Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to explain or review where we are procedurally. The Senate has voted for cloture on the miscellaneous trade bill, including the Laos NTR issue. Under rule XXII, 30 hours of debate is available postcloture for further debate on the conference report. I would like to ask how much time remains available for debate on the miscellaneous trade bill?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time have we consumed of the 30 hours?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we apparently have a little over 25 hours remaining of the 30-hour period. I have with me a number of State Department and international reports from which I would at some point like to read. They describe further some of the horrific human rights abuses that have been perpetrated by the Lao Government. Senators Coleman, Kohl, Dayton, and I have drafted a resolution condemning these abuses and urging the Lao Government to allow international access to vulnerable populations. I don't want to shut this place down, but this is a very important issue, and it is my intention to remain on the floor and to prevent us from transacting any business unrelated to the conference report before us until we reach agreement to pass this important resolution. I realize I do not have the votes to block NTR from passing, but I cannot stand by and let that pass without insisting the Senate take strong action noting and condemning the Lao Government's actions. I hope we can work things out quickly, and I think we can. I appreciate the support and hard work of my colleagues, particularly Senators Kohl and Coleman, who are working hard to get this resolution through. At this point, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in a few minutes Senator Coleman will offer a resolution. I join Senators Coleman, Kohl, and Dayton in supporting this resolution. By taking this up and passing it at this time, we signal that congressional concern about the deplorable human rights situation in Laos will be intense and ongoing. As I have discussed today, I hear regular reports from constituents distraught about the conditions faced by their relatives in Laos. This is especially wrenching--and this is the point we have been trying to make all day--when we remember that the Hmong communities reportedly targeted for abuse are the same communities that worked side by side with U.S. forces during the Vietnam war. We simply cannot ignore the dismal human rights situation in Laos and be the country and the people we wish to be. Just a word on the language of the resolution which Senator Coleman will describe in a moment. This resolution expresses the Senate's hope--hope--that a more open society will develop in Laos in the wake of the extension of NTR. Certainly this is my hope, although I, frankly, really see no reason to believe it will happen. But the reality is that Laos will get NTR. The votes are there, and while I may disagree with the wisdom of colleagues taking that step, we, of course, all do hope for change in Laos--a greater respect for basic human rights, an end to repression aimed at ethnic minorities, such as the Hmong, and religious minorities, such as the Christian community, and for access to vulnerable populations. I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues who join me in sponsoring this resolution and the efforts of the leadership on both sides, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Finance Committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to Senator Bob Graham, a man who has served in the U.S. Senate with great distinction for the last 18 years. The people of Florida have been fortunate to be represented by a man who is as thoughtful, as tough- minded and as independent as Bob Graham. When I first came to the Senate, I was proud to work with Senator Graham to bring the deficit under control. Senator Graham was a leader for fiscal responsibility in the Senate, and he helped to focus our efforts to cut wasteful spending and institute budget reforms that brought the deficit under control, and ultimately created a budget surplus. His leadership will certainly be missed in this area in the next Congress, as we must come to terms with the largest deficit in our Nation's history. Senator Graham was also a voice for fiscal sanity on the Finance Committee, a committee that in recent years has too often promoted policies that have deepened our fiscal problems. It isn't easy to go against your colleagues, whether in a committee or in a caucus, to stand up for what you believe is right. But that's exactly what Bob Graham has done throughout his time in the Senate, and I greatly admire him for it. His independence has also extended to his work in the fight against terrorism, where he has been an unyielding voice for a stronger, more focused war on terror, and I thank him for his outspoken leadership on this critically important issue. Here in the Senate, we will miss Bob Graham's thoughtful leadership, his unfailing civility, and his unstinting friendship. I thank him for his service to the State of Florida and to this country, and wish him all the best in his retirement. don nickles

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to Senator Tom Daschle, who has served South Dakota, and the Senate, with dignity and devotion during his tenure in this body. I am proud to have worked with him on a wide range of issues over the years, but perhaps most of all I thank him for his work and leadership to reform the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is a fight that will go forward in the next Congress, where we will build on Senator Daschle's hard work and commitment to this important issue. I also want to take a moment to recognize Senator Daschle's leadership, as both majority and minority leader, here in the Senate. He has led the Democratic caucus, and the Senate as a whole, through a time of great change and many difficult challenges: through a closely divided Senate, through the tragedy of 9/11, and through the anthrax attack on the Senate, which so personally affected both of our offices. Through all of this, Senator Daschle has inspired us with his dedication and ability to work through tough problems, to guide the policies of our party, and to provide steady leadership when we needed it most. Finally, I also want to extend my thanks to many of Senator Daschle's staff, who were especially helpful to my office over the past 12 years, and in particular, were so thoughtful and generous with their time in the wake of the anthrax attack on our offices. It is often the case that a Senator's staff reflect the personality of the Senator for whom they work, and I believe that is certainly the case with Senator Daschle and his staff. I thank Tom Daschle for his leadership and his service to South Dakota and our country, and I wish him all the best as he moves on to begin a new chapter in his distinguished career. peter fitzgerald Mr. President, today I take a moment to recognize the contributions that Senator Peter Fitzgerald has made to this Senate, to the State of Illinois, and to the Nation. As a fellow Midwesterner, I have always appreciated Senator Fitzgerald's honest and fair-minded approach to the issues. From the moment he arrived here in the Senate, it was clear that he would keep his own counsel, doing what he thought was best for the people Illinois without regard to powerful interests on either side of the aisle. Above all else, I appreciate Senator Fitzgerald's unfailing commitment to reforming our campaign finance system. He was among that steadfast group of Republican senators who stood firm in their support of the McCain-Feingold bill, despite enormous pressure to do otherwise. His support of our bill took a great deal of personal and political courage, and it is something that I truly admire, and for which I will always been grateful. As he moves on from the Senate, Senator Fitzgerald can be assured that his friends and colleagues here will long remember the contributions he made, and the dignity with which he served. I wish him all the best as he moves on to a new phase of his career. don nickles

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on Tuesday the President announced the nomination of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to be the next U.S. Secretary of State. I admire Dr. Rice's obvious intellectual gifts and her communication skills. I also believe that the President has the right to appoint Cabinet officers who reflect his ideology and his perspective. Barring serious concerns about a nominee's qualifications or ethical record, and in keeping with Senate practices and precedents, my inclination is to give the President substantial deference in his Cabinet choices. But I am deeply troubled by the signal that this nomination appears to send--a signal suggesting that the modest moderating influence of the State Department over the last 4 years will disappear, and that the next 4 years will be guided even more closely by the voices that shouted loudest in the first term, and that led our country into seriously flawed foreign policies. Our country cannot afford to continue down the foreign policy path that was forged during the first term of the Bush administration. Over the past 4 years, we have witnessed the greatest loss of a very valuable type of American power in our history: our power to lead, to persuade and to inspire. As Joseph Nye has pointed out, this power will not convert the extremists who oppose us no matter what. Those people must be eliminated, pure, and simple. But it can thwart their plans, by denying them new recruits, undermining their appeal and their message, and unifying, rather than dividing, Americans and the rest of the international community. Rather than bolstering this asset, which has helped to make us the most powerful country on earth, we have squandered it. In March, the Pew Research Center found that one year after the start of the war in Iraq, ``discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished'' across the world. Majorities in Pakistan, Jordan, Morocco and Turkey believe that the U.S. is exaggerating the terrorist threat, doubt the sincerity of the U.S. war on terrorism and say that it is an effort to control Mideast oil and dominate the world. The Center found that: At least half the people in countries other than the U.S. say as a result of the war in Iraq they have less confidence that the United States is trustworthy. Similarly, majorities in all of these countries say they have less confidence that the U.S. wants to promote democracy globally. Our motives are questioned, our public justifications and explanations viewed with skepticism, and our post-9/11 public diplomacy efforts have missed the mark, substituting pop music broadcasts, brochures and videos for the kind of respectful dialogue and engagement that could convince generations of angry young people that their humiliation is not our goal. We have had over 3 years since September 11, 2001, to think strategically about how to win the fight against terrorism. But we have little to show for this time. We have relied upon a doctrine that fails to recognize that our enemies do not rely on explicit state sponsorship of terrorism. By focusing almost entirely on possible state sponsors of terror, the administration failed to realize that our terrorist enemies operate effectively in weak and failing states and without the backing of national governments. This is a new enemy waging a new war against us, but the administration appears still to be stuck in an old cold war mindset. We have muddled our language and our focus by conflating other priorities with the fight against terrorism, costing us credibility around the world and shattering the unified and resolved global coalition that emerged to support us in the aftermath of 9/11. By choosing to fight the war in Iraq in such a divisive and astronomically expensive fashion, we have diverted resources away from the fight against the terrorist networks that seek to destroy us and undermined our ability to win the hearts and minds of many whose support we will need to succeed in the long run. We have recognized the dangers of nuclear proliferation in an age of terrorism, but have then pursued policies that may well create incentives for states to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. We have developed essentially no measures of success or failure when it comes to one of our most urgent priorities, as the 9/11 Commission underscored--preventing the continued growth of Islamist terrorism. In fact, we do not even know where we stand today in this vital struggle. We have not given any serious thought to how to avoid the mistakes of the cold war, when we gave a free pass to forces of repression and brutality, as long as they did not come with a Communist bent. Those mistakes, as we all know, helped to make Afghanistan the brutally repressive terrorist haven that it was on 9/11. We have not made an adequate investment in bolstering our diplomatic resources and engagement around the world. From Northern Nigeria to Eastern Kenya, we have virtually no presence. In Somalia, despite knowing that al-Qaida-linked terrorists have operated in the country, we simply failed to develop any policy at all. While the administration's policy was failing on all of these fronts, the President's team was devoting its time and attention to selling the world and the American people a war in Iraq with fundamentally flawed intelligence, manipulative and misleading characterizations, and rosy predictions that provided horribly, dangerously off-the-mark. The administration's Iraq policies in the first term painted a picture of an American government that isn't so sure it rejects torture; that isn't competent and careful enough to properly vet intelligence presented in major speeches and briefings; that willfully rejects the lessons of history and advice of its own experts; that is surprised when disorder results in massive looting; that misleads taxpayers regarding the costs and commitments entailed in its policies; that spends billions upon billions without any effort to budget for these predictable costs; and that is willing to politicize issues fundamental to our national security in the ugliest possible way. We deserve better. Certainly the brave men and women of the U.S. military who are fighting every day to make this effort in Iraq work deserve better. We do not honor them by accepting lousy, irresponsible policy in the halls and hearing rooms of the Capitol and then leaving them holding the bag on the ground, when policy collides with the hard truth. The administration's record of the past 4 years suggests a foreign policy careening out of control, driven by ideologies who want to test their theories in the laboratory of the Middle East one minute, by domestic political considerations the next, and by spiteful attempts to punish those who disagree with their methods the next. Where is this going? Who is in charge? No one ever seems to be held accountable for the blunders, the failures, the wildly inaccurate presentations and projections or the painfully ineffective initiatives. Congress cannot simply accept more of the same, keep our heads down and hope that somehow we will muddle through. The stakes are far too high. Our national security, the stability of the world that our children will inherit, our troops--even our country's honor--are on the line. Congress has an obligation, not to oppose every administration effort, but to reassert our role in steering the ship of state wisely rather than recklessly. I look at our foreign policy over the past 4 years, and I know that America is so much better than this. I look forward to the opportunity to raise these concerns with Dr. Rice when she testifies before the Foreign Relations Committee, and to receiving some assurance that she will work with Congress to put our country's foreign policy on a better, more effective footing. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I express my concerns about the troubling situation in Cote d'Ivoire. As my colleagues know, in September 2002, rebellion broke out in Cote d'Ivoire, eventually dividing the country between the north, where rebels known as the Force Nouvelle established themselves, and the south, where President Laurent Gbagbo's government continued to exercise its authority. The Economic Community of West African states, or ECOWAS, helped to negotiate a ceasefire, and in January 2003 international efforts to mediate the crisis culminated in the signing of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement of early 2003, which provided for an interim Government of National Reconciliation to move the country toward new elections. The United Nations established a peacekeeping mission and over 6,000 troops from around the world deployed to monitor the ceasefire and help the parties implement the peace accord--further evidence of international will to help the people of Cote d'Ivoire regain a stable footing and reestablish a just and peaceful unified government. Throughout these diplomatic efforts, 4,000 French soldiers have served as the backbone of the international presence that has worked to guarantee the peace. Much as the United Kingdom played a pivotal role in stabilizing Sierra Leone, France made an admirable commitment to the people of Cote d'Ivoire. And despite the friction between France and the U.S. on other important global issues, we have continued to work closely and cooperatively to resolve this crisis. But over the many months that have passed since the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement was signed, progress toward implementing the accords has stalled, as both parties failed to take constructive steps to move the country toward lasting stability. Then, on November 4, President Gbagbo broke the ceasefire agreement, and in an apparent bid to find a military solution, launched air raids on rebel positions in the north. On November 6, the Ivorian forces bombed a French position, killing nine French soldiers and an American aid worker, and wounding dozens more. France retaliated by destroying the Ivorian air force. What followed was an orchestrated campaign, conducted largely via broadcasts on state-controlled media outlets, to encourage citizens to participate in a rampage of anti-French violence and looting. I am heartened by the unity and resolve of the international community in confronting this crisis, and by the rejection of Ivorian efforts to justify the bombings and to vilify France. U.N. peacekeepers performed bravely in trying to protect the zone of confidence during the recent hostilities. South African President Thabo Mbeki moved quickly to reach out to all parties and open the door to dialogue that could diffuse the situation, though sadly, his efforts were not embraced by all parties. On November 15, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution establishing an arms embargo on Cote d'Ivoire, and indicating that a travel ban and asset freeze will be applied to anyone from among the government or rebel ranks found to be an impediment to progress on implementing the peace accords. I welcome this resolution and its insistence on accountability from all parties to Cote d'Ivoire's conflict. In addition to accountable, constructive leadership, there is a desperate need for grassroots reconciliation efforts. The tensions that came to a boil in 2002 have, sadly, been simmering for some time. In the 1990s, some pursued a deliberate effort to promote a divisive, destructive, xenophobic brand of nationalism in the country, and if a lasting peace is to take hold and the people of Cote d'Ivoire are to be free from fear of a return to violence and chaos, a great deal of work must be done to lessen ethnic tensions and build confidence and trust in Ivorian communities. In recent days, French nationals have been the targets of ugly invective, but in the recent past it has been northern Ivorians, immigrants, and Muslims who have been demonized. I urge the administration to make combating ethnic and regional divisions a major focus of U.S. efforts in Cote d'Ivoire. Even as we work with the international community to hold leaders accountable for their actions, we must also assist in laying the groundwork for peace among the people themselves. The downward spiral in Cote d'Ivoire is especially troubling because the country had, not long ago, been a beacon of stability and important economic engine in a deeply troubled region. After all of the suffering in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and all of the costly efforts launched to bring stability back to West Africa, the international community cannot afford to lose Cote d'Ivoire to perpetual crisis.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana not only for his leadership in the body but for his words about the fiscal situation our country faces. I particularly thank him for his emphasis on the need to return to those important fiscal budget rules, the pay- go rules that guided us so well for so many years. I hope and trust this will be the first of many times he will address the body about the need to get back to that discipline. I intend to do the same here today. I think very few things are more important to our country than to return to the fiscal discipline we actually accomplished on a bipartisan basis during the 1990s after the very reckless policies of the 1980s. Today we are again forced to consider legislation to raise the Nation's debt limit. It is obvious to anyone but those who refuse to see that we are here because of the grossly reckless fiscal policies that have been advanced by the administration and Congress over the past 4 years. The last 4 years have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most important and fundamental jobs, and that I do not need to tell the Presiding Officer about because he is a stalwart on this issue; and that is, the balancing of the Nation's fiscal books. We are all familiar with the history. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the Government would run a unified budget surplus--surplus--of more than $5 trillion. Almost 4 years later, we are staring at almost a mirror image of that estimate--a 10-year, $5 trillion surplus--except that instead of healthy surpluses, under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits. We absolutely cannot afford to continue to run up these massive deficits. Doing so causes the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund, and use them for other Government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and to help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation. Every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits. So today's vote to raise the debt limit basically ratifies the actions taken by the administration and the Congress to stick future generations with an immense credit card bill. That is what we are doing when the Government, in this generation, chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay. It does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with the debts they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. Obviously that is not right. This has to stop. We have to rein in the fiscal policies that have forced today's vote. That means making some tough spending cuts. It means putting a stop to the inexcusably reckless tax policies of the past 4 years. And it means putting some meaningful, tough, and sustainable budget enforcement mechanisms in place that return us to what the Senator from Montana was talking about and what I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. Earlier this year a bipartisan majority in this body supported just such a mechanism. The amendment I offered during the Senate's consideration of the budget resolution would have reinstated the pay- as-you-go rule for taxes and mandatory spending that served our Nation so well during the 1990s. It was adopted by a bipartisan majority. I salute the Presiding Officer for his courage in siding with me and others across party lines to try to institute--actually reinstitute-- those pay-as-you-go rules that we had a pretty good bipartisan consensus about during the 1990s. I actually believe it would have passed the other body but for some heavyhanded maneuvers by House leadership. Instead, the administration's election year agenda steamrolled over efforts to return some fiscal sanity to our budget process. I also believe there are many in this body who did not support my amendment but who know, in their heart of hearts, that reinstating the pay-go rule is simply the right thing to do. They know how essential it is to impose some self-restraint on congressional appetites. I suspect we would have gotten an even bigger majority vote if not for the exertion of some of the strong pressure on Members that is more common more often in the other body. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. This Congress failed to do so, and left the Nation worse off for their failure. When we look at this fiscal mess, it boils down to a lack of restraint and a lack of judgment. Wisconsin families face tough choices about their budgets every day, and they shoulder tough financial burdens. But they do not throw up their hands and keep spending. They have to make the choices that need to be made; and they do it. They do not do it because it is easy. They do it because they have to. They have to; and so do we. We have to get our house in order, like so many Americans do every day. Reinstating pay-go and adopting some other strong budget reforms should be among the highest priorities of the next Congress. We should return to the rules by which Congress played for the decade of the 1990s. We should eliminate the loopholes carved in the pay-go rule as part of the budget resolution adopted in 2003. Those loopholes only facilitated more damage to the Federal budget bottom line. Reinstating the pay-go rule by itself will not balance the books. But it will make it harder for this body to make the deficit worse. It does not make it impossible, it just makes it harder, and that is exactly as it should be. Given our current budget position, we ought to make it harder to make the deficit worse. We ought to require 60 votes if we are to pursue tax policies or new mandatory spending that is not fully paid for. I do not think that is too much to ask. And those rules worked well just a few years back. We know this debt limit bill is going to pass. It was made necessary by irresponsible budget policies that were pushed by the administration and aided and abetted by Congress. This ought to be the last debt limit bill we ever consider, but unless we change things, it won't be. We have to change things on this pay-go rule and beyond or we will simply be in the same position time and time again. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I would like to honor and thank U.S. Representative Jerry Kleczka for his outstanding service to the people of Milwaukee as he retires from Congress. For nearly 20 years, Jerry has served tirelessly representing Wisconsin's 4th district. The native of Milwaukee's south side got an early start in Wisconsin politics. He was elected to the State legislature in 1969 when he was just 24 years old. He served in the State assembly for 5 years before moving to the State senate in 1975. During his time there, Jerry served with distinction as chairman of the powerful Joint Finance Committee and as assistant majority leader. In 1984, Jerry was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he would go on to serve 10 terms. During his tenure, Jerry successfully passed legislation banning ``drive-thru'' baby deliveries and worked hard to protect seniors living in public housing from physical harm. Thanks to his hard work, Milwaukee became the first city in the Nation to provide elderly-only public housing. Jerry leaves the House as a member of the influential Committee on Ways and Means, where he fought for Social Security and affordable health care. Jerry has embodied Wisconsin's progressive tradition during his 35 years of public service. The son of a factory worker, Jerry always stayed true to the hardworking Wisconsin families who counted on him to fight for them in Congress. He developed a trusting and open relationship with his Milwaukee constituency and is widely known for his superior constituent services. Jerry's unquestionable dedication and hard work will be truly missed. Not only am I thankful for the time we have served together in the U.S. Congress, but I am grateful for our friendship that goes back to our days spent together in the Wisconsin Legislature. Wisconsin will forever appreciate Jerry's 35 years of public service. I wish him the best of luck in all of his future pursuits.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week, on November 11, the Nation paused to honor those brave Americans who have so selflessly served our country in the Armed forces. For more than 200 years, men and women have proudly worn the uniform of the United States. In peacetime and in wartime, these men and women have served and sacrificed on our behalf, often far away from their homes and from their families. Too many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice. We owe them--and their families--our deepest, heartfelt gratitude. As we marked Veterans Day here in the United States with appropriate ceremonies and recognitions, men and women from Wisconsin and across our country were serving on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Their dedication to this great country--like that of those who served before them--should inspire us all. We owe these brave men and women our gratitude, and we also owe them our best efforts to ensure that they know about and receive the Federal benefits and services that they have earned through their service to our country. I have long been concerned that to many veterans and military personnel are unaware of benefits and programs that are available to them through the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense and a number of other Federal agencies. I will continue my work to ensure that all veterans know about the benefits for which they may be eligible. I will also continue to support efforts to fully fund VA health care programs so that all veterans who wish to take advantage of their health care benefits are able to do so. No veterans should have to wait months to see a doctor or should be told that he or she is barred from enrolling in the VA health care system because of a lack of funding. In addition, I am committed to ensuring that our current military personnel receive adequate health care and transition services, including mental health services, as they return from deployments and when they return to civilian life. I am pleased that the recently enacted defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2005 includes a provision that I authored which represents a first step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that are provided to our military personnel. My provision requires the Government Accountability Office to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. This study will focus on two issues: how to achieve the uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health assessments as part of the larger transition program. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven provision of services from base to base and from service to service. All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country, and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same services in return. This GAO study will help us to have a better picture of the services that are being provided and what needs to be done to improve these important programs, and I look forward to reviewing it. We should honor America's brave veterans and their families not only on Veterans Day, but throughout the year. As we reflect upon the meaning of this day, let us keep all of our veterans and their families in our thoughts. These men and women are examples of the best that our country has to offer, and they deserve our support both during times of conflict and after the battles have ended and our troops have come home.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will support this conference report, but I do so with a great deal of reluctance. One of the more frequently used phrases voiced on the Senate floor is that we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That hackneyed expression is flung about when the body is asked to support a measure that may not be everything that it should be. It would be an overstatement to suggest that this measure even rises to that level. This bill falls far short of being good, but it is necessary. At its most fundamental, it meets two essential tests. First, it repeals the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extra Territorial Income, USC/ELI, tax provisions that have resulted in the imposition of increasingly punitive tariffs on American-made products, including products made in Wisconsin. Second, it provides a needed tax break for domestic manufacturers, a group that has been especially hard hit in recent years. If this absolutely vital sector is to have a chance to get back on its feet, providing this tax incentive is essential. I regret that much of the rest of this bill is wholly unmerited. There are some exceptions, of course, but if Congress had focused its efforts on just those two essential tasks--repealing USC/ETI, and providing some tax incentives for domestic manufacturers--the bill would have been much better. I was pleased to cosponsor S. 970, introduced by Senator Hollings, which was just such a bill. And I was encouraged when the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, offered a proposal based on S. 970, along with some sensible improvements. But as this measure has worked its way through the legislative process, it has only degenerated. Dozens of special interests have nosed their way into this bill, and have taken advantage of what is essentially a ``must-pass'' measure. I can only say that I am glad we are passing this measure now, before it gets any worse. There are many candidates for worst tax policy in this measure, but at the very top of that list must be those provisions that actually provide a tax incentive for those corporations that move their operations overseas. Such a policy is never justified, but in the current economic climate it is particularly hurtful and counterproductive. During the debate on this measure in the Senate, I was pleased to support the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, in his effort to eliminate one of these perverse incentives and I was pleased to support an amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which was similarly targeted. I regret the body rejected those sensible proposals. I will vote for this bill with the hope that its net effect will be to improve the climate for domestic manufacturers. But we should remove all doubt by acting at the next opportunity to close down the tax provisions in this bill that provide incentives for corporations to move facilities overseas. On this same subject I was disappointed that conferees stripped Senate provisions relating to the disturbing trend of the outsourcing of American jobs. These provisions would have prohibited federal funding from being used to support the outsourcing of goods and services contracts that are entered into by the Federal government, or by the States if those contracts are being supported by Federal dollars. With this bill, Congress had an opportunity to support American workers by ensuring that taxpayer money is not used to encourage companies to relocate American jobs. With the deletion of this outsourcing provision, we missed an opportunity for the Federal Government to set a strong example of buying its goods and services from American companies that use American workers. I also regret that the administration was again successful in blocking language included in the Senate-passed bill that would have reversed the harmful provisions of the Department of Labor's new overtime rule. Despite repeated bipartisan opposition to this rule in both Houses of Congress, members of the conference committee stripped this provision, which would have prevented millions of workers from losing their overtime benefits under the Bush administration's rule. Finally, let me briefly mention the energy tax provisions. I remain committed to supporting legislation to encourage alternative energy research and production. With respect to overall energy policy, we must develop cleaner, more efficient energy sources and promote conservation. During Senate debate on this bill, I voted for the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to strike the energy tax title to the Senate version because the bill did not extend the energy tax credits in a more fiscally responsible way. I support many of the tax credits in the conference report, such as the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit fix and provisions that would specifically benefit rural cooperatives and small renewable fuel producers. I also support provisions that would result in the increased supply of renewable fuels like biodiesel and ethanol. I remain concerned, however, about the fiscal and environmental costs of this section of the bill. The oil and gas incentives in the bill, for example, would cost taxpayers billions and allow companies to deduct the costs of mineral exploration and marginal oil wells. The conference report still includes a ``nonconventional fuel credit'' to the synfuels industry and coalbed methane industry, which could cost the taxpayers over $2.5 billion. The bill also opens a loophole for energy companies to take advantage of a manufacturing tax credit. The revenues dedicated to these tax expenditures would have been better used to relieve the burden of debt we are heaping onto our children and grandchildren. It is the very need for the central provisions of this bill that has invited the kind of abusive provisions we have seen included in it. Were this bill something less than absolutely necessary, we could just defeat it, and hope for something better down the road. But we do need to pass it. We have to stop these trade sanctions, and we need to help our manufacturers. For that reason, I will vote for this flawed legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, while the Senate has passed some important legislation over the last few days, I deeply regret that the Senate will leave town today without extending the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program. Wisconsin's dairy farmers have relied on the safety net provided by the MILC Program to get them through the lowest milk prices in recent years, and this program needs to be extended. I applaud my colleagues, the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, for his efforts to extend the MILC Program. Wisconsin farmers count on the safety net the MICL Program provides, and I hope that the Senate will take up and pass an extension of MILC before that program expires on September 30, 2005.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Nation faces crude oil prices of over $53 per barrel, the Federal Government must commit to helping families fight high home heating oil costs. This week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel projected that home heating oil costs will increase by 18 percent this winter. Despite the higher energy costs consumers will face this winter, States are reducing benefit levels in order to try to serve an increased number of households. Congress must act now to help low-income families and the elderly pay for high home heating costs. To combat these high prices, I urge my colleagues to support a bill introduced today by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, to extend and increase the authorization of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. LIHEAP provides a vital safety net for our Nation's low-income households, who spend approximately 17 percent of their annual income on residential energy costs. Last winter, my home State of Wisconsin received more than $40 million in Low Income Energy Assistance and the program served over 112,656 Wisconsin households. I strongly support extending the LIHEAP program and efforts to increase the authorization to $3.4 billion each year to ensure that low-income families and the elderly have this crucial support to heat their homes. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past year, I have come to this floor on a number of occasions to discuss the loss of manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin and around the country and ways in which I think that Congress should act to stem the flow of these jobs to foreign countries. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost more than 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country has lost more than 2.8 million manufacturing jobs during that same time period. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors. There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system. In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets. I strongly support the work of these agencies, and have urged the administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2005 does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across our country receive the resources that they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful. I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care. As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health. As our population ages, and the baby-boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010. As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. Currently, health services is the largest industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002. It is estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new jobs--more than any other industry. Workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities. As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family- oriented standard of living.'' I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures that these grants would be offset. This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill is flexible in what the grant funds could be used for, because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities. I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, including: the National Association of Workforce Boards, the American Health Care Association, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, and the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill, and the text of the letters of support from the above-mentioned groups, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. In order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past year, I have come to this floor on a number of occasions to discuss the loss of manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin and around the country and ways in which I think that Congress should act to stem the flow of these jobs to foreign countries. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost more than 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country has lost more than 2.8 million manufacturing jobs during that same time period. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors. There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system. In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets. I strongly support the work of these agencies, and have urged the administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2005 does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across our country receive the resources that they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful. I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care. As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health. As our population ages, and the baby-boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010. As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. Currently, health services is the largest industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002. It is estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new jobs--more than any other industry. Workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities. As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family- oriented standard of living.'' I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures that these grants would be offset. This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill is flexible in what the grant funds could be used for, because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities. I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, including: the National Association of Workforce Boards, the American Health Care Association, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, and the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill, and the text of the letters of support from the above-mentioned groups, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. In order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to voice my strong support for S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, and to commend my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee for their careful work in drafting this important legislation. In producing this bill, Senators Collins and Lieberman have managed to combine urgent action with careful deliberation. I hope that this difficult balance can be maintained in conference. While the authors of this bill deserve our thanks, the fact is that we would not be debating desperately needed intelligence reforms today had it not been for the work of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States--and for the work of the many concerned Americans, including families of 9/11 victims, who fought to establish the Commission and to protect its independence and authority. The 9/11 Commission worked hard to produce a thorough account of the facts concerning what the various elements of the U.S. Government knew, what action was taken to address the terrorist threat, and where communication and coordination broke down. All Americans deserve answers to these questions. And we have a duty to act on the Commission's recommendations and to put this country on a firmer, smarter footing to fight the terrorist forces that have attacked this country and wish to attack us again. At the same time, we know that reorganization for its own sake is simply disruptive and distracting--a smokescreen of busy work and changing flow charts that can obscure serious flaws rather than remedy them. And needlessly trampling on the civil liberties, protected by our Constitution and guarded by generations of Americans, in the name of reform would be a horrible mistake. Hundreds of thousands of brave men and women have died defending our freedoms throughout our history. We cannot fail to guard those precious freedoms now. The Senate bill creates a civil liberties board to evaluate new policies and ensure that civil liberties concerns are considered as the President and executive agencies propose and implement policies to protect the Nation against terrorism. The Commission specifically recommended the creation of such a board within the executive branch that would have as its primary mission the protection of our citizens' civil liberties. I am pleased that Senator Kyl agreed to withdraw an amendment that would have undermined this provision. The supporters of this amendment suggested that efforts to protect our privacy and civil liberties will undermine the work of the intelligence and law enforcement community. I respectfully disagree. Americans reasonably expect their Federal Government to protect them from terrorism while respecting their privacy and civil liberties. We can, and must, do both. The Collins-Lieberman bill is the right approach. It is important that the privacy and civil liberties oversight provisions in this bill be included in the final legislation that goes to the President's desk. Similarly, it would be a grave mistake for the conference to add extraneous provisions increasing the power of the Government, such as those contained in another amendment offered by Senator Kyl that derive from the so-called PATRIOT II proposal. We have not had the kind of full and informed debate on these proposals that the 9/11 Commission called for. For this bill to remain true to the Commission's recommendations, it cannot be used as a way to bypass the very deliberation that the Commission said is essential. Even after we finish work on this bill, our work will be far from complete. The Commission's intelligence reform proposals have been the focus of most of the media attention surrounding the 9/11 report, and they are at the heart of the legislative efforts in which we are currently engaged. But the Commission's call for more focused, effective ways to attack the terrorists and their organizations, and, critically, to prevent the continued growth of terrorism, deserve equally intense examination and action. We need to make a long-term commitment to denying terrorists sanctuaries, and to cultivating new generations of partners, not enemies, overseas. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I know that we do not have the intelligence resources or the diplomatic resources that we should around the world. We do not really have any policy at all to deal with Somalia, a failed state in which terrorists have operated and found sanctuary. And there is a great deal of work to be done to help countries in which we know terrorists have operated to improve the basic capacities of border patrols who could stop wanted individuals, and customs agents who could help stop weapons proliferation and auditors who could freeze terrorist assets. And we can do more to help root out the corruption that undermines these safeguards at every turn. I am pleased that the Senate accepted an amendment that I offered to this bill, which arises from my experience with African affairs. I know many Africanists are concerned about terrorist activity in the Sahel, and the U.S. Government is working with partners in that region to address this issue. Some of these same terrorists are based in north Africa, above the Sahel, which various parts of the U.S. Government and our own congressional committees consider to be a different region of the world, one usually lumped together with the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. In other words, getting counter-terrorism right in Mali really requires understanding a number of things about Algeria, and getting it right in the Horn of Africa requires an understanding of Yemen as well as Kenya. But the policymakers who specialize in these places don't necessarily work together. These geographic stovepipes hamper good policy, and cap fragment the picture that our intelligence community is able to piece together. And it is not just Africa, and it is not just terrorism. Where National Intelligence Centers are established with a specific regional focus, the National Intelligence Director needs to ensure that regular contact and cooperation among linked centers is institutionalized, not ad hoc. My amendment strengthens information sharing, and signals Congress's intent to ensure that the centers that are eventually established are as effective as possible. There is also much more to getting our policies right when it comes to homeland security and emergency preparedness, and that work will continue long after we complete work on this bill. We still lack a comprehensive homeland security plan with clear priorities, deadlines, and accountability. Without such plans, it is not possible to properly target our homeland security dollars to meet our most pressing needs. We are getting on the right track, however. The Commission recommended that future transportation security budgets be based on a thorough assessment of threats and vulnerabilities, and I am pleased that the Senate adopted my amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Department of Homeland Security bill to require just that. Senator McCain also included a provision to require a national transportation security strategy, and I was pleased to support it. These steps will help, but there is more we must do. I was also pleased to support the amendment offered by Senator Collins to coordinate and simplify the homeland security grant process, which is based on a bill I cosponsored. This important amendment will make it much easier for local first responders to get funding by reducing the many, and often redundant, grant application steps. The amendment also gives local officials far more flexibility in spending homeland security dollars, including paying for overtime costs associated with homeland security tasks and training. Successful programs, such as FIRE Act grants, the COPS program, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant program, are protected in this legislation. The amendment allocates funding based on threat, as recommended by the Commission, but also maintains baseline funding so that States and local officials can have a predictable stream of funding to meet the homeland security needs faced by all jurisdictions. This amendment will help simplify and rationalize the current homeland security grant system. However, I agree with Senator Lieberman that more resources must be allocated to meet our homeland security needs. I hope that the conference is able to quickly agree upon a final version of this bill that follows the Senate's approach and does not contain extraneous and controversial provisions. And I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that what we have learned from the 9/11 Commission becomes a part of how we do business every day. This intelligence reform bill is a very good start, not the end, of the efforts we must make to bring about real changes that will enhance our security and the security of our children.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, September 3, 2004, marked the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. I have introduced a resolution, S. Res. 387, commemorating this important milestone, and I hope the Senate will approve this resolution, which has 18 cosponsors, before we adjourn for the year. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the many people who have helped us preserve over 106 million acres of wilderness for future generations to hike, to hunt, to fish, and to enjoy. People such as Howard Zahniser, Olaus and Mardy Murie, Ceila Hunter, and Bob Marshall had the vision to protect our wild places. Legislators such as John Saylor and Hubert Humphrey listened to them and made their vision a reality. As a Senator from Wisconsin, I feel a special bond with this issue. My State has produced great wilderness thinkers and leaders, such as the writer and conservationist Aldo Leopold, whose ``A Sand County Almanac'' helped to galvanize the environmental movement; like Sierra Club founder John Muir; and like Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society. Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico said that his support of the wilderness system was the direct result of discussions he had held almost 40 years before with Leopold. And then-Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall referred to Leopold as the instigator of the modern wilderness movement. For others, the ideas of Olson and Muir--particularly the idea that preserving wilderness is a way for us to better understand our country's history and the frontier experience--provided an important justification for the wilderness system. I am privileged to hold the Senate seat held by Gaylord Nelson, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. He is a well-known and widely respected former Senator and two-term Governor of Wisconsin, and the founder of Earth Day. What I find so remarkable is that, even after a distinguished career in public service, he continues to work for conservation. He is currently devoting his time to the protection of wilderness by serving as a counselor to the Wilderness Society--an activity which is quite appropriate for someone who was a co-sponsor, along with former Senator Proxmire, of the bill that became the Wilderness Act. I am proud of Wisconsin's part in making this legislation law, and I am proud to carry on that tradition through the Senate Wilderness Caucus. I also wish to thank my colleagues the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, all of whom served in the Senate in 1964 and voted for the Wilderness Act. That Act was the first piece of legislation in the world to preserve wild places. Forty years after the act passed, wilderness still enjoys widespread, bipartisan support. Just recently the Bush administration announced its recommendation for wilderness designation of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin, a place that is near and dear to my heart and to the hearts of many Wisconsinites. I thank my former staffer Mary Frances Repko, who for 9 years worked tirelessly to promote, protect, and push for a wilderness study for the Apostles Islands, and to preserve America's public lands. In closing, I would like to remind colleagues of the words of Aldo Leopold in his 1949 book, ``A Sand County Almanac.'' He said, ``The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not the television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little is known about it.'' We still have much to learn, but this anniversary of the Wilderness Act reminds us how far we have come and how the commitment to public lands that the Senate and the Congress demonstrated 40 years ago continues to benefit all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Recently, the release of the 9/11 Commission report gave us all reason to redouble our efforts to focus on the importance of the foreign policy and foreign assistance priorities that are addressed in this bill. The commission's intelligence reform proposals have been the focus of most of the media attention surrounding the 9/11 report, but the commission's call for more focused, effective ways to attack the terrorists and their organizations, and, critically, to prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism, deserve equally intense examination and certainly deserve action. If we are to leave our children a safer world, we must take the long view in this struggle, and we must find ways to regain the kind of international support and resolve that emerged in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. That support--so critical to any effort to deny terrorists sanctuary, to unravel their financial networks, and to effectively piece together the intelligence picture that can reveal their plans and weaknesses--has dipped dramatically in recent years, and we have sustained terrible losses of an extraordinarily valuable type of American power: our power to persuade, to lead, and to inspire. Throwing our support behind citizens fighting corruption abroad, helping to strengthen networks committed to fighting international crime, investing in the future by supporting child survival and health initiatives--all of these efforts, if pursued wisely, can help create a more secure world for the next generation. In this context, it is important to note that the entire Foreign Operations Appropriations bill amounts to less than the amount that the U.S. has already appropriated for reconstruction projects in just one country: Iraq. When I reflect on this disparity, and then reflect on the fact that resources in this bill are in many cases stretched very thin--for example, the appropriators, who I know strongly support the Peace Corps, were unable to meet the administration's requested funding level for that important program--I am concerned about the balance and focus of U.S. policy in the midst of what is a truly global struggle against the terrorists who attacked this country. I strongly support the provisions in this bill that provide resources for the fight against HIV/AIDS, and believe that the U.S. must continue to ramp up assistance--and to ensure that this assistance is effective--to honor the commitments that the President has made to the millions around the world struggling with this horrific pandemic. I am pleased that this bill fully funds the President's request for assistance for Israel, as well as requests for Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While the U.S. relationship with each of these important countries is complex, there can be no question that continued U.S. investment in the future of these states makes good sense. I continue to have concerns about the assistance provided to Colombia under the Andean Counterdrug Initiative because of ongoing reports of human rights violations by armed groups in Colombia and links between paramilitary groups and the Colombian Armed Forces. I hope that the administration will take seriously the provisions in this bill conditioning the obligation of much of this assistance on whether human rights, alternative development, and fumigation requirements are met. I am pleased that an amendment I cosponsored, expressing the need for international support for the people of Haiti, was included in this bill. The latest disaster in Haiti, in which over 1,000 were killed in severe flooding caused by Tropical Storm Jeanne, has only intensified the suffering Haitians face on a daily basis from political insecurity and extreme poverty. This tragedy underscores the need for the international community to make a serious and sustained commitment to the future of Haiti. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I am especially pleased that this bill provides $5 million to establish pilot programs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Burundi, and Liberia to address sexual and gender-based violence. My office worked with the appropriators on this important provisions. I also strongly support provisions in the bill calling for improvements in the human rights situation in Uganda, and particularly calling for greater efforts devoted to civilian protection and child protection in the North. These provisions dovetail with the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act, a bill I authored which was passed by the Senate and House and signed into law this summer.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will support this conference report. I regret that the important tax cut extensions included in this measure have been used as a political device by the White House and Congressional leadership. We could have had a more fiscally responsible, fully offset package of middle class tax cuts, but the White House and Congressional leadership have blocked that. Instead, we are forced to choose between two bad options: failing to extend these needed tax breaks, and adding still more to the mountain of debt that has been piled up in the last 4 years. Let me note that the reason we must extend these important tax cuts, the reason they were not simply made a permanent part of tax law, was because of the choice made in 2001 and 2003 to use the reconciliation process to jam through a partisan tax agenda. Had leadership pursued the usual procedure for tax bills, bringing legislation to the floor subject to the normal amendment process, we would still have enacted significant tax relief, but they would have been permanent. But, the leadership chose to abuse the special reconciliation process, which was intended not to shelter a tax cut from amendment but to protect the difficult work of enacting deficit reduction packages. Reconciliation was used in order to push through a tax agenda that was skewed. And because they chose that process, they were forced to sunset the tax cuts. So instead of a sensible, and sustainable tax policy, we have this herky-jerky off-again on-again set of tax cuts. That's why we have to come back and extend them. It is why we have this bizarre estate tax policy which phases down the estate tax over several years, then eliminates it completely for a year, and then fully reinstates it back to pre-2001 levels. This is no way to craft tax policy, Mr. President. We should have reinstated the PAYGO rule earlier this year, as a bipartisan majority of this body went on record supporting. The PAYGO rule was instrumental in helping to reduce and finally eliminate annual budget deficits during the last decade. We need to bring it back. Mr. President, Congress could have fully offset the cost of this measure, but it was prevented from doing so for political reasons. I hope the next Congress will stop this nonsense, find sufficient offsets for this tax bill so that our children and grandchildren won't get stuck with the tab, and then reinstate the PAYGO rule that helped us reduce and finally eliminate annual budget deficits just a few years ago.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be working with my partner in reform, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and also with the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, who was so instrumental in getting the 527 disclosure bill passed in 2000. We are introducing today the 527 Reform Act of 2004. This bill will do what the FEC could and should do under current law, but, once again, has failed to do. It sometimes seems like our mission in life is to clean up the mess that the FEC has made. We had to do that with BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which passed in 2002, closing the soft money loophole that the FEC created in the late '70s and expanded in the '90s. We are doing it again with the regulations that the FEC put in place after BCRA passed. Just this past weekend an extraordinary court decision came down that threw out 15 of the 19 FEC regulations challenged by Representatives Shays and Meehan in a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act. That decision was an extraordinary rebuke to a Federal agency. And now we are here to introduce a bill that will make absolutely clear that the Federal election laws apply to 527 organizations. Let me emphasize one thing. We believe that current Federal election law requires these groups to register as political committees and stop raising and spending soft money. But the FEC has failed to enforce the law, saying it is too complicated or that it is too late in the election cycle to take action. Those excuses are unacceptable, so we must act in the Congress. This bill will require all 527s to register as political committees unless they fall into a number of narrow exceptions. The exceptions are basically for groups that Congress exempted from disclosure requirements because they are so small or for groups that are involved exclusively in State election activity. Once a group registers as a political committee, certain activities such as ads that mention only Federal candidates will have to be paid for solely with hard money. But the FEC permits Federal political committees to maintain a non-Federal account to pay a portion of the expenses of activities that affect both Federal and non-Federal elections. Our bill sets new allocation rules that will make sure that these allocable activities are paid for with at least 50 percent hard money. Finally, the bill makes an important change with respect to the non- Federal portion of the allocable activities. We put a limit of $25,000 per year on the contributions that can be accepted for that non-Federal account. And we prohibit corporate or union funds from being given to those non-Federal accounts. So no more will million dollar soft money contributions be used to pay for get-out-the-vote efforts in the Presidential campaign. Nothing in this bill will affect 501(c) advocacy groups. The bill only applies to groups that claim a tax exemption under section 527. And it would be effective in the next election cycle, not this one. The soft money loophole was opened by FEC rulings in the late '70s. By the time we started work on BCRA, the problem had mushroomed and led to the scandals we saw in the 1996 campaign. When we passed BCRA, I said we would have to be vigilant to make sure that the FEC enforced the law and that similar loopholes did not develop. That is what we have been doing for the past 2 years, and what are again doing today. I have no doubt that if we don't act on this 527 problem now, we will see the problem explode into scandals over the next few election cycles. This time we're not going to wait. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again be working with my partner in reform, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and also with the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, who was so instrumental in getting the 527 disclosure bill passed in 2000. We are introducing today the 527 Reform Act of 2004. This bill will do what the FEC could and should do under current law, but, once again, has failed to do. It sometimes seems like our mission in life is to clean up the mess that the FEC has made. We had to do that with BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which passed in 2002, closing the soft money loophole that the FEC created in the late '70s and expanded in the '90s. We are doing it again with the regulations that the FEC put in place after BCRA passed. Just this past weekend an extraordinary court decision came down that threw out 15 of the 19 FEC regulations challenged by Representatives Shays and Meehan in a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act. That decision was an extraordinary rebuke to a Federal agency. And now we are here to introduce a bill that will make absolutely clear that the Federal election laws apply to 527 organizations. Let me emphasize one thing. We believe that current Federal election law requires these groups to register as political committees and stop raising and spending soft money. But the FEC has failed to enforce the law, saying it is too complicated or that it is too late in the election cycle to take action. Those excuses are unacceptable, so we must act in the Congress. This bill will require all 527s to register as political committees unless they fall into a number of narrow exceptions. The exceptions are basically for groups that Congress exempted from disclosure requirements because they are so small or for groups that are involved exclusively in State election activity. Once a group registers as a political committee, certain activities such as ads that mention only Federal candidates will have to be paid for solely with hard money. But the FEC permits Federal political committees to maintain a non-Federal account to pay a portion of the expenses of activities that affect both Federal and non-Federal elections. Our bill sets new allocation rules that will make sure that these allocable activities are paid for with at least 50 percent hard money. Finally, the bill makes an important change with respect to the non- Federal portion of the allocable activities. We put a limit of $25,000 per year on the contributions that can be accepted for that non-Federal account. And we prohibit corporate or union funds from being given to those non-Federal accounts. So no more will million dollar soft money contributions be used to pay for get-out-the-vote efforts in the Presidential campaign. Nothing in this bill will affect 501(c) advocacy groups. The bill only applies to groups that claim a tax exemption under section 527. And it would be effective in the next election cycle, not this one. The soft money loophole was opened by FEC rulings in the late '70s. By the time we started work on BCRA, the problem had mushroomed and led to the scandals we saw in the 1996 campaign. When we passed BCRA, I said we would have to be vigilant to make sure that the FEC enforced the law and that similar loopholes did not develop. That is what we have been doing for the past 2 years, and what are again doing today. I have no doubt that if we don't act on this 527 problem now, we will see the problem explode into scandals over the next few election cycles. This time we're not going to wait. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill and a section-by- section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today our Nation marks the grand opening of the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian. This new museum, the first museum opening on the National Mall since 1987, is truly spectacular, with awe-inspiring architecture, striking landscaping, and remarkable holdings that richly reflect the range of Native American culture and traditions. By opening this museum, we have finally recognized the contribution of Native people to our Nation. This recognition is long overdue. The museum is not simply about the history of the American Indian, it is also a forward-looking museum, which recognizes the vitality of tribal life throughout the world. This vitality is clearly evident in my State of Wisconsin, which is home to eleven federally recognized tribal governments: the Brad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Forest County Potawatomi Indian Community, the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Sokaogan Chippewa (Mole Lake) Community of Wisconsin, the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and the Stockbridge Munsee Community of Wisconsin. I am proud to represent the members of Wisconsin's tribes, many of whom are gathering here to support and participate in this important occasion. The influence of the Native Americans who have lived in Wisconsin for so many years is evident in the names of our cities and towns, lakes and rivers, and counties and parks. Wisconsin's native peoples' traditions are part of who we are and these vibrant communities make vast contributions to Wisconsin's culture. Congress authorized the Smith- sonian's National Museum of the American Indian on November 28, 1989 with passage of the National Museum of the American Indian Act. I congratulate my colleagues, the senior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, who championed the creation of this museum as a member of the other body, and the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for their vision in writing the legislation that made this museum a reality. The Museum opens today with a celebration that is expected to draw as many as 20,000 Native Americans to Washington. Many are calling the grand opening today the largest tribal gathering in history. I commend the Congress and the Nation for finally recognizing our Native people and their past, present, and future contributions to America's culture, history, and tradition.