Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and instead support an alternative offered by Senator Feinstein, and I would like to take a moment to explain why. I join with Senator DeWine and the supporters of this bill in condemning acts of violence against women, including pregnant women. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act would make it a Federal crime to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a Federal crime against a pregnant woman. This separate offense would be punished as if injury or death had occurred to the pregnant woman. I believe that acts of violence against pregnant women are deplorable and should be punished severely. Congress has taken and should continue to take steps to protect women from violence and prosecute those who attack them. But I am concerned that by recognizing the fetus as an entity against which a separate crime can be committed, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act may undermine women's reproductive rights as set forth by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. That is why I plan to support a sound alternative, the Motherhood Protection Act, offered by my colleague Senator Feinstein. the Motherhood Protection Act would accomplish the same stated goal as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act: establishing an additional, separate Federal offense for harm to a pregnant woman. It carries the same penalties as H.R. 1997: a maximum 20-year sentence for harm to a pregnancy and a maximum life sentence for termination of a pregnancy. I believe that the Feinstein substitute is the better approach because it accomplishes the same goal that H.R. 1997 seeks to address without delving into the controversial issue of defining when human life begins. Regardless of our views on that highly charged question, we can agree that violence against pregnant women is a heinous crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That is why I will oppose H.R. 1997 and instead support the Feinstein substitute. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate International Women's Day, which is celebrated around the world on March 8. For nearly a century, women's groups worldwide have paused on this day to celebrate the achievements and contributions of women around the globe. This day is also an opportunity to reflect on the challenges that women continue to face in their daily lives. Despite the progress women have made in many countries, women worldwide continue to confront discrimination, violence and even slavery. In central Africa and, specifically, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, sexual violence has increasingly been used as a weapon against women and girls. These horrific acts cannot be tolerated, and those responsible for these atrocities must be held accountable. At the same time, the international community must reach out to help provide medical and psycho-social support to women and girls affected by these horrors, and must work vigorously with civil society and local authorities to prevent these abuses in the future. Sadly, these violent acts are not isolated instances. Rather, they are indicative of the violence occurring against women in many conflict zones. Experts note that women and girls are most affected by violence, economic instability, and displacement associated with warfare. At home, in flight or in refugee camps, they are frequently threatened by rape and sexual exploitation. Far too many victims of domestic violence and of human trafficking. In some countries, women fall victim to ``honor killings,'' a deplorable practice whereby women are murdered by male relatives for actions that are perceived to bring dishonor to the family. Other countries tolerate the burning of thousands of brides a year due to insufficient dowries. While I am pleased that the United States has begun to address the global HIV/AIDS crisis, the pandemic continues to exact a terrible human toll on communities around the world, and in sub-Saharan Africa, it is having a particularly devastating effect on women. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have had the opportunity to travel to numerous countries in Africa and see firsthand the devastating toll that HIV/ AIDS and other infectious diseases are taking on the people of this continent. According to United Nations reports, over 25 million adults and children in Africa are infected with the HIV virus, the majority of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in which women are infected with the virus at a higher rate than men. UNAIDS, the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, reports that women make up an estimated 58 percent of the HIV-positive adult population in this region, as compared to 50 percent worldwide. Young women and girls are especially at risk. The United Nations reports that in this region 6 to 11 percent of girls age 15-24 are infected with HIV, whereas infection among boys of the same age group is 3 to 6 percent. International efforts to fight AIDS will not succeed unless we make a sustained and serious effort to address the factors that make women and girls so vulnerable to exposure. This means more than talking about legal rights, and more than talking about economic empowerment. It means that we must take action. Despite these difficulties for women, encouraging signs of women's progress are also in evidence around the world. In Western and Central Africa, international courts are holding those responsible for crimes against humanity, including the use of rape as a weapon of war, accountable for their actions In Mexico, indigenous women, who once lived in the shadows of a deeply patriarchal society, are increasing their influence in local communities. These women are increasingly buying small businesses and owning their own land, taking an aggressive stance against domestic violence and contributing to decision-making in their communities. In Afghanistan, women are finally back in school. The new Afghan Constitution, approved on January 4, 2004, provides equal rights and duties under the law to women and includes special provisions to encourage women's access to education and government. Restoring human rights, and, in particular, women's rights, is key to Afghanistan's successful reconstruction and transition to democracy. Women of all cultures are being recognized on an international stage for their contributions. Notably, Shiri Edadi won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to promote democracy and human rights in Iran, particularly for women and children. The U.S. Senate can work toward protecting women's rights and improving the status of women domestically and internationally by acting upon the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW. CEDAW is a comprehensive treaty on women's human rights addressing almost all forms of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, marriage and family, health care, politics and law. It has been over two decades since the United States signed this treaty, and it still awaits consideration before the Senate. Once again, I urge the Committee on Foreign Relations to take up this treaty and allow the Senate the opportunity to offer its advice and consent on this important convention. International Women's Day celebrates the progress women have made in the face of adversity and pays tribute to women fighting against discrimination and other injustices. This year, Congress recognized Dorothy Height for her tremendous work for women's rights. Ms. Height, who fought against racism and violence toward African Americans, also battled for women's full and equal employment, increased educational opportunities, and institutions for women in the United States. This year, she was awarded a congressional gold medal for her contributions to our nation. Women have made tremendous strides in the last century. In the United States, more and more women are attending college and earning post- graduate degrees. Worldwide, women are becoming increasingly active in the political process--more women are being elected to office and appointed to positions of power than ever before. In the year 2000, 11 countries were led by women. While I recognize that women in the U.S. continue to make great advances, work remains to narrow the wage disparity between men and women. Although some progress has been made in narrowing the gender wage-gap since Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act in 1963, unfair wage disparities continue. I am proud to support legislative efforts to correct his discrepancy. In addition, I encourage the Senate to consider legislation to reauthorize the TANF program. I believe that any welfare reauthorization bill that passes the Senate should help to ensure that we are not just reducing the welfare rolls, but are also helping current and former TANF recipients break the cycle of poverty. Unfortunately, violence against women is still all too prevalent in our country. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among women of child-bearing age. One out of every six American women have been victims of a rape or an attempted rape. Many rapes go unreported, and more than half of the women attacked know their assailant. We must continue to adequately fund state and local programs, including support shelters for women suffering from violent abuse in their homes. These safe havens deserve strong support and funding for the invaluable work they provide for women and communities around the country. As we honor women and celebrate their accomplishments and contributions, we must recognize that there is still much more to be done in the struggle for gender equity. Discrimination and violence against women continue to exist at home and abroad. The United States and the rest of the international community must reaffirm their commitment to promote gender equality and human rights around the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first, I want to offer my congratulations to our Budget Committee Chairman, Senator Don Nickles, for his efforts to craft a budget. He has announced that he will retire from this body at the end of his current term, and so this will be his last budget resolution, and his work on the Budget Committee and in this body deserve recognition. Though I oppose the budget resolution he produced in committee, and that was approved by this body, I have nothing but the greatest respect for the author of that document. Let me also note that the resolution passed by the Senate is an improvement on the disastrous budget the President proposed, and I credit Chairman Nickles with a great deal of that improvement. In particular, I want to commend him for including at least some of the expected cost of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in his mark. Though it is still far short of what our best estimates tell us will be needed, it is a great improvement to the ``head in the sand'' approach adopted in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal. I regret the committee did not support my amendment to more adequately and honestly budget for our operations, and I very much hope that as it comes out of conference, the final version of the budget resolution will adopt the approach I have advocated--forthright budgeting that pays for our operations instead of shoving the cost onto future generations. I regret that this theme of ``buy now pay later'' pervades this budget, as it has for the past 3 years. This resolution heads our budget in the wrong direction. As our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Conrad, has noted, when compared with current policies as represented in the CBO baseline and as adjusted by taking out last year's supplemental appropriation for our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. this budget resolution further worsens the budget bottom line. Budget deficits will be greater, and Government debt will be larger under this budget. That means that this budget further adds to the burden our children and grandchildren already bear because of the fiscal recklessness of the past three years. In one important respect, this resolution is a significant improvement over the version reported out of committee, because it restores some of the budget enforcement we so desperately need as we face massive budget deficits for years to come. I was pleased that the Senate approved my amendment to reinstate the discipline of the PAYGO rule which requires that all new mandatory spending and all new tax cuts be offset or be subject to a point of order. As it came out of committee, this resolution maintained the far weaker rules embedded in last year's budget resolution, inviting further damage to the budget, and further debt to be heaped on the backs of future generations. With the adoption of my amendment, the Senate has taken an important step toward turning around the rapidly deteriorating budget position. This resolution is also an improvement over the original mark offered by the chairman because of an amendment adopted in committee that facilitates the reimportation of FDA-approved prescription medicines that I was proud to join with Senator Stabenow in offering. Our amendment will not only save money for those who rely on those medicines, but it also will reduce our budget deficits and save taxpayers billions of dollars. And I should note that this resolution does not rely on revenues raised by drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, and I want to express my thanks to the chairman for responding to the appeal a number of us made with respect to this issue. I was prepared to fight to remove such language, and I think the chairman was wise not to rely on revenue assumptions that have always been questionable, and that were at risk of being removed from the resolution. The resolution was also improved on the floor when the body adopted an amendment offered by Senator Baucus which stripped the reconciliation instruction that would have severely limited consideration of the issues surrounding the proposed significant reshaping of Medicaid. The President's proposed changes to that program would put thousands of Wisconsin's most vulnerable residents at risk, and the Baucus amendment will make it harder for Congress and the White House to gut this essential safety net. I regret the body did not adopt amendments offered by the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, and by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, that would have provided needed support for our first responders, who are on the front lines in our fight against terrorism. The administration did not include adequate support in its budget, nor did the resolution as it came out of committee, and the Senate failed to correct that defect when it rejected those amendments. This is an area of funding as critical to the security of our country as any other, and while I was pleased to support another amendment in this area, offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, to provide a portion of the resources that are needed, I very much hope further improvement can be made before Congress takes final action on the resolution. I was also disappointed that the Senate did not act to improve the measure by returning to the ``polluter pays'' policy that served us so well for many years. I was pleased to join with the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, in offering an amendment to do just that, and I regret that this sensible policy was rejected. While the Senate failed to add that provision, it did adopt an amendment I strongly supported, to increase funding to support state compliance with Federal clean water standards. The goal of that deficit neutral amendment is to provide $3.2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $2.0 billion for the Safe Drinking Water Act Revolving Fund, both vitally important programs that were not adequately funded by the President in his budget submission. As I noted earlier, this budget heads us down the wrong fiscal path. If we are ever to climb out of the deficit ditch again, we need to start now. Unfortunately, this resolution, though an improvement on what the President proposed, still leaves us worse off than merely extending current policies. We must do better than that if we are to avoid heaping even more debt onto the already enormous burden our children and grandchildren must bear.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was very happy to learn this week that Wisconsin will be one of 12 new States to receive funding for a full- time Weapon of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team--WMD-CST--this year and I want to congratulate the Wisconsin National Guard for their efforts to secure a full-time team. These teams, made up of members of the National Guard, play a vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating the new threat we face in the 21st century. During the 2002 Baseball All-Star Game in Milwaukee, WI had to call in Minnesota's civil support team because Wisconsin did not yet have a full-time team. I am pleased that Wisconsin will now have its own capability to quickly respond and protect its citizens from possible terrorist threats. I have worked for years now to assure that all states and territories have at least one of these teams and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for helping me in this endeavor. We have had great success. The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 made it law that all states and territories have at least one WMD-CST and Congress authorized and appropriated the funds to establish 12 of the 23 teams during fiscal year 2004. Now we must make sure that the last 11 teams are funded in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate not only the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma but his leadership on the Budget Committee. I enjoy very much serving with him on the committee. I also appreciate the sort of change of tone from the opposition on this amendment. Everything we have heard about this amendment recently is how we need to have a weaker rule than the pay-go rule. Somehow we have to justify these exceptions that were put in the Budget Committee resolution. Finally the chairman is talking about what we really should be talking about, that we need a strong rule. What he has done is lay out some things our pay-go doesn't do. That is true. There may be some additional things we should do in this area. But what I am proposing, with the cosponsors, is let's at least go back to the rules we know worked, the rules that brought this country a balanced budget in the 1990s. They were proven to work. That is all this amendment does. If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to talk about additional steps, I am all for it. Senator Gregg and I, in the Budget Committee in the past, tried for 5-year caps on spending. We were defeated by a largely party-line vote except for Senator Gregg. That didn't work so we tried a 2-year cap, working with Senator Conrad. That was rejected. We tried 1 year. That is one of the three legs of the stool, the discretionary spending. If the Senator wants to work with me and Senator Gregg and others to propose legislation to deal with that, I am ready to go. In fact, Senator Gregg and I proposed such a bill. But the chairman knows very well we can't change that on the budget resolution. We have to pass a statutory item in order to accomplish that. So I am eager to do it. Let's pass this pay-go amendment and let's immediately move on to finish the job by passing the kind of statute that will achieve what the Senator from Oklahoma is talking about. I can't allow a complete changing of the subject because the truth is the pay-go rules in the proposal before us are not pay-go. They are pay-go minus. It is sort of as though you draft up a budget and after you figure out what you want, then you draft up the rules by which you will draft up the budget. That is the game we are playing here. We don't go into the process saying: Look, we have played by these rules. They have worked. We say: What do we need; what tax cuts do we want; what mandatory spending do we want. And after that, everything else that hasn't gone through the barn door, then we make the rules apply after that. I suggest that doesn't work. I suggest it is a formula for more fiscal disaster. I suggest it means next year in the Budget Committee the same thing is going to happen. There is going to be a whole list of tax cuts and other things--mandatory spending--people wanted to get in there. And they will say: We exempt this, and now we will make the pay- go rule apply. That is making a sham out of the pay-go rules. The ranking member, for whom I have enormous admiration on this subject, hit it right on the head. The people of this country are beginning to realize it has all happened again, that they have been taken. We had rules in place that the American people were thrilled to see work, leading to a balanced budget and a surplus. Those rules are no longer there. Those rules were allowed to expire at a time when this country was undergoing enormous anxiety. But they are catching on. They caught on in 1992, and they sent to Washington people who would deal with the deficit. They are catching on again now. The Senator is right, this vote is ``the vote'' about whether you are for balancing this Nation's budget or whether you want deficits as far as the eye can see. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Delaware who has been a terrific advocate on this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer this amendment with Senators Chafee, Baucus, Cantwell, Carper, and Graham. This amendment is very straightforward. It would simply reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule that has been such an effective restraint on the fiscal appetites of Congress and the White House. The last 3 years have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs, and that is balancing the Nation's fiscal boxes. We are all familiar with the history. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office actually projected in the 10 years thereafter, Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. A little more than 3 years later, we are now, unfortunately, staring at almost a mirror image of that 10-year, $5 trillion surplus. Instead of healthy surpluses, under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits. We must stop running deficits because they cause the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. We have to stop running deficits because 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. 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 debts they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. That is not right. This is also why I am offering this amendment to fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. This amendment would simply return us to the rules by which Congress played for the decade of the 1990s. It would eliminate the exceptions to pay-as-you-go included in last year's resolution that exempt new tax cuts and new mandatory spending included in a budget resolution. The reason we have to get rid of these exceptions is these exceptions facilitate more damage to the Federal bottom line. I recognize there are some who prefer to provide some exemptions for certain tax and spending policies. In particular, the argument has been made that we ought to exempt the extension of the 10-percent bracket, the child care tax credit, and the marriage penalty provisions. The argument is that these, and possibly other policies, are so worthy that they should not be subjected to pay as you go. Let me offer what I think are two valid responses to this. First, while there are certainly worthy tax provisions included in the assumptions underlying this resolution, including those I just listed, as the chairman of the committee has pointed out very effectively in the Senate, no budget resolution can actually specify which taxes must be cut and which must be raised. The resolution can set forth levels of tax cuts, but it cannot specify which taxes are cut. It follows that the resolution cannot specify which tax cuts should be exempt from budget enforcement. It can exempt some level of tax cuts from that enforcement, as indeed this resolution does. But a budget resolution cannot specify which specific tax cuts are to be exempt from budget enforcement. So we have no guarantee at all that these popular and worthy tax cuts I just mentioned, those three, would end up being the ones that would benefit from this exemption that exempts tax cuts from the normal pay-as-you-go requirement on which we have to get the 60 votes to waive the rule. The second reason, for the specific tax cuts I mentioned earlier--the 10- percent bracket, the child tax credit, and the marriage penalty provision--I am absolutely sure there will be far more than 60 votes to waive any point of order against those provisions. I even wonder if anyone will propose to put us in a position where we have to waive a point of order. Someone will have to actually raise a point of order. These three sorts of tax cuts have such strong support that it is not, in my view, a serious or genuine objection that the pay-as-you-go rule will prevent them from being extended and continuing. Reinstating the pay-as-you-go rule makes it harder for this body to make the deficit worse. It does not prohibit these tax cuts. It does not make it impossible to have a tax cut. It just makes it a little harder. That is as it should be. Given our current budget position, we ought to make it harder to make the deficit worse. If new tax cuts or new mandatory spending is not to be offset, then they ought to be only the most worthy of policies, not just anything that can get a majority vote. They ought to be policies that can achieve the 60 votes needed to waive a point of order. It is very simple. That is what this amendment would do. It is the least we should do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound budgeting. We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We must continue the discipline of the budget process. This is one of those situations where after you have been here a while, you can actually speak from experience. I can speak from experience of having watched in this body. As I came in 1993, we had the largest deficit in American history. Were it not for these budget rules, if it were not for the pay-as-you-go rules, I am certain the parties would not have come together as we did over those years to achieve what almost no one thought was possible--a very solid surplus. Without these rules, the discipline goes away. Without these rules, we are back to the behavior of the 1980s, which my constituents so thoroughly condemn: Unlimited tax cuts on unlimited spending, the blank checks that were written that put this Nation in its worst deficit to date. We now have a much worse deficit. We now have the largest deficit in American history. It is incumbent upon this body to go back to what we know worked, to what we know put the parties in a healthy competition, to see which party could be more fiscally responsible. We desperately need to return to that discipline now. That is why I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment that will return the pay-as-you-go rules in full. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, does the Senator from North Dakota want more time off the amendment?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers for making it possible for me to offer this amendment at this time. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot tell you how pleased I am to have the support of these two Senators. They are two Senators who are consistently devoted to protecting the taxpayers in their State and in the country. I find, more than anything else, people looking for representatives who truly come out here and take the tough votes to protect the interests of the taxpayers. As I indicated before, they are figuring out that despite all the troubles of the last couple of years, we have irresponsibly driven up this country's deficit and debt to a point that is unprecedented in the history of the country. I am grateful to these two Senators. I remind everybody, this is a bipartisan amendment. We have a Republican cosponsor, and there will be other Republican votes for it. This is not your typical partisan amendment or vote on a budget resolution. This is about what used to be a consensus in this body. We ought to have some rules that are consistent that will apply to all parts of the budget so that we can work together on behalf of the American people to do something about our very serious fiscal problems. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish I could say what is in the budget resolution before us is pay-go, but it is not pay-go. It is pay-go without an absolutely critical component, and that is making it apply to the tax cuts. It is almost like saying I want pay-go as long as it does not apply to what I want, and that is not the pay-go that worked in the 1990s. That is not the pay-go that brought us a balanced budget. I have to reiterate, this does not stop the tax cuts the Senator from Oklahoma is talking about--child care credit, 10-percent bracket, marriage penalty. Not only can all of these survive under pay-go, they will. They just need to get 60 votes. I predict in each case, they will probably get 35 to 40 extra votes on top of that, if anyone even raises the point of order. So it is simply false to say somehow this stops the tax cuts from being extended. Let's be honest about it. The only reason this exemption is needed is those tax cuts were not made permanent. Had they been made permanent, the Senator from Oklahoma would not have to be worrying about extending them. Why weren't they made permanent? They weren't made permanent so we could have this phony idea the deficit isn't as bad as it really is out in the future years. It is a gimmick. It is a game to make them temporary so you can say it is not going to cost more in the outyears. Then when it comes time to face the music, what do we do? We say the normal rules do not apply. We do not require ourselves to pay for it, or we do not require the 60 votes that are normally needed. Without the adoption of this amendment, we have done serious damage to the integrity of the pay-go rules going into the future. A system of rules such as this depends on the integrity of the rules, that they be applied fairly and across the board. Allowing these exemptions, even well-intentioned, with regard to certain tax cuts, undermines the integrity of a system we all relied on to work in the 1990s. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to know, do I have 30 seconds remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me point out to the Senator from Iowa, for whom I also have enormous regard and really enjoy working with, he indicated he wanted to make sure this pay-go goes through the way they have it in the budget resolution in order to make sure tax cuts that are current law continue. The fact is they are not in current law. The current law says they shall expire. That is the law. The law is they are going to expire. In order to continue these tax cuts, a new law must be passed. All I am saying is the pay-go rule should apply to that new law, to those new tax cuts, because otherwise we are not applying the rules that are applied to everything else. I think it is an important distinction. It is not by accident these were set up to expire. They would have been in violation of the budget because they caused deficits in the outgoing years. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to debate the Senator from Oklahoma. I join with him on the issue when it comes to the taxpayers. The lesson we learned in the 1990s is the worst thing that can be done to the taxpayers of this country is to run record deficits and destroy the fiscal integrity of this country. The only question is: Are we going to have across-the-board, tough budget rules to protect the taxpayer dollars, or are we going to have holes in those rules that will make sure the taxpayers get in a deeper hole with the deficits? Those tax cuts will not be denied because of these rules this year. The taxpayers of this country will get the 10 percent. They will get the continued elimination of the marriage penalty. They will get the child care credit. If we go with my amendment, they will get that and also get the fiscal discipline rules that brought them a balanced budget at the end of the 1990s. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment will simply return us to the rules by which Congress played in the decade of the 1990s. We eliminate the exceptions to pay-go included in last year's resolution that exempt new tax cuts and new mandatory spending included in the budget resolution, an exception that facilitates more damage to the Federal bottom line. This amendment will not--I repeat, will not--prevent the extension of the expiring 10-percent bracket or the child tax credit or the marriage penalty. This body will vote to extend those tax cuts by a huge margin, and I will be part of that huge margin. But this amendment will return some of the budget discipline that helped us balance the budget. Deficits matter. Debt matters. Let's not leave our children and grandchildren with an even bigger tab than we have already stuck them with. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004. I am pleased to be joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with me in the 107th Congress to reform the Corps. I also thank the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, who, as the Democratic Leader, has long supported Corps reform, for cosponsoring this legislation today. As we debate the budget resolution this week, we cannot ignore the record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces. Fiscal responsibility has never been so important. This legislation provides Congress with a unique opportunity to underscore our commitment to that goal. Time and time again we have heard that fiscal responsibility and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. Through this legislation, however, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars and protect the environment. As evidence of this unique opportunity, this bill is supported by Taxpayers for Common$ense, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and Earthjustice. Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a gloomy federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and many other states across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services in my state alone. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy. This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the former Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers' package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of peer review of Corps projects. The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were included in two bills, one of which I authored and the other I cosponsored, in the 107th Congress. It codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps, which was investigated through the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects. I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking about the same issue. The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the problem is with Congress. All too often Members of Congress have seen Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring that taxpayers get the most bang for their federal buck. This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and environmental protection are co-equal goals of the Corps. Furthermore, the Corps must use current discount rates when determining the costs and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are justified using a discount rate formula established in 1974, not the current government- wide discount rate promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. By using this outdated discount rate formula, the Corps often overestimates project benefits and underestimates project costs. This legislation also requires that a water resource project's benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer. According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60 Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates Federal- local cost sharing of inland waterways, flood control, and future beach renourishment projects, and reduces the Federal cost burden of these projects. While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to reduce their local share for projects. The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following circumstances: 1. the project has costs greater than $25 million, including mitigation costs; 2. the Governor of a state that is affected by the project requests a panel; 3. the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the project determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; or 4. the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. Any party can request that the Secretary make a determination of whether the project is controversial. This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The Director is responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The Secretary is required to respond to the panel's report and explain the extent to which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The panel report and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the project will be made available to the public. The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the Federal Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks. I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible. This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion. Under the bill a project authorized for construction but never started is deauthorized if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion of construction for five straight years. In addition, a project that has begun construction but been denied appropriations funds towards completion for three straight years is deauthorized. The bill also preserves congressional prerogatives over setting the Corps' construction priorities by allowing Congress a chance to reauthorize any of these projects before they are automatically deauthorized. This process will be transparent to all interests, because the bill requires the Corps to make a list of projects in the construction backlog available to Congress and the public at large. In the past decade, the Corps has routinely strayed from its mission of flood control, navigation, and environmental protection. This legislation also requires that the Corps stick with its primary missions and that any water project that does not have the Corps' primary mission of flood control, navigation, or environmental protection as its main objective will be deauthorized. This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water Resources bill. I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance. I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2004. I am pleased to be joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with me in the 107th Congress to reform the Corps. I also thank the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, who, as the Democratic Leader, has long supported Corps reform, for cosponsoring this legislation today. As we debate the budget resolution this week, we cannot ignore the record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces. Fiscal responsibility has never been so important. This legislation provides Congress with a unique opportunity to underscore our commitment to that goal. Time and time again we have heard that fiscal responsibility and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. Through this legislation, however, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars and protect the environment. As evidence of this unique opportunity, this bill is supported by Taxpayers for Common$ense, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and Earthjustice. Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a gloomy federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and many other states across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services in my state alone. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy. This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the former Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers' package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of peer review of Corps projects. The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were included in two bills, one of which I authored and the other I cosponsored, in the 107th Congress. It codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps, which was investigated through the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects. I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking about the same issue. The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the problem is with Congress. All too often Members of Congress have seen Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring that taxpayers get the most bang for their federal buck. This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and environmental protection are co-equal goals of the Corps. Furthermore, the Corps must use current discount rates when determining the costs and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are justified using a discount rate formula established in 1974, not the current government- wide discount rate promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. By using this outdated discount rate formula, the Corps often overestimates project benefits and underestimates project costs. This legislation also requires that a water resource project's benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer. According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60 Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates Federal- local cost sharing of inland waterways, flood control, and future beach renourishment projects, and reduces the Federal cost burden of these projects. While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to reduce their local share for projects. The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following circumstances: 1. the project has costs greater than $25 million, including mitigation costs; 2. the Governor of a state that is affected by the project requests a panel; 3. the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the project determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; or 4. the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. Any party can request that the Secretary make a determination of whether the project is controversial. This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The Director is responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The Secretary is required to respond to the panel's report and explain the extent to which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The panel report and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the project will be made available to the public. The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the Federal Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks. I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible. This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion. Under the bill a project authorized for construction but never started is deauthorized if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion of construction for five straight years. In addition, a project that has begun construction but been denied appropriations funds towards completion for three straight years is deauthorized. The bill also preserves congressional prerogatives over setting the Corps' construction priorities by allowing Congress a chance to reauthorize any of these projects before they are automatically deauthorized. This process will be transparent to all interests, because the bill requires the Corps to make a list of projects in the construction backlog available to Congress and the public at large. In the past decade, the Corps has routinely strayed from its mission of flood control, navigation, and environmental protection. This legislation also requires that the Corps stick with its primary missions and that any water project that does not have the Corps' primary mission of flood control, navigation, or environmental protection as its main objective will be deauthorized. This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water Resources bill. I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance. I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, if I could have 10 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota to fully fund health care programs for our Nation's veterans. America is indebted to our veterans and military personnel and to their families for the extraordinary service and sacrifice that they have so selflessly provided to our country. As we debate this budget resolution, our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line in this country and around the world, from Iraq to Afghanistan to the Balkans to the Korean DMZ and countless other places. We thank those men and women and we hope for their quick and safe return to their families. At the same time that the current members of our Armed Forces serve us across the globe, we must not forget those who paved the way for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of today. Our Nation's veterans and their families have given selflessly to the cause of protecting our freedom. Too many have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country, from the battlefields of the Revolutionary War that gave birth to the United States, to the Civil War, which sought to secure for all Americans the freedoms envisioned by the Founding Fathers, to the global fight against Nazism and fascism in World War II. In the last century, Americans fought and died in two world wars and in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. They also participated in peacekeeping missions around the globe, some of which are still going on. We owe it to our veterans to ensure that they have a decent standard of living and access to adequate health care. It is the least that we can do in return for their courageous service to our country. This is especially important as we welcome home a new generation of veterans who are serving in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles have ended and our troops have come home. The amendment that we are considering will go a long way toward ensuring that the VA health care system can meet the demand for care from the existing veterans population and will help to ensure that the VA is able to care for returning veterans who will require health care services. For too long our veterans have had to wait months for appointments to see a doctor at a VA facility. Others are unable to access VA care within a reasonable distance from their homes. I cannot tell my colleagues how many times I have heard that comment at the town meetings ended all over Wisconsin. And still others are told by the VA that they are not eligible for care because their priority group level is too low. The amendment before us today would ensure that the Veterans Health Administration is funded at the level recommended by the Independent Budget for Veterans Affairs, which is drafted annually by a coalition of veterans service organizations. By their calculations, the President's budget request falls short by nearly $2.8 billion, and the underlying budget resolution is $2.7 billion below what would be needed to meet demand at VA health care facilities during fiscal year 2005. The amendment that is before the Senate would increase the amount for veterans' health care in the budget resolution by $2.7 billion. This increase would ensure that all veterans, including those in priority group 8 who are currently barred from enrolling in the VA health care system, receive care at VA facilities. It would also eliminate the need for the proposed prescription drug co-payment increases and new user fees for veterans in priority groups 7 and 8 that have been proposed by the President. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs said the following about his Department's budget request: My top priority in health care is to ensure that resources are available to care for those veterans who are most deserving of VA's medical services. The proposals in this budget will assist us in continuing that focus on our core service population in our health care system. Let me repeat that. The Secretary said his budget would ensure that resources are available to care for those veterans who are ``most deserving of VA's medical services.'' In my view and in the view of veterans and their families who I have spoken with around Wisconsin, all veterans are deserving of the VA's medical services. I am troubled that the Secretary's comments seem to pit groups of veterans against each other for health care services. The amendment before the Senate today will enable the VA to serve all veterans who wish to take advantage of their health care benefits. In order to offset this increase, the amendment would reduce the tax cut for Americans making more than $1 million annually. This is a more than fair exchange that will allow us to provide badly needed health care services to our veterans. I am deeply concerned that for the last several years funding for veterans health care and other programs for our Nation's veterans has been delayed as Congress and the administration wrangle over the Federal budget. I believe strongly that we should consider and pass a budget resolution and 13 individual appropriations bills each year. I regret that the VA budget has been rolled into omnibus measures, thus delaying this important funding for our Nation's veterans. I hope that this amendment will be the first step in providing adequate funding to care for our veterans in fiscal year 2005 and beyond. This is the very least that we can do for those who done so much for our country. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator yields.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I think this amendment offered by Senator Daschle clearly attempts to fund this out of the most unjustified aspects of the tax cut that was put into place. It would simply prevent certain tax cuts that are for very high-income people from going forward, and at a minimum level make sure the Veterans Affairs budget is fully funded. I believe this is an appropriate amendment.