decades. He improved the lives of countless individuals with disabilities, both in this country and throughout the world. And, perhaps best of all, he has left a living legacy in the form of the advocacy organizations he founded, which will now continue his work into the future.

Alan Reich was a wonderful advocate and a great American. He fought with all his heart to win equity, access, and opportunity for people with disabilities. He changed countless lives, and made America a much better and fairer society. For all these reasons, the United States Senate honors Alan Reich, today, with this resolution expressing our respect and appreciation.

I send amendment No. 2665 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment does three things. One, it stops next year's scheduled phaseout of the so-called PEP and Pease provisions, a phaseout that would cost the

Treasury $29 billion in the first 5 years and explodes to $146 billion in 10 years after that. Over half of this money goes to people making over $1 million a year.

What I would do with that is reduce the deficit by $146 billion over that decade and, secondly, to increase the additional child care credit, making over 600,000 working families eligible and raising the amount that over 6 million families get for the additional child care credit. These are people who are making around the minimum wage.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Chairman Chambliss in introducing legislation to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the

LRTAP POPs Protocol, and the Rotterdam PIC Protocol. These three agreements provide an international framework for controlling and eliminating the use of chemicals that have the greatest potential for long-term environmental damage. These persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, are chemicals that do not easily break down in the environment. As a result, they tend to move across international boundaries and bio- accumulate--in other words, they travel up the food chain. This legislation modifies existing U.S. law under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to bring us into compliance with these agreements with regard to chemicals used in agriculture. Implementation of the agreements will also require modification of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA.

These conventions and protocols have already entered into force. But at this point, though the United States is a signatory to all of them, we have not ratified them. All of the chemicals that are listed in the agreement are already banned or tightly controlled under U.S. law, but the Stockholm Convention's Review Committee just met in Geneva and further meetings are planned, and decisions are being made without our delegation able to fully participate as a party to the agreement. The United States needs to ratify the convention in order to have a voice in this process.

Our goal in writing this legislation is narrow. It has not been our intention to open up FIFRA as part of this process, but only to craft those changes compelled by our international commitments. That is not to say that FIFRA is perfect or could not be improved and strengthened--only that this is not the occasion to launch into changing the domestic law beyond the narrow goal of compliance with these agreements.

Some have urged that this measure provide for automatic processes triggered by the decisions of the review committee overseeing the Stockholm Convention. For instance, if the review committee lists a chemical, they would have the United States automatically take steps to regulate or ban the chemical domestically. I have sympathy with that approach, and I would hope that our existing environmental laws would be used to restrict the use of such a chemical before international action, as they have with all the initial chemicals listed in the Stockholm Convention.

But that is not what is called for in the Stockholm Convention. The convention that this legislation will implement does not compel parties to adopt new chemicals added to the convention in future years. Instead, the parties are allowed to opt in to the convention's restrictions. The legislation we are introducing today would allow for any information or studies generated as part of the international process to be used as part of a domestic regulatory action on the chemical, but would not provide an automatic process that compelled the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to take action. In essence, we are allowing the EPA to move forward and take action on a chemical if the case made in the international review for a ban is strong, and not make EPA reinvent the wheel and generate new data to back up their conclusions, while at the same time, not mandating EPA action to ban or regulate a chemical. This legislation strikes a fair balance and one that is consistent with the limited goal we have in this process to bring FIFRA into compliance with our international obligations.

The most controversial aspects of this legislation are the provisions that deal with the process by which new chemicals are brought under the convention's control. It is critically important that the position of the United States in the international regulation of chemicals take into account the views of all parties--pesticide manufacturers, farmers, environmental scientists, State regulators--everyone who has a stake in the process.

Under the Stockholm Convention, the process of listing new POPs chemicals follows a three-part process. The review committee determines whether a chemical satisfies the agreed screening criteria in the convention; if the criteria are satisfied, a risk profile is prepared; if on the basis of the risk profile, it is determined that global action is required, the committee or parties would consider listing the chemical.

In each of these stages, the U.S. position should be informed by formal notice and comment periods as provided in existing law. The Federal notice and comment process is open, well developed, and well understood by stakeholders in the process. If this process is optional, there is the risk that the U.S. position could be formed without taking into account important views. While nothing in this legislation dictates that any particular position in this established process be taken by the administration, there is a requirement that the administration use this process to collect information to inform its position in the international body regarding any particular chemical.

The administration's draft of this legislation gave the EPA Administrator permission to initiate a notice and comment period but did not require it. The argument for this position was a constitutional claim that the executive's authority over negotiations with other nations includes a right to rely on whatever information that the president chooses to use. The ``remedy'' for negotiating a faulty treaty, according to the letter received from the Department of Justice, is for the Senate to refuse to consent to the treaty.

This position is not consistent with existing Federal law and is impractical particularly in a process like this one, where the negotiation in question would never be subject to ratification by the Senate. My concern with this constitutional theory resulted in an exchange of correspondence last year, when this bill was being drafted by then-Chairman Cochran.

I wrote to then-Administrator Michael Leavitt at the EPA, asking for a written explanation of the administration's position on this issue. This resulted in two letters, one from Administrator Leavitt on behalf of the EPA dated March 25, 2004, and one from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella on behalf of the Department of Justice dated March 25, 2004. Finally, I requested an analysis of the constitutional issues raised by this provision from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service and received a memorandum dated March 30, 2004. I will offer all of these letters and the CRS memorandum for inclusion in the Record at the end of my statement.

Having reviewed all this material, I find that the administration's position is not well supported, and I would urge the Senate to reject any effort to include it in this legislation. The CRS memorandum on the EPA draft summarizes the state of the law as follows:

Stated succinctly, the separation of powers doctrine ``implicit in the Constitution and well established in case law, forbids Congress from infringing upon the Executive Branch's ability to perform its traditional functions.'' The Supreme Court has established that in determining whether an act of Congress has violated the doctrine, ``the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.''

The memo goes on to state that it is ``difficult to see how a mandatory notice and comment requirement would implicate this traditional executive function.'' The memorandum concludes that ``it does not appear that a mandatory notice and comment requirement would present any substantive separation of powers concerns.'' Clearly, there is no merit to the Justice Department's contention that mandatory notice and comment would be an unconstitutional intrusion into the President's exclusive prerogative over foreign policy. Clearly, future steps taken domestically to carry out these international agreements should be informed by the views of all stakeholders and build the record through the notice and comment procedure for domestic implementation of any international action. This legislation makes the right choice by mandating notice and comment.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with Chairman Chambliss on this legislation, and with our committee's previous chair, Senator Cochran, whose staff worked tirelessly to develop this legislation. I am hopeful that we can work together with the other body to reach agreement on implementing legislation along the lines of this bill,

that will clear the way for ratification of the Stockholm Convention.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter to Administrator Michael Leavitt, his response from March 25, 2004, the response to the same letter by William Moschella on behalf of the Justice Department, and the memorandum of law from the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Chairman Chambliss in introducing legislation to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the

LRTAP POPs Protocol, and the Rotterdam PIC Protocol. These three agreements provide an international framework for controlling and eliminating the use of chemicals that have the greatest potential for long-term environmental damage. These persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, are chemicals that do not easily break down in the environment. As a result, they tend to move across international boundaries and bio- accumulate--in other words, they travel up the food chain. This legislation modifies existing U.S. law under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to bring us into compliance with these agreements with regard to chemicals used in agriculture. Implementation of the agreements will also require modification of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA.

These conventions and protocols have already entered into force. But at this point, though the United States is a signatory to all of them, we have not ratified them. All of the chemicals that are listed in the agreement are already banned or tightly controlled under U.S. law, but the Stockholm Convention's Review Committee just met in Geneva and further meetings are planned, and decisions are being made without our delegation able to fully participate as a party to the agreement. The United States needs to ratify the convention in order to have a voice in this process.

Our goal in writing this legislation is narrow. It has not been our intention to open up FIFRA as part of this process, but only to craft those changes compelled by our international commitments. That is not to say that FIFRA is perfect or could not be improved and strengthened--only that this is not the occasion to launch into changing the domestic law beyond the narrow goal of compliance with these agreements.

Some have urged that this measure provide for automatic processes triggered by the decisions of the review committee overseeing the Stockholm Convention. For instance, if the review committee lists a chemical, they would have the United States automatically take steps to regulate or ban the chemical domestically. I have sympathy with that approach, and I would hope that our existing environmental laws would be used to restrict the use of such a chemical before international action, as they have with all the initial chemicals listed in the Stockholm Convention.

But that is not what is called for in the Stockholm Convention. The convention that this legislation will implement does not compel parties to adopt new chemicals added to the convention in future years. Instead, the parties are allowed to opt in to the convention's restrictions. The legislation we are introducing today would allow for any information or studies generated as part of the international process to be used as part of a domestic regulatory action on the chemical, but would not provide an automatic process that compelled the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to take action. In essence, we are allowing the EPA to move forward and take action on a chemical if the case made in the international review for a ban is strong, and not make EPA reinvent the wheel and generate new data to back up their conclusions, while at the same time, not mandating EPA action to ban or regulate a chemical. This legislation strikes a fair balance and one that is consistent with the limited goal we have in this process to bring FIFRA into compliance with our international obligations.

The most controversial aspects of this legislation are the provisions that deal with the process by which new chemicals are brought under the convention's control. It is critically important that the position of the United States in the international regulation of chemicals take into account the views of all parties--pesticide manufacturers, farmers, environmental scientists, State regulators--everyone who has a stake in the process.

Under the Stockholm Convention, the process of listing new POPs chemicals follows a three-part process. The review committee determines whether a chemical satisfies the agreed screening criteria in the convention; if the criteria are satisfied, a risk profile is prepared; if on the basis of the risk profile, it is determined that global action is required, the committee or parties would consider listing the chemical.

In each of these stages, the U.S. position should be informed by formal notice and comment periods as provided in existing law. The Federal notice and comment process is open, well developed, and well understood by stakeholders in the process. If this process is optional, there is the risk that the U.S. position could be formed without taking into account important views. While nothing in this legislation dictates that any particular position in this established process be taken by the administration, there is a requirement that the administration use this process to collect information to inform its position in the international body regarding any particular chemical.

The administration's draft of this legislation gave the EPA Administrator permission to initiate a notice and comment period but did not require it. The argument for this position was a constitutional claim that the executive's authority over negotiations with other nations includes a right to rely on whatever information that the president chooses to use. The ``remedy'' for negotiating a faulty treaty, according to the letter received from the Department of Justice, is for the Senate to refuse to consent to the treaty.

This position is not consistent with existing Federal law and is impractical particularly in a process like this one, where the negotiation in question would never be subject to ratification by the Senate. My concern with this constitutional theory resulted in an exchange of correspondence last year, when this bill was being drafted by then-Chairman Cochran.

I wrote to then-Administrator Michael Leavitt at the EPA, asking for a written explanation of the administration's position on this issue. This resulted in two letters, one from Administrator Leavitt on behalf of the EPA dated March 25, 2004, and one from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella on behalf of the Department of Justice dated March 25, 2004. Finally, I requested an analysis of the constitutional issues raised by this provision from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service and received a memorandum dated March 30, 2004. I will offer all of these letters and the CRS memorandum for inclusion in the Record at the end of my statement.

Having reviewed all this material, I find that the administration's position is not well supported, and I would urge the Senate to reject any effort to include it in this legislation. The CRS memorandum on the EPA draft summarizes the state of the law as follows:

Stated succinctly, the separation of powers doctrine ``implicit in the Constitution and well established in case law, forbids Congress from infringing upon the Executive Branch's ability to perform its traditional functions.'' The Supreme Court has established that in determining whether an act of Congress has violated the doctrine, ``the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.''

The memo goes on to state that it is ``difficult to see how a mandatory notice and comment requirement would implicate this traditional executive function.'' The memorandum concludes that ``it does not appear that a mandatory notice and comment requirement would present any substantive separation of powers concerns.'' Clearly, there is no merit to the Justice Department's contention that mandatory notice and comment would be an unconstitutional intrusion into the President's exclusive prerogative over foreign policy. Clearly, future steps taken domestically to carry out these international agreements should be informed by the views of all stakeholders and build the record through the notice and comment procedure for domestic implementation of any international action. This legislation makes the right choice by mandating notice and comment.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with Chairman Chambliss on this legislation, and with our committee's previous chair, Senator Cochran, whose staff worked tirelessly to develop this legislation. I am hopeful that we can work together with the other body to reach agreement on implementing legislation along the lines of this bill,

that will clear the way for ratification of the Stockholm Convention.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter to Administrator Michael Leavitt, his response from March 25, 2004, the response to the same letter by William Moschella on behalf of the Justice Department, and the memorandum of law from the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. President, I appreciate that this is a tough, complex bill. I know that the HELP and Finance Committees have worked hard to make this a bipartisan measure and worked to include important provisions to help multiemployer pensions alongside single employer pensions, and I appreciate those efforts. There are some very useful provisions, here, that will help employers to fund pension plans predictably and fully--and to do so when times are good, so we can avoid crash landings when times are bad.

I rise to address the provisions in the bill on an issue very close to my heart: protecting workers in conversions to cash balance plans. I am pleased that we were able to reach a general consensus in this legislation on the cash balance issue. Of course, this compromise is not 100 percent of what I wanted, nor is it 100 percent of what my colleagues on the other side of this issue may have desired. But it is a solid bipartisan compromise. I am coming to the floor, today, to state why I strongly support the provisions in the bill before us, and to explain why I will do everything in my power to oppose any effort to weaken this legislation by giving retroactive approval to cash balance plans that have already been adopted, no matter how badly workers were treated in the conversion.

This is not a hypothetical conversation. Unfortunately, over the last decade, literally millions of employees have seen their traditional defined benefit plans converted into cash balance plans. And, in the process, many have seen their benefits significantly eroded. This erosion of benefits falls primarily on the backs of older workers, who can have their benefits reduced by many thousands of dollars.

The HELP-Finance compromise measure would fix this problem by requiring that, in the future, all cash balance plans must have a strong basic structure that provides some predictable level of wage replacement for workers, and by prohibiting companies from ``wearing- away'' or eroding the value of the benefits of their older workers, including early retirement benefits. Furthermore, the HELP-Finance compromise recognizes the problem workers face when they find the pension plan they had long counted on has suddenly been turned on its head, and gives people a grace period to continue to accrue benefits in the old plan while they make decisions for the future.

I should back up here, and describe this very complicated issue. In the early 1990s, a groundswell of companies started changing from traditional defined-benefit pension plans to ``cash balance'' pension plans. A cash balance pension is a hybrid between a defined benefit and defined contribution plan. Like a defined benefit plan, it is insured by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, and an employer automatically contributes some percent of an employee's pay to a hypothetical guaranteed account for the worker. This account then earns interest. Most defined benefit plans, however, calculate your benefit at retirement as some percent of your final average pay multiplied by the number of years you worked for the company.

Cash balance plans are different: in a cash balance plan an employer contributes a certain percentage of your paycheck to an account and then credits that account with interest. In that regard, a cash balance plan looks a lot more like your typical 401(k) plan, since you have a hypothetical account that you can watch grow over time.

As I noted earlier, during the 1990s, many companies began moving away from traditional defined benefit plans, and toward cash balance plans, for a variety of reasons. Many companies said cash balance plans would be easier for benefits managers to calculate, and easier for workers to understand. We were told the plans would better serve our Nation's new, more mobile workforce.

Unfortunately, many workers found there was often a different motivation for the conversions: to cut benefits. Older, retiring workers covered by these conversions learned, too late, that their retirement benefit was far less than they had expected.

The pension conversions eroded the benefits employees thought they had already earned. One way to erode benefits was to base benefits on a career average instead of highest years of pay average. It throws pay from when an employee was younger and earning less money into the average used for the pension. The motivation here is obvious. This will reduce the benefits that workers can expect to get toward the end of their lives. Then, it will ``wear away'' the benefits that workers already earned.

What is wear-away? Right now, under pension law, an employer cannot take away money an employee has already earned. If I leave a company tomorrow, I'll get the full value of everything it

promised me up to that point. But in a cash balance conversion, as some employers have done the shift from a defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan, they have set up the new account balance at a lower level than the worker had previously accrued or earned in the old defined benefit account. Wear away happens when no new pension funds are added to what was already accrued till the value of the old pension is worn away to reach the level it would have been under the new cash balance plan. The effect? An older worker effectively earns nothing towards their pension for years, while younger workers do.

The length of time it takes for an employee to make up what has been lost is a long time because the wear-away is so significant. Here is a helpful chart from the GAO. This chart shows in the first column, a hypothetical 45-year-old's early retirement subsidy. It is frozen, because the plan is converted. Now, look where she started out under the cash balance formula. It takes her all these years to finally catch up to what she had in the first place. All I am saying is that she should start out in the new plan at the same place she left off in the old plan. Her 30-year-old coworker is getting money added to his account. Why shouldn't she?

The other problem in converting from a traditional plan to a cash balance plan is a complete reversal of the plan formula--so people lose a big chunk of their expected benefits. This is how benefits are accrued under a cash balance plan versus a regular plan. Can you honestly look at these rates of accrual and say that no one thought that there might be a problem for older workers who get caught in the middle, here, and get the downside of both plans? They get the front end of a back-loaded plan, and the back end of a front-loaded plan. Maybe these CFOs are just really bad at math--went to Wharton Business School, but still can't add. I don't know.

Employers are claiming that these are great plans for workers. Sure, they are better than plan termination. But, they turn traditional pensions on their head, taking benefits from older workers and redirecting them to younger folks. Then they say these plans are so terrific for younger workers, but in reality 40 percent of people in these plans never see any benefit at all because they didn't even work at a company long enough to vest.

This is, was, and always will be age discrimination. And it is something that Congress has never before acted to approve. After these injustices were exposed in 1999, I introduced legislation to ban wear- away. While it did not pass, it raised the profile of this problem. That September, the Treasury Department stopped issuing letters of determination stating that these plans meet some basic IRS standards out of concern over how workers were losing out in conversions.

In 2000, the Senate unanimously passed my sense of the Senate resolution saying that it is unfair for older workers to see the benefits they have worked for eroded or worn-away in cash balance conversions. That sense of the Senate state that: ``For a number of years after a conversion, the cash balance or other hybrid benefit formula may result in a period of ``wear away'' during which older and longer-service participants earn no additional benefits.''

It said: ``Federal law should continue to prohibit pension plan participants from being discriminated against on the basis of age in the provision of pension benefits.''

The Senate agreed, in 2000, that: ``It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this resolution assume that pension plan participants whose plans are changed to cause older or longer-service workers to earn less retirement income, including conversions to ``cash balance plans,'' should receive additional protection than what is currently provided, and Congress should act this year to address this important issue. In particular, at a minimum: (1) all pension plan participants should receive adequate, accurate, and timely notice of any change to a plan that will cause participants to earn less retirement income in the future; and (2) pension plans that are changed to a cash balance or other hybrid formula should not be permitted to ``wear away'' participants'' benefits in such a manner that older and longer-service participants earn no additional pension benefits for a period of time after the change.

In 2003, the House and Senate both passed an amendment to the Treasury-Transportation Appropriations measure to block Treasury from promulgating a proposed rule that would have blessed these plans, because they left room for age discrimination. That provision was changed in conference to instead direct Treasury to propose legislation that would help workers caught up in these conversions, and Treasury did so. Treasury sent up a bill that said you can convert to a cash balance plan, but only if you don't wear away currently accrued benefits, and only if you allow people to accrue benefits in the old plan for 5 years after the conversion. Now this legislation did not go quite as far as my bill, but it did firmly state that wear away is unacceptable. It also acknowledged that these conversions result in a serious loss of expected benefits, and some transition period is necessary to help older workers.

Prior to Treasury Secretary John Snow's confirmation vote, Senator Durbin and I asked him to come to the Senate and talk with us about his intentions on cash balance. He said that fairness and equity would guide the rule of law, and that he would work to protect the workers. After all, when he was CEO of CSX railroad, he put in a cash balance plan. But he gave everyone who worked there a choice between the old and new plans.

His proposed legislation was much fairer to workers than the regulation that had been proposed during the gap between Secretary O'Neill's tenure and Mr. Snow's nomination.

The HELP-Finance bill continues to uphold the principle that has long been supported here in Congress: Cash balance conversions should only be allowed if they are done right, without allowing companies to gouge older workers.

The bipartisan compromise in this bill guarantees this by prohibiting wear-away in future conversions. It requires employers to give older workers a grace period during which they can continue to accrue benefits in the old plan. It says that, because cash balance plans weren't in fact as portable as advertised, we need to make them vest faster so that they actually do provide the benefits to younger workers that have been advertised.

This compromise is very similar to the legislation proposed by the Treasury Department that I outlined above. It is the exact same language as the Frist-Grassley-Baucus-Lott amendment in the Finance Committee's pension markup. It is an excellent example of finding common ground, which is exactly what we should do on this issue. This is not a partisan issue. Retirement security matters to everyone. Keeping promises to workers is critical to our workplace climate. Likewise, it is important for workers to be loyal to their employers. Preserving this tradition is critical to maintaining a skilled, productive workforce.

Turning to another issue, I am pleased that the managers of this bill have decided not to accept any proposals that would amend the fiduciary standards in ERISA to allow pensions to invest in riskier investments, and engender conflicts of interest for pension fund managers. These proposals will expose the retirement income of millions of pension plan participants and beneficiaries to the risk of loss from self-dealing, conflicts of interest and other abuses that have been prevented by ERISA for the last 30 years. Under current regulations, if 25 percent or more of a hedge fund's assets come from employee benefit plans, including private-sector, public-sector and foreign benefit plans, the investment manager must comply with ERISA. The hedge fund industry would like to weaken that standard greatly by no longer counting public and foreign plan assets and increasing the threshold to at least 50 percent--and as much as 75 percent in some cases.

Part of the reason Congress enacted ERISA in the first place were numerous findings by Congress of pension fund mismanagement. We put fiduciary standards in place to prevent exactly these kinds of conflicts of interests and dangerous financial dealings. I can't understand why at a time when we clearly need to tighten those standards how anyone could work to loosen them.

For too long, pension funds have been seen as a cash cow for CFOs to play

with to help bolster the bottom line. Questionable enough when times are good, these methods can be disastrous when investment schemes don't pan out.

I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an excellent article in Congressional Quarterly from September 3, 2005. This article really lays out the basis for much of the so called ``perfect storm'' we are facing today with pension funding. For the past few years, there have been numerous reports about money evaporating from pension plans. According to those reports, pension funds were being depleted through no fault of those who managed them, but simply because liabilities were increasing exponentially because of the sinking 30-year Treasury rate and the drop in the stock market.

What these stories left out, however, is the fact that decisions made by pension managers contributed significantly to the problem. Beginning in the early 1990s, stocks began to make up a much bigger share of plan assets than they ever had in the past. Stocks went from making up 44 percent of pension plan investments in 1980 to 62 percent in 2004.

Why the shift? According to Bradley Belt at PBGC, interest rates in the 90s were generating 25 percent to 30 percent returns to plans--in other words, investing in stocks were generating so much revenue that on paper, these plans no longer looked like a cost to the company, but instead appeared to be generating profits.

But as we all know, what goes up must often come down. This gamble with the pension security of millions of Americans resulted in massive losses when stocks fell. The PBGC is now in crisis in large measure because of these investment decisions--which is why we are here on the floor trying to figure out how to shore it up.

Why do I bring this all up? Some of my colleagues are talking about making it even easier to invest in even riskier investment vehicles. The irony of pushing a proposal backed by the hedge funds onto a bill to rescue a drowning PBGC and revive a struggling defined benefit pension system is beyond comprehension.

This is absolutely not the time to weaken requirements on pension asset investments. It's no secret that we are in the position we are in because of lax standards in the past. Loosening them in the future will be absolutely disastrous.

This bill cuts over $200 million from the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program and over $120 million from the COPS Program. These cuts follow on 3 previous years of cuts that have decimated these important and successful law enforcement assistance programs.

In 2002, Byrne was funded at $994 million. Next year, it will be funded at only $416 million--a 60 percent cut.

I am also dismayed that after my amendment to add $34 million in funding to legal services programs passed the Senate, not a single dollar was included in the conference report. Meanwhile a study earlier this year found that over half those eligible for legal aid cannot receive the help they need with critical issues including custody, child support, housing, and more critically right now, navigating hurricane related bureaucracy.

These programs have now been cut so severely that law enforcement in my State will likely be left with no alternatives to layoffs. That simply isn't acceptable. While I will be voting for this conference report because I believe that the appropriators did the best they could within the situation they faced, I want to serve notice on the Senate that we must restore funding to local law enforcement grant programs and to legal assistance next year.

The fault for these drastic cuts to law enforcement programs lies directly with the President and with every Member of Congress who voted for his budget that cut $1.3 billion in law enforcement funding. Appropriators only get a certain amount of money to work with, and that money is set by the budget. It was literally impossible for appropriators to restore all of the $1.3 billion in direct help for law enforcement including over $150 million in cuts to victims, over $300 million in assistance to States overwhelmed with illegal aliens, over $150 million in cuts to juvenile justice programs, almost $500 million in cuts to the COPS Program and $800 million in cuts to the Byrne Program.

It is simply outrageous that 54 Members of this Senate voted not to restore this funding during the budget process and that all 55 Republicans voted for a budget that eliminated this funding. Any one of those 55 people who stands up here and complains about these cuts is a hypocrite because they allowed it to happen.

In my State of Iowa, these cuts that will mean a 42-percent reduction in the amount of Byrne funding available statewide from $4.6 million last year, down from $6.2 million the year before, to only $2.6 million. We will receive only $2.6 million to fund 25 drug task forces, 16 offender treatment programs, and 9 early intervention programs. These cuts will come as my State continues to be in the middle of a meth epidemic.

Our preliminary estimates are that this is going to mean the loss of 27 drug task force salaries and corresponding 1300 fewer arrests. It will mean layoffs. There are no longer any alternatives. It will also mean the loss of 22 Byrne funded programs including innovative and successful treatment programs. These cuts will lead to at least 1,200 fewer meth addicts in prison receiving drug treatment. The result will be to put addicts back on the streets where there crimes will escalate and drive up the costs of prosecuting and incarcerating them the next time around.

These cuts will be devastating. Between fiscal year 2003 and 2005 we had already slashed over $1 billion in direct help to local law enforcement officers. How much more can we expect our law enforcement officers to take?

It is simply amazing to me that this administration and this Congress could be so foolish as to slash funds from programs that work. Between 1993 and 2003, violent crime in this country declined by more than 50 percent--from 49.1 to 22.3 incidents of violence per 1,000 persons. This is the exact same period of time when we provided over $1 billion to the COPS and Byrne programs alone.

Even after cuts to the program, last year the Byrne Program funded 4,316 cops and prosecutors working on 764 drug enforcement task forces nationally. Byrne funding led to 130,000 drug arrests in 32 States, the seizure of 136 tons of illegal drugs, the confiscation of over 7,000 weapons, and the seizure of 7,691 meth labs. It is simply crazy that we are slashing over $200 million from this program in this bill.

Mr. President, Iowans are a big hearted, generous people, especially toward people in need. And citizens of my State proved this, once again, by extending a helping hand to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Some Iowans as individuals or in organized groups--traveled directly to the region to give assistance in their areas of expertise. Other collected funds and supplies to send to the gulf coast region. Still others helped to welcome more than 1,400 evacuees who made their way to Iowa. And, of course, countless Iowans reached into their bank accounts to contribute to the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other organizations participating in the relief effort.

I would like to mention at least a few of the individuals and groups that went far beyond the call of duty in the aftermath of Katrina.

Even before Katrina made landfall--within 2 hours of receiving an emergency call--the Iowa-1 Disaster Medical Assistance Team based in Kirkwood, IA, began making its way to the gulf. Commanded by Dave Wilson, this team of rapid-response medical professionals set up headquarters in Bay St. Louis and Waveland, MS. In the first 14 days after the Hurricane hit, they took care of more than 2,700 patients. Their facilities were equipped to care for only 125 patients a day, but, on some days, the team cared for as many as 450 people.

Another Disaster Medical Assistance Team from Iowa, this one consisting of 30 members, helped to turn an abandoned hospital in Baton Rouge, LA into a full-fledged emergency room hospital. Key members of this team were Beth Boyd of Nevada, IA; Melissa Groet of Oskaloosa; and Kevin Long of Des Moines. A smaller crew from this DMAT team, all of them environmental health experts, deployed to rural Louisiana where they played a critical role in getting public water systems back online.

Some 140 members of the Iowa Army and Air National Guard deployed from Camp Dodge to the gulf region in a convoy of fuel tankers, water tankers, food and water trucks, and other much-needed equipment. Dubbed ``Joint Task Force Iowa,'' their mission was to provide medical, logistics, and water-purification support in Mississippi. In addition, the 185th Air Refueling Wing of the Iowa National Guard provided evacuation, transport, security, and fuel-handling missions from its base in Sioux City.

Meanwhile, back in Iowa, thousands of Iowans went into action in those initial days and weeks after Katrina hit the gulf. For example, the Iowa Jaycees collected enough supplies to fill 20 semi tractor trailers bound for Louisiana. Half of the semis carried clean drinking water, and the others carried diapers, baby wipes, batteries, hygiene products, canned food, and much more, all bound for Louisiana. Jaycee chapters all across Iowa contributed to this magnificent effort.

So many individual Iowans stood out as profiles in compassion during this difficult time. For example, Pastor Rod Bradley of the True Bible Baptist Church personally made three trips by car to pick up evacuees in Gonzales, LA. Wesley Jones traveled from Iowa to the gulf to help clear away debris. And school children in LeClaire, IA, helped evacuee children to adjust to their new school, and sold homemade bracelets to raise money for the evacuee families.

Mr. President, obviously, these are just snapshots. I cannot possibly name all the people from my State who gave generously of their time, talents, and energy to assist the victims of Katrina. Thousands of Iowans opened their hearts, their homes, and their pocketbooks. I simply want to take this time to thank them--the named and the unnamed for their amazing response to this tragedy. They have done Iowa proud, and I am deeply grateful to them for their service and sacrifice.

Mr. President, 2 years ago, after the Washington Post first reported that ``two senior White House officials'' had exposed Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert operative of the Central Intelligence Agency, I repeatedly came to the Senate floor to call on President Bush to act quickly to identify the leakers.

After all, this was a potentially illegal act committed by ``senior White House officials.'' This should have outraged everyone at the White House. President Bush should have taken steps to identity the perpetrators forthwith.

Bear in mind that the number of ``senior White House officials'' with the appropriate security clearances and access to knowledge about Ms. Wilson's identity could be counted on one hand--two hands at a maximum. If Mr. Bush had been serious about identifying the perpetrators, those 5 to 10 ``senior White House officials'' could have been immediately summoned to the Oval Office and questioned by the President. This matter would have been resolved literally within 24 hours.

But that did not happen. There was no outrage. There was no internal investigation. There was no angry President Bush demanding answers from his senior aides. Instead, we have had more than 2 years of concealment, coverup, and contempt.

Well, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has now broken that coverup wide open. Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, Scooter Libby, has been indicted for lying and obstructing justice in order to conceal his role as one of the two leakers. ``Official A,'' the second leaker, is President Bush's top aide, Karl Rove, according to multiple reports in the media, quoting senior White House sources.

But let's be clear, Mr. President, this is about more than Mr. Libby repeatedly lying about his role in leaking a CIA agent's identity; this is about the Bush administration hiding the fact that it manipulated and manufactured intelligence in order to justify the war in Iraq. This is about the Bush administration stopping at nothing to attack and discredit anyone who dared to question its efforts to ``fix'' the intelligence. This is about the United States of America being led to war under false pretenses.

Only one person in this enterprise, Mr. Libby, has been indicted so far--though Mr. Rove remains under investigation. But the issue here is not strictly: Who perpetrated a criminal offense? The issue is: Who else participated in the hardball political campaign to discredit and punish Ambassador Wilson--and who instigated that campaign?

According to Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment, Vice President Cheney's office was the hub of a concerted effort to gather information about Ambassador Wilson and to counter the assertions made in his famous New York Times op-ed. Indeed, according to the indictment, it was none other than Vice President Dick Cheney himself who first told Mr. Libby about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA operative and wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson.

Again according to the indictment, on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby flew with the Vice President on Air Force Two, and one of the issues discussed on board was how to deal with the news media. Just hours later, the indictment says, Mr. Libby told two reporters about Mrs. Wilson's status as a CIA agent.

So this gives rise to several obvious questions: What did Vice President Cheney know, and when did he know it? Why did Mr. Libby lie, saying that he first learned about Mrs. Wilson's identity from reporters? Was he trying to conceal a broader effort, involving the Vice President, to go after Ambassador Wilson?

Vice President Cheney owes a full explanation to the American people.

Bear in mind that it was Mr. Cheney who was most aggressive in pushing the CIA to come up with intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq. The CIA told him definitively that there was no meeting in Vienna between Iraqi agents and 9/11 terrorist Mohammed Atta, but Mr. Cheney continued to assert in public that this meeting took place. Time and again, he exaggerated the case for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including his statement that Iraq had ``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' It was the Vice President and his aides who took the lead in responding to those who challenged those and other claims by the administration.

By all accounts, Mr. Libby was a disciplined, cautious staff person the antithesis of a rogue operator. It is farfetched to imagine that he was freelancing when he outed Mrs. Wilson's identity as a CIA agent.

So the American people need to hear directly from Vice President Cheney: Did he discuss with Mr. Libby whether to tell reporters about Mrs. Wilson's identity? When the Vice President read in the media that Mr. Libby had claimed that reporters first told him about Mrs. Wilson's identity, what did he say to Mr. Libby, given the fact that it was he, the Vice President, who first told Mr. Libby about Mrs. Wilson? Why has the Vice President not condemned the leaks and lies by his top aide?

It is very clear why Mr. Libby lied about who told him about Mrs. Wilson's identity. It was to frustrate, sidetrack, and stall Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation until after the 2004 election. As Mr. Fitzgerald said in announcing his indictment, if Mr. Libby had not thrown sand in the eyes of the prosecutors, ``we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005.'' So Mr. Libby's lies were not only about protecting his original source, Vice President Cheney; they were also about delaying any indictments by Mr. Fitzgerald until after the election. They were about not allowing the election to become an ``accountability moment,'' which very well could have denied President Bush reelection.

At the same time, we need an accounting from President Bush. Karl Rove is the President's closest adviser. We now know from multiple accounts in the media, citing senior administration sources, that Mr. Rove was one of the two ``senior White House officials'' who leaked Mrs. Wilson's identity as a CIA agent to reporters. Mr. Rove is still under investigation, and may or may not face indictment. But whether or not he is actually indicted, his actions were unethical and unacceptable.

Two years ago, we heard testimony from Vincent Cannistrano, former Chief of Operations and Analysis at the CIA Counterterrorism Center, on the far-reaching damage caused by the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's identify. He said: ``Twenty years of training and experience and millions of dollars were invested in this agent, Valerie Plame [Wilson]. . . . The consequences are much greater than Valerie Plame [Wilson's] job as a clandestine CIA employee. They include damage to the lives and livelihoods of many foreign nationals with whom she was connected, and it has destroyed a clandestine cover mechanism that may have been used to protect other CIA non-official cover officers.''

Early on, President Bush stated that he would fire any White House official found to have been involved in leaking Mrs. Wilson's identity as a CIA agent. To this day, on the White House Web site, you can read the transcript of a press conference on June 10, 2004. A reporter asked: ``Mr. President, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have [been involved in leaking the CIA agent's name]?'' The President responded with an unambiguous ``yes.''

Today, the President needs to come clean about Mr. Rove's role. He needs to publicly acknowledge, as senior administration officials have already done anonymously, that Mr. Rove was the second leaker. And then he needs to make good on his pledge to fire him.

I urge President Bush--for the good of the country and for the good of his administration--to follow through on his public pledge. The President's original instincts were exactly right: It should be intolerable to allow someone who leaked a CIA agent's identity to stay on in the White House.

It is also deeply disturbing that Mr. Rove continues to hold a top- secret security clearance. Like all holders of a top-secret clearance, Mr. Rove signed a ``Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement'' acknowledging that ``unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States.'' The signer of the form states: ``I have been advised that any breach of this agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment . . .''

Before signing the nondisclosure agreement, an employee is given training and a booklet explaining the nondisclosure rules, which include prohibitions against providing classified information--or even confirming it--to reporters.

The facts are plain: Mr. Rove violated the terms of his security clearance. If the White House disputes this, then it owes the American people a formal Justice Department investigation of Mr. Rove's actions. If it is determined that he violated the terms of his Nondisclosure Agreement, he should be stripped of his security clearance immediately. This is an issue entirely separate from Mr. Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation, but it is no less important.

I am sure that President Bush is concerned about the damage to his administration from the leaking of Mrs. Wilson's covert identity. A week ago, the Washington Post reported the results of its most recent poll. It found that by a ratio of 3 to 1--46 percent to 15 percent-- Americans say that the level of honesty and ethics in the Government has declined since Mr. Bush took office.

I believe it is time for Mr. Rove to go. It is time for President Bush to restore honor and integrity to the White House and to demand the highest ethical standards from his staff.

President Bush still has more than 3 years in office. For our country to be successful, he must be successful. To that end, I urge the President to set a new tone and to chart a new a new course. He should begin by asking Mr. Rove to leave and by asking Vice President Cheney to give a full and honest accounting of his role in this matter.

Mr. President, each year the Principal Financial Group shines a spotlight on companies across the United States that excel in providing for their employees' financial future, including a well-funded retirement. Selected by a blue-ribbon panel, these exemplary companies are honored with the Principal 10 Best Companies Award.

This year, 1 of the 10 recipients of this prestigious award is GuideOne Insurance of West Des Moines, IA. GuideOne, which was founded in 1947, is one of the Nation's largest insurers of churches. It also insures faith-based private schools and colleges as well as not-for- profit senior living communities.

At a time when so many companies across the United States are cutting back--or completely eliminating--their employer-provided retirement benefits, GuideOne is charting a different course. The firm's executives believe that providing for their employees' financial future is critical to success in recruiting, retaining, and motivating an excellent staff.

The 807 employees at GuideOne enjoy a generous benefit package, including a defined benefit pension plan; 100 percent employer-paid premiums for disability insurance; a 401(k) plan with 100 percent employer match up to 3 percent of pay; and health insurance that is 76 percent employer-paid for employees, and 68 percent employer-paid for dependents. Nearly 85 percent of employees participate in the company's 401(k) plan, which is remarkably high by national standards.

To its great credit, the company is also concerned about the health of its employees. GuideOne has a robust wellness program that, among other things, reimburses employees $200 for fitness-related expenses.

Mr. President, it is clear to me that GuideOne understands what too many companies in the United States have forgotten. GuideOne understands that its employees truly are its greatest asset and competitive strength, and that a generous benefit package is the way to attract and retain outstanding talent, while keeping morale and productivity high.

So I congratulate GuideOne for the richly deserved honor of receiving the Principal 10 Best Companies Award, and I salute all the folks at GuideOne for setting an example of enlightened corporate stewardship. They are proving that it is possible to do well and do good at the same time. And I couldn't be more proud that this excellent company calls Iowa home.

Mr. President, when we talk about moving toward energy independence in this country, we are really speaking to the issue of reducing America's dangerous dependence on imported oil. Our addiction to oil is most acute in the U.S. transportation sector where a stunning ninety-seven percent of our fuel comes from petroleum--97 percent. In the electricity sector we have largely turned away from oil but not so in transportation.

Fortunately a growing percentage of transportation energy is now coming from clean, domestically-produced renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. With the nearly 8-billion-gallon Renewable Fuels Standard now the law of the land, renewable fuels will supply 5 percent of the energy for our passenger vehicles by 2012, perhaps more. These home-grown, environmentally friendly alternatives made from corn, soybeans and other sources of biomass are helping to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the rural economy while substantially reducing dependence on foreign oil.

The best part of this trend is that the health, community, and domestic security benefits of renewable fuels come with the bonus of price savings at the pump. Ethanol prices in this country can be as much as 70 cents a gallon less than regular gasoline. Drivers in my State of Iowa are saving as much as 10 cents a gallon on E10--a blend of just 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. This is a savings of about $100 a year for a typical family.

A report earlier this year by the Consumer Federation of America found that consumers throughout our country would experience similar savings if all refiners offered E10. That is a significant savings in all regions of the country. Now, consider the savings if ethanol and other renewable fuels were blended not at 10 percent, but at 85 percent or more. That $100 a year savings turns into hundreds of dollars each year for a typical family.

Unfortunately, right now only about two percent of vehicles on the road in the United States can use ethanol blends of 85 percent--what we call E85. It turns out standard gasoline engines aren't designed for the different fuel to oxygen ratio.

The good news is, manufacturing a new vehicle to run on E85 or other clean alternative fuel blends is simple--the manufacturer adds a fuel sensor and modifies the engine calibration and fuel line to allow the vehicle to run on gasoline or a combination of gas and alternative fuels.

Right now, these ``flex-fuel'' vehicles cost at most an additional $100 or so to produce. Some cost estimates are as low as $50. Many auto manufacturers offer them to customers at no additional cost. But few Americans are even aware of the option.

At a time of record-high gas prices and continued instability in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries of the world, I believe that all Americans deserve the option to choose the fuel they put in their car.

In Brazil, all new vehicles on the road are expected to be flex-fuel- ready by 2008--meaning every new vehicle owner will have the choice to fill up with gasoline, ethanol, or a combination of the two. If the Brazilians can do it, why can't we?

That's why today Mr. Lugar, Mr. Obama and I are introducing the Fuel Security and Consumer Choice Act to require that automobile manufacturers equip a growing percentage of new vehicles sold in the U.S. for flexible fuel operation. Mr. Lugar is a leader in promoting research and development into the conversion of cellulosic biomass into useable fuels. Mr. Obama is a leader in promoting renewable fuels and in particular E85.

Starting eighteen months after the bill's enactment, manufacturers will be required to equip 10 percent of their cars and light trucks with flex-fuel vehicle, FFV, capability. This is a modest proposal. Several manufacturers are close to meeting or beating this requirement already.

Each model year thereafter, the requirement increases 10 percentage points, so in the second year the manufacturers would have to make at least 20 percent of their vehicles FFVs, and so on, until in about ten years' time 100 percent of new vehicles sold in the United States are flex fuel. I recognize that we could be more aggressive in our timetable, but I believe we've struck the right balance here in pushing and prodding.

In addition, the bill allows auto manufacturers to bank and trade FFV credits toward meeting the requirements. In other words, if one company produced more than its required percentage of FFV vehicles in a given year, it could trade or sell extra credits earned to another company that would then use them to meet the bill's requirements. Credits would have a three-year window if banked or traded. This banking and trading provision is similar to others in law, in the RFS for example, making it that much easier for companies to meet statutory obligations at the lowest possible cost.

Finally, the bill would leave intact the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) credits for FFV production. However, the bill would change the way the credits are calculated for vehicles produced above the required percentages. Rather than keeping the assumption that the vehicle runs 50 percent of the time on fuel like E85, which isn't an appropriate figure since most don't run yet on E85, we phase-down the assumed use from 50 percent in the first model year the requirement applies to 30 percent in the second year, 10 percent the third year, and 0 percent thereafter. This should still spur interest among automakers in the early years of the requirement to go beyond the minimum FFV production levels outlined in the bill to get the extra credits. And in the meantime the FFV requirement is kicking in and the ramp up of FFVs won't dilute or weaken CAFE.

This bill will give American consumers true choice in fuel selection for the first time. Drivers will have the option to choose low-price, high-performance E85, or another fuel. My firm belief is that consumers will choose to buy home-grown renewable fuels that directly reduce oil dependence rather than buy traditional fossil fuels often derived from unstable regimes around the globe.

Now, I don't doubt some automobile manufacturers will complain that this requirement is unduly onerous, that it will hurt the industry somehow. Well, I heard the same thing back in 1989 when I proposed another revolutionary idea: closed captioning for TV sets. Industry was in an uproar when I suggested that the hearing impaired should have access to television programming on the public airwaves. The industry said closed captioning would bankrupt it and drive the price of televisions through the roof.

But then, an amazing thing happened. Electronics manufacturers realized that they could reach a broad range of new audiences, including not just the hearing impaired, but also the learning disabled, and immigrants for whom English is a second language. Sales for several companies reached an all-time high, and with implementation across the electronics industry, the cost of the closed captioning chip dropped dramatically to less than a dollar a set.

I have no doubt that vehicle manufacturers will discover similar unexpected efficiencies and benefits with flex fuel vehicles. As more Americans discover the savings from flexible fuels, the more they will seek them out. What better way to boost car sales than to market the fuel cost savings that flexible fuel vehicles offer? Any very small additional cost of the flex-fuel vehicle will be more than offset by the price benefits drivers will achieve from a flexible fuel supply over time, not to mention the tremendous energy security benefits for our Nation.

The country will benefit from cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and an enhanced rural economy. Simply, put, this is a low-cost measure with a tremendous payoff.

It is already well-established that federal auto standards for the benefit of our Nation are an appropriate policy option. It's also important to note that auto manufacturers already comply

with literally dozens of other requirements having to do with the make- up, design, and performance of their vehicles. Making an FFV is a lot cheaper than putting in air bags, or many other components.

Agriculture and renewable fuels producers are ready to provide the fuel. Automobile manufacturers have the technology to do it. Given the country's great energy and security challenges, all sectors must do their part to chart a path toward energy independence: government, individual citizens, energy companies, and yes, auto manufacturers.

I'm grateful that this legislation has been endorsed by a wide array of renewable fuel, agriculture, clean energy and security organizations, including the Renewable Fuels Association, American Coalition for Ethanol, Alliance to Save Energy, Set America Free, and National Corn Growers Association.

In closing I want to recognize Mr. Lugar and Mr. Obama for co- sponsoring this legislation with me today. Mr. Lugar and I have teamed up many times over the years, most recently to enact the national Renewable Fuels Standard, which we did as part of the comprehensive energy bill. This bill builds upon the RFS, to guarantee that renewable fuels which are being produced in ever greater abundance can find a home in just about any vehicle on the market a few short years from now. I am thankful for his leadership on this and so many other important energy security issues. I am also grateful to Mr. Obama for his leadership.

I hope we can rapidly enact this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the School Energy Crisis Relief Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to award School Energy Grants to the poorest school districts in each State. I am pleased that Senators Schumer, Clinton, and Bingaman have joined me in sponsoring this bill.

With cold weather setting in, people all across the country are worried about the sky-high cost of energy. Americans are feeling pain at the pump, and they are feeling even more pain at home, with home- heating costs expected to rise as much as 70 percent above last year's levels.

At the same time, many public school districts across the country are struggling to cope with a dramatic, unexpected surge in their energy costs. Schools are facing a double hit: they operate large fleets of buses, and they must heat large, sprawling buildings. This problem is especially acute in the West and Midwest, where many school districts cover large geographic areas, and in urban areas, which are burdened with some of the nation's oldest and often least energy-efficient buildings.

For affluent suburban districts, these unanticipated energy costs are a challenge. But for poor school districts, they are a full-blown crisis. Many school boards face a choice between paying their higher energy bills or cutting instructional staff and programs.

My bill would allow the Secretary of Energy to award grants to schools districts with the highest percentage and highest number of students eligible for Title I assistance. The grant amounts would be awarded based on the population of school-age children in the district, as well as the regional costs of transportation and heating fuel.

This is a nationwide crisis, and it calls for an urgent Federal response. School districts across the country are already implementing drastic measures in response to higher energy costs. In Kentucky, for instance, several school districts have cut back to four days of classes per week. In September, most of Georgia's schools cancelled classes for two days in an effort to conserve energy and cut costs.

In my State, the Iowa Association of School Boards estimates that, this winter, there will be $40 million shortfall in funding to cover school heating costs. Higher fuel costs for school buses could worsen the shortfall by another $8 million. And because that will come out of the fixed general fund for public education, every additional dollar spent on energy costs will come at the expense of classroom and instructional quality. For example, Charles City, IA, expects to spend $140,000 more on fuel this winter. That's enough to pay the salaries of four teachers.

According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, school districts are responding to the energy crisis by reducing staff, increasing class sizes, reducing course offerings, postponing technology purchases, or cutting Headstart transportation programs. Many school districts are lowering their thermostats to unhealthful levels. In fact, just yesterday, I heard that the school district in Ottumwa, IA, has asked parents to start sending kids to school with coats to keep them warm indoors. This is just not acceptable.

In addition, I remind my colleagues that school districts--especially high-poverty school districts--are struggling heroically to try to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is penny wise and pound foolish to force these districts to cut instructional staff and classroom resources in order to pay their higher energy bills. And none of us can be comfortable with the prospect of children sitting at their school desks in coats and scarves to fight off the chill. As I said, this is just not acceptable.

The poorest school districts all across America are in desperate need of assistance with their energy costs. Low-income children deserve the opportunity to learn and achieve in classrooms that are properly heated. And we certainly don't want schools to be eliminating school days and laying off teachers because of higher energy costs. So we need to act. I urge my colleagues to support the School Energy Crisis Relief Act so we can respond to this emergency as expeditiously as possible. According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, this has led to some schools deciding to scale back after-school activities because of heating costs and to cut non-varsity sports because they lack funding necessary to take them to games. It is very troubling to me that schools have been forced to make cuts that have directly affected the educational experience of the children in their schools, in the name of rising fuel costs. For instance, some schools have had to cut back on field trips, put off buying new text books and school supplies, while reducing course offerings in fine arts and academics.

In addition, the Iowa Association of School Boards has reported that schools have cut back on staff and increased class sizes while also turning down the thermostat in the classroom. I ask, Mr. President, are we supposed to expect students to learn at a high-level when rising energy costs have put them in overcrowded, cold classrooms?

But this problem is not specific to my home State of Iowa. As the sponsor of companion legislation in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Baca, pointed out that some schools in Kentucky have cut back to four-day school weeks to keep their energy costs down. Recently, Georgia schools cancelled two days of classes in an attempt to keep their costs down. In Colton Joint Unified District in Congressman Baca's congressional district, the price of a gallon of diesel fuel has risen from under a dollar at one point to $2.72 a gallon increasing annual fuel costs by over $300,000.

So I have come to the floor today to introduce the School Energy Crisis Relief Act. This legislation meets the needs of struggling school districts by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to award grants to poor school districts struggling to balance skyrocketing energy costs with providing a quality education. Grants would be awarded to the poorest urban and rural school districts in each state. In Iowa alone, this means both poor rural and urban districts would be eligible to receive grants.

I ask for my colleagues support for the School Energy Crisis Relief Act and urge the Senate to work quickly to pass this crucial legislation and provide relief to those school districts in need.

Mr. President, when we talk about moving toward energy independence in this country, we are really speaking to the issue of reducing America's dangerous dependence on imported oil. Our addiction to oil is most acute in the U.S. transportation sector where a stunning ninety-seven percent of our fuel comes from petroleum--97 percent. In the electricity sector we have largely turned away from oil but not so in transportation.

Fortunately a growing percentage of transportation energy is now coming from clean, domestically-produced renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. With the nearly 8-billion-gallon Renewable Fuels Standard now the law of the land, renewable fuels will supply 5 percent of the energy for our passenger vehicles by 2012, perhaps more. These home-grown, environmentally friendly alternatives made from corn, soybeans and other sources of biomass are helping to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the rural economy while substantially reducing dependence on foreign oil.

The best part of this trend is that the health, community, and domestic security benefits of renewable fuels come with the bonus of price savings at the pump. Ethanol prices in this country can be as much as 70 cents a gallon less than regular gasoline. Drivers in my State of Iowa are saving as much as 10 cents a gallon on E10--a blend of just 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. This is a savings of about $100 a year for a typical family.

A report earlier this year by the Consumer Federation of America found that consumers throughout our country would experience similar savings if all refiners offered E10. That is a significant savings in all regions of the country. Now, consider the savings if ethanol and other renewable fuels were blended not at 10 percent, but at 85 percent or more. That $100 a year savings turns into hundreds of dollars each year for a typical family.

Unfortunately, right now only about two percent of vehicles on the road in the United States can use ethanol blends of 85 percent--what we call E85. It turns out standard gasoline engines aren't designed for the different fuel to oxygen ratio.

The good news is, manufacturing a new vehicle to run on E85 or other clean alternative fuel blends is simple--the manufacturer adds a fuel sensor and modifies the engine calibration and fuel line to allow the vehicle to run on gasoline or a combination of gas and alternative fuels.

Right now, these ``flex-fuel'' vehicles cost at most an additional $100 or so to produce. Some cost estimates are as low as $50. Many auto manufacturers offer them to customers at no additional cost. But few Americans are even aware of the option.

At a time of record-high gas prices and continued instability in the Middle East and other oil-producing countries of the world, I believe that all Americans deserve the option to choose the fuel they put in their car.

In Brazil, all new vehicles on the road are expected to be flex-fuel- ready by 2008--meaning every new vehicle owner will have the choice to fill up with gasoline, ethanol, or a combination of the two. If the Brazilians can do it, why can't we?

That's why today Mr. Lugar, Mr. Obama and I are introducing the Fuel Security and Consumer Choice Act to require that automobile manufacturers equip a growing percentage of new vehicles sold in the U.S. for flexible fuel operation. Mr. Lugar is a leader in promoting research and development into the conversion of cellulosic biomass into useable fuels. Mr. Obama is a leader in promoting renewable fuels and in particular E85.

Starting eighteen months after the bill's enactment, manufacturers will be required to equip 10 percent of their cars and light trucks with flex-fuel vehicle, FFV, capability. This is a modest proposal. Several manufacturers are close to meeting or beating this requirement already.

Each model year thereafter, the requirement increases 10 percentage points, so in the second year the manufacturers would have to make at least 20 percent of their vehicles FFVs, and so on, until in about ten years' time 100 percent of new vehicles sold in the United States are flex fuel. I recognize that we could be more aggressive in our timetable, but I believe we've struck the right balance here in pushing and prodding.

In addition, the bill allows auto manufacturers to bank and trade FFV credits toward meeting the requirements. In other words, if one company produced more than its required percentage of FFV vehicles in a given year, it could trade or sell extra credits earned to another company that would then use them to meet the bill's requirements. Credits would have a three-year window if banked or traded. This banking and trading provision is similar to others in law, in the RFS for example, making it that much easier for companies to meet statutory obligations at the lowest possible cost.

Finally, the bill would leave intact the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) credits for FFV production. However, the bill would change the way the credits are calculated for vehicles produced above the required percentages. Rather than keeping the assumption that the vehicle runs 50 percent of the time on fuel like E85, which isn't an appropriate figure since most don't run yet on E85, we phase-down the assumed use from 50 percent in the first model year the requirement applies to 30 percent in the second year, 10 percent the third year, and 0 percent thereafter. This should still spur interest among automakers in the early years of the requirement to go beyond the minimum FFV production levels outlined in the bill to get the extra credits. And in the meantime the FFV requirement is kicking in and the ramp up of FFVs won't dilute or weaken CAFE.

This bill will give American consumers true choice in fuel selection for the first time. Drivers will have the option to choose low-price, high-performance E85, or another fuel. My firm belief is that consumers will choose to buy home-grown renewable fuels that directly reduce oil dependence rather than buy traditional fossil fuels often derived from unstable regimes around the globe.

Now, I don't doubt some automobile manufacturers will complain that this requirement is unduly onerous, that it will hurt the industry somehow. Well, I heard the same thing back in 1989 when I proposed another revolutionary idea: closed captioning for TV sets. Industry was in an uproar when I suggested that the hearing impaired should have access to television programming on the public airwaves. The industry said closed captioning would bankrupt it and drive the price of televisions through the roof.

But then, an amazing thing happened. Electronics manufacturers realized that they could reach a broad range of new audiences, including not just the hearing impaired, but also the learning disabled, and immigrants for whom English is a second language. Sales for several companies reached an all-time high, and with implementation across the electronics industry, the cost of the closed captioning chip dropped dramatically to less than a dollar a set.

I have no doubt that vehicle manufacturers will discover similar unexpected efficiencies and benefits with flex fuel vehicles. As more Americans discover the savings from flexible fuels, the more they will seek them out. What better way to boost car sales than to market the fuel cost savings that flexible fuel vehicles offer? Any very small additional cost of the flex-fuel vehicle will be more than offset by the price benefits drivers will achieve from a flexible fuel supply over time, not to mention the tremendous energy security benefits for our Nation.

The country will benefit from cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and an enhanced rural economy. Simply, put, this is a low-cost measure with a tremendous payoff.

It is already well-established that federal auto standards for the benefit of our Nation are an appropriate policy option. It's also important to note that auto manufacturers already comply

with literally dozens of other requirements having to do with the make- up, design, and performance of their vehicles. Making an FFV is a lot cheaper than putting in air bags, or many other components.

Agriculture and renewable fuels producers are ready to provide the fuel. Automobile manufacturers have the technology to do it. Given the country's great energy and security challenges, all sectors must do their part to chart a path toward energy independence: government, individual citizens, energy companies, and yes, auto manufacturers.

I'm grateful that this legislation has been endorsed by a wide array of renewable fuel, agriculture, clean energy and security organizations, including the Renewable Fuels Association, American Coalition for Ethanol, Alliance to Save Energy, Set America Free, and National Corn Growers Association.

In closing I want to recognize Mr. Lugar and Mr. Obama for co- sponsoring this legislation with me today. Mr. Lugar and I have teamed up many times over the years, most recently to enact the national Renewable Fuels Standard, which we did as part of the comprehensive energy bill. This bill builds upon the RFS, to guarantee that renewable fuels which are being produced in ever greater abundance can find a home in just about any vehicle on the market a few short years from now. I am thankful for his leadership on this and so many other important energy security issues. I am also grateful to Mr. Obama for his leadership.

I hope we can rapidly enact this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the School Energy Crisis Relief Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to award School Energy Grants to the poorest school districts in each State. I am pleased that Senators Schumer, Clinton, and Bingaman have joined me in sponsoring this bill.

With cold weather setting in, people all across the country are worried about the sky-high cost of energy. Americans are feeling pain at the pump, and they are feeling even more pain at home, with home- heating costs expected to rise as much as 70 percent above last year's levels.

At the same time, many public school districts across the country are struggling to cope with a dramatic, unexpected surge in their energy costs. Schools are facing a double hit: they operate large fleets of buses, and they must heat large, sprawling buildings. This problem is especially acute in the West and Midwest, where many school districts cover large geographic areas, and in urban areas, which are burdened with some of the nation's oldest and often least energy-efficient buildings.

For affluent suburban districts, these unanticipated energy costs are a challenge. But for poor school districts, they are a full-blown crisis. Many school boards face a choice between paying their higher energy bills or cutting instructional staff and programs.

My bill would allow the Secretary of Energy to award grants to schools districts with the highest percentage and highest number of students eligible for Title I assistance. The grant amounts would be awarded based on the population of school-age children in the district, as well as the regional costs of transportation and heating fuel.

This is a nationwide crisis, and it calls for an urgent Federal response. School districts across the country are already implementing drastic measures in response to higher energy costs. In Kentucky, for instance, several school districts have cut back to four days of classes per week. In September, most of Georgia's schools cancelled classes for two days in an effort to conserve energy and cut costs.

In my State, the Iowa Association of School Boards estimates that, this winter, there will be $40 million shortfall in funding to cover school heating costs. Higher fuel costs for school buses could worsen the shortfall by another $8 million. And because that will come out of the fixed general fund for public education, every additional dollar spent on energy costs will come at the expense of classroom and instructional quality. For example, Charles City, IA, expects to spend $140,000 more on fuel this winter. That's enough to pay the salaries of four teachers.

According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, school districts are responding to the energy crisis by reducing staff, increasing class sizes, reducing course offerings, postponing technology purchases, or cutting Headstart transportation programs. Many school districts are lowering their thermostats to unhealthful levels. In fact, just yesterday, I heard that the school district in Ottumwa, IA, has asked parents to start sending kids to school with coats to keep them warm indoors. This is just not acceptable.

In addition, I remind my colleagues that school districts--especially high-poverty school districts--are struggling heroically to try to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is penny wise and pound foolish to force these districts to cut instructional staff and classroom resources in order to pay their higher energy bills. And none of us can be comfortable with the prospect of children sitting at their school desks in coats and scarves to fight off the chill. As I said, this is just not acceptable.

The poorest school districts all across America are in desperate need of assistance with their energy costs. Low-income children deserve the opportunity to learn and achieve in classrooms that are properly heated. And we certainly don't want schools to be eliminating school days and laying off teachers because of higher energy costs. So we need to act. I urge my colleagues to support the School Energy Crisis Relief Act so we can respond to this emergency as expeditiously as possible. According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, this has led to some schools deciding to scale back after-school activities because of heating costs and to cut non-varsity sports because they lack funding necessary to take them to games. It is very troubling to me that schools have been forced to make cuts that have directly affected the educational experience of the children in their schools, in the name of rising fuel costs. For instance, some schools have had to cut back on field trips, put off buying new text books and school supplies, while reducing course offerings in fine arts and academics.

In addition, the Iowa Association of School Boards has reported that schools have cut back on staff and increased class sizes while also turning down the thermostat in the classroom. I ask, Mr. President, are we supposed to expect students to learn at a high-level when rising energy costs have put them in overcrowded, cold classrooms?

But this problem is not specific to my home State of Iowa. As the sponsor of companion legislation in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Baca, pointed out that some schools in Kentucky have cut back to four-day school weeks to keep their energy costs down. Recently, Georgia schools cancelled two days of classes in an attempt to keep their costs down. In Colton Joint Unified District in Congressman Baca's congressional district, the price of a gallon of diesel fuel has risen from under a dollar at one point to $2.72 a gallon increasing annual fuel costs by over $300,000.

So I have come to the floor today to introduce the School Energy Crisis Relief Act. This legislation meets the needs of struggling school districts by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to award grants to poor school districts struggling to balance skyrocketing energy costs with providing a quality education. Grants would be awarded to the poorest urban and rural school districts in each state. In Iowa alone, this means both poor rural and urban districts would be eligible to receive grants.

I ask for my colleagues support for the School Energy Crisis Relief Act and urge the Senate to work quickly to pass this crucial legislation and provide relief to those school districts in need.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

I will yield 1 minute 46 seconds more to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on my side?

I yield myself a couple of minutes because I want to save some time.

A little history is in order here. In 1993, then-Representative Robert Dornan of California, along with 69 other Republican House Members, sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Les Aspin demanding that Limbaugh's radio show and his television show be broadcast to the military.

The Pentagon at that time pointed to an internal survey they had done of 50,000 military listeners. They found that only 4 percent requested more talk shows. The overwhelming number of respondents requested continuous music, as you might expect from our people in uniform. However, the issue kept getting pressed.

On November 29, 1993, the American Armed Forces Radio issued this statement. This is their statement.

The Rush Limbaugh show makes no pretense that his show is

balanced. If AFRTS scheduled a program of personal commentary

without balancing it with another viewpoint, we would be open

to broad criticism that we are supporting a particular point

of view.

They went ahead and put Rush Limbaugh on the air. But the point is, that is all right, but they have done nothing to balance it in the intervening time.

There is an amendment that I believe is going to be offered by Senator Inhofe--at least he was talking about it earlier. We will talk about more later if, indeed, he does offer it. But getting back to this point on the National Public Radio, I don't think you will ever hear NPR in its commentary say that the Abu Ghraib prison abuse was a fraternity prank or the humiliation of the inmates there `` . . . was a brilliant maneuver, no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation at Yale.'' I don't think you will ever hear NPR in its commentary describe images of torture as ``pictures of homo-eroticism that looks like standard, good old American pornography.'' This is all that Rush Limbaugh said. You won't hear that on NPR.

Last, a group called Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting analyzed the political affiliation of guests appearing last summer on NPR's most popular news shows. Republicans outnumbered Democrats on NPR by 61 percent to 38 percent. So I rest my case that NPR is nothing like the Rush Limbaugh show.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, if I could say to my friend from Virginia, for a point of clarification, there was some discussion about this amendment and the fact that, since there are two approaches here, one is a sense of the Senate and one is my approach, perhaps it would be better if we could have side-by-side votes; that Mr. Inhofe would go first and I would go second. Does the chairman envision that?

That is correct.

I think I have a copy of the Inhofe amendment in front of me.

If I have the correct one?

I would say to my friend--if the chairman will yield so I can respond?

As I read the Inhofe amendment, all it says is that:

The Secretary of Defense may appoint an individual to serve

as ombudsman . . . to act as an intermediary between the

staff of the American Forces Network and the Department of

Defense, military commanders, and listeners to the

programming of the American Forces Network.

That is all it says. It doesn't say what his duties are.

My amendment specifically says that the ombudsman will do these things:

Appointed by the Secretary of Defense for a term of 5

years; not engage in any prebroadcast censorship; conduct

regular reviews of the integrity, balance and fairness;

respond to program issues raised by the audience regarding

the network's programming; refer complaints to AFR

management; make suggestions regarding ways to correct

imbalances; and prepare an annual report both to the SECDEF

and Congress.

So my amendment spells out what the ombudsman should do. The Inhofe amendment does not.

The way the amendment is written, the Secretary has full discretion. He can go outside or stay inside.

If the Senator would yield, I will respond. I am familiar with the first two. Who is the third one?

I am told he's the second most popular conservative talk show. I don't know where that falls in. The first two are Shultz and Franken. They are more on the progressive side, no doubt about that. The third one you mention is on the conservative side, I guess. I don't know that so I cannot speak authoritatively on that. I don't know how that balance works out after that. I don't know.

I know my information--and it is really secondhand; I can't say this firsthand--is that the ``Ed Shultz Show'' was contacted to be on. Then he was recontacted saying that he was not to be on. And it is sort of in kind of a state of limbo now. I don't understand what that is all about.

I thank the chairman. The chairman is a leader and is very fair himself. I have no objection to moving to something else.

Mr. President, what we have coming up here are two votes, one at 2:45 on the Inhofe sense-of-the-Senate amendment, to be followed by a vote on my amendment.

Now, you might say: What harm is it in voting for the Inhofe sense- of-the-Senate amendment? Well, I thought I might even vote for it myself, until I read it. Because if you look at the sense-of-the-Senate amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, in its findings--in its findings--it says:

The American Forces Radio and Television Service and the

American Forces Network provide a ``touch of home'' to

members of the Armed Forces [et cetera] by providing the same

type and quality of radio and television programming . . .

that would be available in the continental United States.

Well, when AFRTS provides for 100 percent, under 33 local stations around the world, of Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura and James Dobson and zero percent on the progressive side, that is hardly ``the same type and quality'' ``available in the continental United States.'' So right away, that is a wrong finding.

Another finding is that the:

American Forces Radio and Television Service . . . select

programming that represents a cross-section of popular

American radio and television.

Well, again, if 100 percent is on one side and zero is on the other, that also cannot be so.

And then in their sense-of-the-Senate amendment it says, it is the sense of the Senate--according to the Senator from Oklahoma--that:

[T]he programming mission, themes, and practices of the

Department of Defense with respect to its television and

radio programming have fairly and responsively fulfilled

their mission of providing a ``touch of home'' to members of

the Armed Forces. . . .

Well, they have fairly and responsively fulfilled their mission when it is 100 percent to nothing? I do not think so.

Lastly, the Inhofe amendment says the Secretary of Defense may appoint an ombudsman--``may''--but it does not say what the ombudsman is supposed to do.

Now, to be clear, again, what our amendment does is it simply takes the DOD directive--which says they shall provide a free flow of political programming, that there should be the same equal opportunity for balance, and that they should provide them with fairness--and codifies it. We take that directive and codify it. That is all. We do not change it, we codify it. Then we set up an ombudsman and spell out what that ombudsman should do. And we spell that out in my amendment. So there is quite a bit of difference.

Again, I remind my fellow Senators that a year and a half ago, I offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution because I thought if we gently prodded them and showed them what they were doing, they would follow their directive. That was 16 months ago. Now, 16 months later, it is 100 percent to nothing. There is zero programing on the progressive side.

Again, I want to make it clear we are not trying to restrict or in any way say what they have to carry, but as long as they are carrying this talk radio, it ought to at least be balanced. Some people say: Well, Rush Limbaugh has a big audience. He does. I don't deny that. But they are carrying Dr. Laura, they are carrying a Mark Merrill, whom I have never heard of. Why don't they carry Howard Stern? Howard Stern has 8 million listeners. Well, in that case, they said they do not like the content.

So it is not just ratings, it is also content. They are keeping the Armed Forces personnel from listening to Howard Stern. So it is not just ratings. Don't fall for that line. It is not because Limbaugh and these people have high ratings. Howard Stern has high ratings, but they won't let him on.

So I hope Senators will oppose the Inhofe amendment and support our amendment to codify it and to set up an ombudsman who would report to the Secretary of Defense and report to us every year on how they are meeting their requirements of fair and balanced programming.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be run on both sides.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma could advise this Senator as to where in the directive--perhaps there is someplace I haven't found--it says that radio programs that are carried by American Forces Radio around the world have to be syndicated and have a million listeners.

With all due respect, I asked the Senator, can he show me anywhere where that is written down?

Mr. President, what we have is a policy that is not written down--we can find it nowhere, and today is the first time I ever heard of it--that somehow before American Forces Radio airs a program, No. 1, it has to be syndicated and, No. 2, it has to have a million listeners. I never heard of this before. All of a sudden, it has come up.

Since I am on my time, the Senator can get his own time to respond.

That is why we need to codify it. I think the Senator has put his finger on it. That is why our amendment is necessary. It takes the DOD directive, what is in writing, and codifies it and makes it law. That way there won't be any confusion. That way we will know whether they are living up to their own words. Secondly, putting in an ombudsman-- not ``may,'' what the Senator says in his amendment--will do the following: That person will be appointed by the Secretary of Defense; not engage in any censorship; conduct reviews of integrity, balance, and fairness; respond to program issues raised

by the audience; make suggestions regarding ways to correct imbalances; and, most importantly, prepare and present an annual report to the Secretary of Defense and Congress on whether American Forces Radio is satisfying its mandate to provide fair and balanced political programming.

The Senator, by his own words, shows why this is necessary. All of a sudden we hear there is a policy. It is not written down. We have never heard of it before. Yet we know what is happening.

I repeat for emphasis: On the 33 stations around the world, we have 100 percent Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura and James Dobson, and zero percent of any kind of progressive radio. I don't care how you cut it, slice it, dice it, or excuse it, this is unfair. This is censorship. This is propagandizing our troops. They deserve better than that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is very interesting, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. The Senator from Virginia got up earlier before our lunch break and said something about Ed Schultz and Al Franken being on American Forces Radio. I just checked with them. I had my office call both of their programmers. Neither Mr. Franken nor Mr. Schultz has been notified, as of 2 hours ago, that they are ever going to be on American Forces Radio. They have never been notified. So now we hear today that somehow all of a sudden they are going to be on. Maybe the Senator has some inside knowledge of how they operate. As of 2 hours ago, neither Mr. Schultz nor Mr. Franken has been notified when they are going to be on, how often, or how long.

The second thing I say to my friend from Oklahoma, he says they have this policy of syndication and 1 million listeners and even though it is not written down anywhere they have followed it. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, if that is the case, then why don't they carry Howard Stern? Howard Stern has over 8 million listeners. He is syndicated. Yet American Forces Radio will not carry Howard Stern. So I say to my friend from Oklahoma, there must be some other criteria other than syndication and a million listeners or else they certainly would have Howard Stern.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have no case to make for Howard Stern. The Senator said it is syndication and numbers in the millions. I pointed out that Howard Stern has 8 million. The Senator responds that Howard Stern is lewd and too much--I didn't hear all the words he used. But there are other criteria that have to do with content.

Whether one agrees with whatever Howard Stern says, I might object strenuously--and I think a lot of Americans would object--to someone who said that what is good for al-Qaida is good for the Democratic Party in this country today. Rush Limbaugh said that. That went to all of our troops in Iraq. I think that is lewd. I think that is obscene. I will bet you there are a lot of people who think that is obscene. I don't mean just Democrats, anybody would think that is obscene. Or saying that what happened at Abu Ghraib was like a fraternity prank, or saying that the pictures of homoeroticism look like standard, good-old American pornography. Rush Limbaugh said that. It was broadcast to our troops in Iraq.

We voted last week 90 to 9 on the McCain amendment to say: No. What happened at Abu Ghraib does not represent good-old American pornography, as Rush Limbaugh says.

If the Senator objects to Howard Stern, fine. I think a lot of people object to the obscenities of Rush Limbaugh, also.

What we are talking about is not taking somebody off the air. We are talking about ideas and discussion and debate. It seems to me that what we want are more ideas and more discussion and more debate. I think our debate is pretty darn good, as a matter of fact. Why don't they have that on American Forces Radio rather than this one-sided type of thing? They need this kind of debate, this kind of discussion. More ideas, more discussion, more debate is much better than less. That is what I believe our amendment would provide.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I just respond by saying they said that 16 months ago. They said it 16 months ago, and nothing has happened.

I think again what this boils down to is do you want to have our troops have more debate, more discussion, more ideas, or do you want them to be limited? I say to my friends on the Republican side, maybe you will be inclined to just vote for Limbaugh and Dr. Laura and stuff, but I ask for your thoughts on fairness and equity. Someday the shoe may be on the other foot. I don't want them to hear one side of the story. I want them to hear both sides of the story.

I beg you, let's have some fairness. That is what this amendment will do, not the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and I call up an amendment I have pending at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify this Senator when I have spoken for 15 minutes.

This amendment, offered by me, Senator Dorgan, and a number of others, addresses the problem of the extreme imbalance of political programming on American Forces Radio. As my colleagues know, for American servicemembers and their families stationed in more than 177 countries and territories around the world, as well as for Department of Defense civilians and their families, American Forces Radio is intended to broadcast a ``touch of home'' programming that reflects a cross section of what is widely available to stateside audiences. Making U.S. entertainment and news programming available to American servicemembers wherever they are located is important for their morale and to keep them informed. But in order to accomplish this, American Forces Radio needs to provide a wide variety of programming and views. Unfortunately, in recent years, it has failed to do so, in violation of its own guidelines.

The amendment Senator Dorgan and I are offering is designed to address this imbalance. The Department of Defense directive 5120.20R states that: American Forces Radio and Television Services Broadcast Center shall provide a free flow of political programming from U.S. commercial and public networks. It shall maintain the same equal opportunities balance offered by these sources. Outlets should make extensive use of such programming.

That is what is in their directive. It also requires ``reasonable opportunities for the presentation of conflicting views on important controversial public issues.''

That is what we would expect. We would expect that our Armed Forces personnel would have reasonable opportunities to hear the presentation of conflicting views on public issues. Yet in spite of these clear guidelines, the programming offered by American Forces Radio is anything but balanced. Instead, American Forces Radio carries the shows of noted conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, and James Dobson, to the near total exclusion of any progressive talk radio hosts.

On American Forces Radio's talk radio service, 85 percent of the short commentary or talk radio programming with political content is conservative--Mark Merrill, James Dobson, Dr. Laura, and Rush Limbaugh. Only 15 percent is progressive--Jim Hightower and Dave Ross. Here is what it comes down to in hours: More than 10 hours a week of conservative talk radio compared to less than 2 hours of progressive talk radio and commentary.

Mind you, when I said ``offered,'' this is what is offered. The 33 American Forces Radio outlets around the world are offered 85 percent, more than 10 hours of conservative talk radio, and 15 percent, less than 2 hours, of progressive talk radio. Now it gets worse. Again, what I mentioned is what is just offered to the American Forces stations. The programming that is actually used by local stations is even more unbalanced. Of the 33 local stations around the globe, 177 countries and territories that our Armed Forces personnel listen to, 100 percent of what they actually get the chance to listen to is conservative talk radio, 100 percent; zero percent of progressive talk radio. Less than 2 hours of progressive talk radio is what is offered. What they actually get is nothing on the progressive side. But they get 100 percent of Rush Limbaugh, 2,460 minutes a week; Dr. Laura, 1,245 minutes a week; and James Dobson, 60 minutes a week.

That is balanced? That is fair? That is not balanced. That is monopoly. This is propagandizing our troops.

This is wrong. The amendment Senator Dorgan and I are offering, along with Senators Obama, Dodd, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Kennedy, and Dayton addresses this imbalance in two simple ways. First, it will codify the American Forces Network's obligation to provide political programming that is fair and balanced. What I read before was just a DOD directive. It has no force or effect of law. It says it should be balanced, should provide equal opportunities. We need to make this law. That is what our amendment does. It codifies the directive.

Secondly, it establishes an independent office of the ombudsman to address imbalances, to report annually on whether American Forces Radio is satisfying its mandate to provide fair and balanced political programming.

What this amendment does not do is prescribe specific content or programming. That is not the role of the Senate. But I believe we do have an obligation as Senators to all of our constituents to make the network's talk radio programming representative of the diversity of opinion in America.

While I generally do not agree with Rush Limbaugh's commentaries--I am sure that comes as no surprise to anyone--I do not object to the fact that they are run on the American Forces Network. I have never called for American Forces Radio to pull the commentaries of Rush Limbaugh or any other conservatives from its talk radio service.

On last year's defense authorization bill, we offered an amendment that simply asked that DOD develop appropriate methods of oversight to ensure the network provided fair and balanced political programming. This year, since they haven't done it, we want to codify it. But last year when I pointed out the imbalance in programming--100 percent conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura Schlesinger, James Dobson; zero for progressives--Rush Limbaugh went ballistic on his radio show: Senator Harkin is now trying to take me off the air. He said I wanted to deny the troops the opportunity to hear him. He went on and on. I had other reporters and press people ask me about it.

I said: Typical of Rush Limbaugh. He doesn't understand what is happening. He wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face. I said: All I'm asking for is balance on taxpayer-funded radio. What Rush Limbaugh wants is monopoly. To him, to have someone oppose him and get equal time might be the same as, in his mind, taking him off the air. That is probably the way he thinks.

But I have never called for taking him off the air. I just think there ought to be some opposing views, representative of the diversity of opinion in America. I take issue with the fact that there is no commentary broadcast on this network that would even begin to balance the extreme views that Rush Limbaugh routinely expresses on his program. And where there is no alternative viewpoint, where there is no balance, what you are left with is one-sided propaganda. And that is not what we want on American Forces Radio. The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve and expect balance, not thinly disguised propaganda.

What I object to is that Rush Limbaugh is on all week, and our troops get to hear him, but they don't get to hear any viewpoints from the other side of the political spectrum.

Let's talk about one specific case in point, the scandal at Abu Ghraib. We all know what happened there. I don't need to remind anybody of the pictures, the torture, the shame and disgrace it brought upon our country. We know what happened just a couple weeks ago with the McCain amendment: 90 to 9, we voted to insist that our Armed Forces and others follow the Army Field Manual on Interrogations; that we will not condone torture, we will not condone the type of thing that we saw at Abu Ghraib. Ninety to nine on the Senate floor.

Here is what Rush Limbaugh had to say about Abu Ghraib: He called it--these are his words, not mine--``a fraternity prank.'' He likened it to a fraternity prank. He dubbed the humiliation of inmates ``a brilliant maneuver, no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation at Yale.'' This is Rush Limbaugh talking about Abu Ghraib. He described the images of torture as ``pictures of homoerotism that looked like standard, good-old American pornography.'' That is Rush Limbaugh talking to our troops 100 percent of the time. He said of the pictures at Abu Ghraib--this is a quote from Rush Limbaugh--``if you take these pictures and bring them back and have them taken in an American city and put on an American Web site, they might win a video award from the pornography industry.''

I ask, does this represent the views and attitudes of the average American citizen? It may represent a few, but I think the vote in the Senate more accurately reflects the views of the American citizens. Ninety Senators, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, liberals, and everybody in between, basically said on the McCain amendment, no, we don't want to have what happened at Abu Ghraib ever happen again. We don't want to be engaged in torturing prisoners or detainees.

Now, it is in the newspapers that even Vice President Cheney is fighting the McCain amendment. Maybe Vice President Cheney and Rush Limbaugh feel that way, but I don't think too many other Americans do. That is why we had a 90-to-9 vote here. Yet what do our Armed Forces personnel and DoD civilians hear when they tune in the radio from their assignments around the world? They hear Rush Limbaugh telling them it is a prank, a brilliant maneuver, good-old American pornography. That is what they are hearing.

So what are our troops to think? Are they to think, that is Rush Limbaugh and that is what we hear so, therefore, that must represent what the American people back home feel about this? Maybe it wasn't so bad after all.

That is why we need some opposing views on American Forces Radio. Our troops need to hear the other side of

the story to get a balance. I have never said take Rush Limbaugh off. But the network does need someone to give the other side of the story.

Again, that is what this amendment does. It codifies it. Again, 16 months ago, the Senate adopted a sense-of-the-Senate amendment I offered calling on the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the policies of fairness and balance of American Forces Radio were being fully implemented and to develop appropriate methods of oversight to ensure they were followed. That was last year.

Sixteen months later, the Department of Defense has made no progress in balancing out the more than 62 hours a week of conservative programming broadcast on the 33 American Forces Radio stations, compared to zero of progressive, 16 months later, after this Senate adopted a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying it ought to be fair and balanced.

On October 19, just a few weeks ago, I and 12 of my colleagues sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld expressing our concern, once again, with the utter failure to address the lack of political balance.

Sixteen months later, no progress. As I said, we wrote this letter to the Secretary of Defense on October 19. On Thursday of last week, we received a letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Mr. Lawrence Di Rita. It says:

The network plans to offer the show of one progressive talk

radio host Ed Schultz.

The letter makes absolutely no representations as to how soon or when it plans to offer Mr. Schultz's show on the network.

``Offer,'' it said ``offer.'' They didn't say they would ensure the broadcast. They said they are going to offer it.

As I pointed out earlier, they offer 15 percent per week of progressive talk radio, less than 2 hours, and guess what. None of the AFR stations carry that paltry amount. Not one of their stations out of 33 around the world, even bothers to broadcast any portion of those two hours.

Let me note that in response to a letter Senator Dorgan and I sent to the Department earlier this year, Deputy Assistant Secretary Allison Barber replied that DoD ``recognizes that the domestic political talk market has grown more diverse and that the time has come to consider expanding the AFN choices.''

I respectfully disagree with Deputy Assistant Secretary Barber. It is not that the time has come to consider expanding the choices. We are long past the time for that. The time has come for the DoD to act on expanding and broadening the political discourse on American Forces Radio. There is no reason our servicemembers should receive 10 hours-- more than 10 hours--of rightwing conservative talk radio and absolutely zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds of progressive talk radio. They need competing views.

As I said, that was part of the mandate so our troops would have the ability to get a wide variety of programming to keep them informed, a cross-section of what is widely available to stateside audiences. That is what they should have.

I suppose after my talk today old Limbaugh will come on the radio again blasting me, saying Harkin wants to take him off the air, wants Congress to tell the radio networks what to carry. I can hear him now talking about it. He got it wrong last year; there is no reason why he would probably get it right this year--correct, I should say; he gets everything right but never gets it correct. Leave Limbaugh on there, but give someone else equal time. I would like to see Ed Schultz have as much time as Rush Limbaugh. Why not? Ed Schultz is entertaining. He has a viewpoint. It is more progressive, obviously, than Rush Limbaugh's, but there is no doubt he is doing well. In fact, I found that in almost every market where Ed Schultz went up against Rush Limbaugh, more people listened to Ed Schultz than listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh, now maybe the scales are falling from my eyes. Maybe now I see why Rush Limbaugh doesn't want Ed Schultz on Armed Forces Radio. Our servicemen might tune him out and decide they would like to listen to Ed Schultz more than they would listen to him.

Our amendment is needed because it codifies that fairness and balance on taxpayer-funded radio is an obligation, and sets up an ombudsman to help ensure that goal. That is not unique. We have ombudsmen in other things. We have ombudsmen for both of the other two major federally funded broadcasting agencies. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Broadcasting Board of Governors--that is the Voice of America-- have statutory language providing for diversity and balance in their programming and both the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio have an ombudsman in place.

I fully intend, when the Secretary of Defense comes up for his appropriations hearing next year--I happen to be on the Appropriations Committee. I happen to sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and I intend to ask him these questions. Why do they think this is fair? Do they think this represents balance, a fair representation of the diversity of American thought? Or do they feel it ought to be more balanced, and if so, let's get on the stick.

I am saying to the Secretary of Defense, time for consideration is past. Move, move now. There is a lot of progressive talk radio in America that gives an opposite view of Rush Limbaugh or Dr. Laura or James Dobson. Get them on there. Let's even the pie. That is all we are asking for--fairness.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time under my regular time of 15 minutes for other Senators to speak, and I thank the Senator from Virginia for his kindness.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia, he is a very thoughtful individual. I know he is fair and always has been fair. To air commentary of the nature I discussed earlier--that which Mr. Limbaugh made about Abu Ghraib--with absolutely no counterbalance or rebuttal, sends entirely the wrong message to our troops.

Last year when we had the sense-of-the-Senate resolution--this was posted on CNN.com; they carried an article on it--Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Allison Barber said:

It's not about conservative or liberal, it is about the

full selection of radio programming based on popularity----

Here in the States. That is ratings.

Still, Howard Stern has millions of fans, and his show is

not sent to the troops.

Barber explains:

His issue is one of content that is not appropriate.

They say it is popularity, but then they decide whether it is appropriate.

Are we to believe that the Abu Ghraib comments by Mr. Limbaugh are excusable because of the high ratings his show receives? I partially agree with the Deputy Assistant Secretary's statement. It appears that content is sometimes a factor in deciding which commentaries to run on American Forces Radio. At the same time, I also agree with the directive DoD already has in place. There should be fairness and balance in political programming on American Forces Radio. To use commercial market share ratings as an excuse not to offer fair and balanced programming will no longer suffice. When there are 33 stations around the globe, and they do not even carry 1 minute of an alternative to Rush Limbaugh, that has to say something. That it is not just ratings. Something else is going on there.

One would think that at least they would carry the 15 percent that is offered. They do not even carry that, if the Senator knows what I mean. The 33 stations around the world were offered 15 percent progressive talk radio a week. They are offered it, but they do not carry any of it. So something is going on out there. I do not know what it is, but something is.

I thank the Senator.

I yielded the floor.

How much time do I have remaining?

I thought I had 14 minutes 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. There is no one else on the floor, so I do not want to use up my time. I ask unanimous consent for up to 10 minutes in morning business so I may yield some time to whoever wants it.

I thank the Senator from Virginia. If anyone shows up to talk on something else, I will obviously yield the floor. But I would yield to the distinguished minority ranking member of the committee whatever time he desires.

I will just take a couple more minutes and then I will yield the floor.

As long as there is no one else in the Chamber--if anyone comes here, I would yield the floor to whoever would want it.

Let me go through again what this amendment does for Senators who may be watching from their offices. The ombudsman would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense for a term of 5 years. They could not engage in any prebroadcast censorship. The ombudsman would conduct regular reviews of the integrity, balance, and fairness of American forces radio programming. It would respond to programming issues raised by AFR's audience regarding the network's programming and refer complaints to American forces radio management for response. The ombudsman would make suggestions to American forces radio management regarding ways to correct imbalances, and the ombudsman would prepare and present an annual report to the Secretary of Defense and Congress on whether American Forces Radio is satisfying its mandate to provide fair and balanced political programming.

So that is what the ombudsman basically would do under our amendment, not censor or anything like that. Basically, he would take complaints, pass it on to management, issue a report to us every year on whether the programming is fair and balanced, and any other comments and criticisms that may come into the ombudsman's office. So that is basically the amendment.

I have had my say on it. I think it is pretty clear. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his support. I hope all Senators could support this amendment. As the Senator from Michigan said, it just codifies what is basically a directive right now. It just makes it more clear to DOD, from the Secretary of Defense on down, that we mean it when we say it has to be fair and balanced. We do not mean to take anyone off the air or shut anyone up, but we do mean to have it fair and balanced to represent the diversity of views of America.

Not all Americans agree with Rush Limbaugh. Not all Americans agree

with Ed Schultz or Jim Hightower or me or anyone else, but we do have diversity. That is what is so wonderful about our country. That is what we are proud of as Americans, that we are able to speak our minds and have our opinions heard and we do not have any censorship. Since we do not have it here, we should not have it on the American Forces Radio network, either.

I believe having served myself for a long time in the military, as I know the Senator from Virginia has, too, our troops are well educated. They are smarter today than they ever were even when I was in the military. They know how to listen to one side or the other, and they should have that opportunity. That is all we are asking for.

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