Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fair Pricing for Prescription Drugs Act to help make prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. This legislation endorses the excellent work that my colleague Senator Dorgan of North Dakota has done to promote importing prescription drugs from other industrialized countries. And it includes companion language to Congressman Welch's bill to call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Here in the Senate, several of my colleagues, most recently Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, have tirelessly pushed the need for negotiation of drug prices. I am proud to have stood with my colleagues on these issues over the last decade--and feel strongly that Congress must move quickly to ensure that all Americans--whether they purchase private health insurance or are enrolled in Medicare--have fairly priced prescription drugs. Allowing for importation of prescription drugs and price negotiation for Medicare Part D are common sense policies, These are changes that Congress can make to drastically improve the affordability of prescription drugs for our constituents, save the government money, and further enhance the health reform law passed earlier this year. I was pleased to be a part of that historic effort, but the health reform law was not perfect and did not go as far as it could have to reduce prescription drug prices for consumers. I have heard from thousands of Wisconsinites about the need for health reform during my time in the Senate. The health reform law empowers consumers and small businesses for the first time in our history to demand more for their health care dollar. These changes will improve the affordability of health insurance and medical care for individuals and families. But I also continue to hear from Wisconsinites about the burden of rising prescription drug costs. They need our help. One of the fastest ways to reduce prescription drug costs is to allow for importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from other industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and European countries. Americans pay some of the highest prices for the same prescription drugs that are sold 33 to 55 percent less in other countries. Americans are now importing more than $1 billion in prescription drugs from Canada alone. In these tough economic times, and with equally safe but more affordable drugs just over the border, it is no wonder that Americans are going to such lengths to buy the prescriptions they need. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that allowing importation of prescription drugs would save consumers upwards of $50 billion. Just last year, the CBO reviewed their original estimate of government savings as a result of this policy, concluding that the government would nearly double its expected savings to over $19 billion. We do a lot of things in Congress that leave our constituents scratching their heads. Well, now we have a chance to show them we are listening to them, that we understand their concerns, and that we want to bring down Federal spending while ensuring the prescriptions drugs they need are more affordable. We can also do more to ensure affordable prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries by calling on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D enrollees. Mr. President, I opposed the legislation that created the Medicare Part D drug benefit because I did not believe the program would provide adequate financial relief for Medicare beneficiaries facing high prescription drug costs. This legislation actually included a provision which explicitly forbade the Secretary from negotiating with drug manufacturers on behalf of seniors' interests. We should have done better for our seniors. And they are living with the consequence of that decision today--with ever-rising prescription drug costs. The health reform law will provide some relief, particularly for the dreaded ``donut hole'' of Medicare Part D. But health reform does not speak to the other glaring shortfall of the Medicare Part D program-- that the government is prohibited from negotiating for better drug prices for beneficiaries. Negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries is hardly a radical idea, Mr. President. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, negotiates on drug prices and spends considerably less than the Medicare program on the same drugs. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare released a study that found that VA drug prices are, on average, 48 percent lower than Medicare Part D prices for the top 10 prescribed drugs. NCPSSM estimates that billions could be saved annually by requiring the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D. With the government on the hook for over $50 billion in drug costs for Part D alone, it is simply irresponsible to not aggressively seek new savings from negotiating prices. Focusing on lowering the price of prescription drugs rather than subsidizing insurance and pharmaceutical companies will not only provide relief for the sick, but will save taxpayer dollars. Changing how we purchase prescription drugs by allowing importation from industrialized countries and negotiation on pricing for Medicare Part D is a clear and simple way to reduce prescription drug costs, reduce government spending, and keep Americans healthier. I am thankful for the leadership that my colleagues have shown in introducing legislation on these topics, and add my voice, and my bill, to theirs in our combined effort to answer the demands of our constituents.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I would like to raise the important issue of human rights and democratic reform in our partnership with Egypt. I am very concerned by Egypt's recent extension of its emergency law--which has been in place continuously since 1981--yet again, for another 2 years. Since 2005, President Hosni Mubarak and his government have repeatedly pledged to end the use of the emergency law, but it continues to be extended. Although some changes were apparently announced with the extension, these were little more than cosmetic and will do nothing to improve the deeply repressive environment this law enables. Emergency laws, if they are ever appropriate, are intended for exceptional circumstances, not continuous application for decades. Furthermore, numerous concerns have been raised about violations of human rights and civil liberties under Egypt's emergency law. The extension also comes ahead of parliamentary and Presidential elections, which may see new challenges emerge to the leadership structure. As Amnesty International's deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa stated recently, ``[w]e are particularly concerned that this extension comes as Egypt prepares for elections this year; the authorities are notorious for relying on the emergency powers to lock up their opponents.'' In a report on his visit to Egypt last year, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, acknowledged ``the right of a State to proclaim a state of emergency as a temporary measure determined by the exigencies of the situation'' but expressed his concern that ``Egypt has been almost continuously governed by emergency law, which includes far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms, for more than 50 years.'' The dangers inherent in the law's continuing use are highlighted by its provisions and their apparent application. Among other things, the law apparently allows preventive detention and enables individuals to be held indefinitely without being charged or brought to trial. Egyptian citizens do not enjoy the freedom to assemble or protest peacefully and, in fact, face arrest if they participate in such demonstrations. In fact, Mr. Sheinin has noted that special State Security Investigations officers ``in practice enjoy carte blanche in deciding on whom to arrest'' and have used the emergency law to arrest and detain human rights activists, journalists and internet bloggers who were critical of the government. Human rights and civil liberties should not be sacrificed in the search for security, nor would doing so guarantee security. On the contrary, counterterrorism measures must ensure respect for political and civil rights and the rule of law if they are to be effective in the long term. Repression only yields more resentment, more opposition, and more alienation. As President Obama said during his 2009 Cairo speech, ``Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.'' I am pleased that the State Department and then the White House released public statements expressing regret at Egypt's extension of the emergency law, but they were insufficient in recognizing how critical political and democratic reform is both to security and stability within Egypt, as well as to the broader region. In order to genuinely address the very real concerns of radicalism, Egypt must expand its engagement with its citizens and provide them with greater openings to voice their concerns. Stifling the public feeds rather than prevents the growth of radicalism. In contrast, reducing corruption, improving governance, and building democratic institutions will go a long way toward reducing the appeal of extremism. The historic partnership between the United States and Egypt means we have an active and critical role to play in pressing for these reforms. We should use every opportunity to bring them up. Egypt is an incredibly important country and a vital strategic partner of the United States. It is a nation of 80 million people that sits at the strategic crossroads between Africa and Asia. Egypt is a leader among Arab States and has played an important role in matters of peace and security in the Middle East, particularly in the area of Arab-Israeli peace. At the same time, Egypt continues to be heavily involved in affairs in North and East Africa, not least because of its reliance on water resources from the Nile River, where ongoing negotiations over the Nile Basin Initiative have escalated regional tensions between Egypt and its neighboring countries at a time when Egypt's own internal dynamics are fluid. Egypt's long history with Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is also of critical importance given South Sudan's upcoming vote on self-determination set for January 2011. Without question, successful political reform in Cairo would significantly enhance Egypt's leadership role throughout the Middle East and Africa and could help ensure constructive political engagement in these regions for years to come. For all these reasons, it is in our interest to continue to pursue a strong working relationship with the Egyptian Government. But it is also in our interest to ensure that relationship is sustainable and strategic over the long-term. To do this, I believe we must engage more broadly with the Egyptian people and support efforts in the country to push for human rights and democratic reform. This is especially important in the coming months as Egypt prepares to hold parliamentary elections, which will be followed next year by a Presidential election. This period could be one of transition, possibly one of tumult. The Obama administration should begin engaging now with the Egyptian government and other stakeholders to make clear that we support a fair, free, and peaceful process. Continuing to provide uncritical support to an authoritarian regime undermines our credibility as champions of political and civil rights and creates tensions, particularly in the Muslim world, which are ripe for exploitation. Those tensions, in turn, threaten our own national security. As I have noted before in this forum, we must be strong and consistent in advancing human rights, good governance, and the rule of law while also addressing security and economic concerns. And we should make sure that message is being reinforced by all U.S. Government officials and programs in Egypt.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I would like to raise the important issue of human rights and democratic reform in our partnership with Egypt. I am very concerned by Egypt's recent extension of its emergency law--which has been in place continuously since 1981--yet again, for another 2 years. Since 2005, President Hosni Mubarak and his government have repeatedly pledged to end the use of the emergency law, but it continues to be extended. Although some changes were apparently announced with the extension, these were little more than cosmetic and will do nothing to improve the deeply repressive environment this law enables. Emergency laws, if they are ever appropriate, are intended for exceptional circumstances, not continuous application for decades. Furthermore, numerous concerns have been raised about violations of human rights and civil liberties under Egypt's emergency law. The extension also comes ahead of parliamentary and Presidential elections, which may see new challenges emerge to the leadership structure. As Amnesty International's deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa stated recently, ``[w]e are particularly concerned that this extension comes as Egypt prepares for elections this year; the authorities are notorious for relying on the emergency powers to lock up their opponents.'' In a report on his visit to Egypt last year, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, acknowledged ``the right of a State to proclaim a state of emergency as a temporary measure determined by the exigencies of the situation'' but expressed his concern that ``Egypt has been almost continuously governed by emergency law, which includes far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms, for more than 50 years.'' The dangers inherent in the law's continuing use are highlighted by its provisions and their apparent application. Among other things, the law apparently allows preventive detention and enables individuals to be held indefinitely without being charged or brought to trial. Egyptian citizens do not enjoy the freedom to assemble or protest peacefully and, in fact, face arrest if they participate in such demonstrations. In fact, Mr. Sheinin has noted that special State Security Investigations officers ``in practice enjoy carte blanche in deciding on whom to arrest'' and have used the emergency law to arrest and detain human rights activists, journalists and internet bloggers who were critical of the government. Human rights and civil liberties should not be sacrificed in the search for security, nor would doing so guarantee security. On the contrary, counterterrorism measures must ensure respect for political and civil rights and the rule of law if they are to be effective in the long term. Repression only yields more resentment, more opposition, and more alienation. As President Obama said during his 2009 Cairo speech, ``Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.'' I am pleased that the State Department and then the White House released public statements expressing regret at Egypt's extension of the emergency law, but they were insufficient in recognizing how critical political and democratic reform is both to security and stability within Egypt, as well as to the broader region. In order to genuinely address the very real concerns of radicalism, Egypt must expand its engagement with its citizens and provide them with greater openings to voice their concerns. Stifling the public feeds rather than prevents the growth of radicalism. In contrast, reducing corruption, improving governance, and building democratic institutions will go a long way toward reducing the appeal of extremism. The historic partnership between the United States and Egypt means we have an active and critical role to play in pressing for these reforms. We should use every opportunity to bring them up. Egypt is an incredibly important country and a vital strategic partner of the United States. It is a nation of 80 million people that sits at the strategic crossroads between Africa and Asia. Egypt is a leader among Arab States and has played an important role in matters of peace and security in the Middle East, particularly in the area of Arab-Israeli peace. At the same time, Egypt continues to be heavily involved in affairs in North and East Africa, not least because of its reliance on water resources from the Nile River, where ongoing negotiations over the Nile Basin Initiative have escalated regional tensions between Egypt and its neighboring countries at a time when Egypt's own internal dynamics are fluid. Egypt's long history with Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is also of critical importance given South Sudan's upcoming vote on self-determination set for January 2011. Without question, successful political reform in Cairo would significantly enhance Egypt's leadership role throughout the Middle East and Africa and could help ensure constructive political engagement in these regions for years to come. For all these reasons, it is in our interest to continue to pursue a strong working relationship with the Egyptian Government. But it is also in our interest to ensure that relationship is sustainable and strategic over the long-term. To do this, I believe we must engage more broadly with the Egyptian people and support efforts in the country to push for human rights and democratic reform. This is especially important in the coming months as Egypt prepares to hold parliamentary elections, which will be followed next year by a Presidential election. This period could be one of transition, possibly one of tumult. The Obama administration should begin engaging now with the Egyptian government and other stakeholders to make clear that we support a fair, free, and peaceful process. Continuing to provide uncritical support to an authoritarian regime undermines our credibility as champions of political and civil rights and creates tensions, particularly in the Muslim world, which are ripe for exploitation. Those tensions, in turn, threaten our own national security. As I have noted before in this forum, we must be strong and consistent in advancing human rights, good governance, and the rule of law while also addressing security and economic concerns. And we should make sure that message is being reinforced by all U.S. Government officials and programs in Egypt.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, while I opposed the motion to instruct offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, I did so with reluctance. The vast majority of auto dealers in Wisconsin do not engage in the kinds of behavior that have been held up as a reason to oppose the Senator's motion, or the amendment he had previously offered to the financial regulatory reform bill. Our dealers are wonderful corporate citizens, who have contributed significantly to our communities and our State. Some of that excellent track record stems from Wisconsin's tough consumer protection laws that not only safeguard consumers, but also protect those firms that treat their customers fairly from the fly-by- night operators who seek to gain a competitive advantage over honest dealers at the expense of the consumer. Had Wisconsin's consumer laws and history of vigorous enforcement been reflected in other States across the Nation, there would have been a stronger argument for carving out an exception in the bill for a specific set of firms, as is proposed by the motion to instruct. Even though I opposed the motion to instruct, supporters of the motion are right when they note that auto dealers, who are almost uniformly small businesses, should not be treated the same as the large financial institutions that are the focus of much of this bill. That is why I supported the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, to extend the Regulatory Flexibility Act provisions to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That approach will not only address some of the concerns of the Senator from Kansas but also other small businesses that may fall under the oversight of that new bureau.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, while I opposed the motion to instruct offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, I did so with reluctance. The vast majority of auto dealers in Wisconsin do not engage in the kinds of behavior that have been held up as a reason to oppose the Senator's motion, or the amendment he had previously offered to the financial regulatory reform bill. Our dealers are wonderful corporate citizens, who have contributed significantly to our communities and our State. Some of that excellent track record stems from Wisconsin's tough consumer protection laws that not only safeguard consumers, but also protect those firms that treat their customers fairly from the fly-by- night operators who seek to gain a competitive advantage over honest dealers at the expense of the consumer. Had Wisconsin's consumer laws and history of vigorous enforcement been reflected in other States across the Nation, there would have been a stronger argument for carving out an exception in the bill for a specific set of firms, as is proposed by the motion to instruct. Even though I opposed the motion to instruct, supporters of the motion are right when they note that auto dealers, who are almost uniformly small businesses, should not be treated the same as the large financial institutions that are the focus of much of this bill. That is why I supported the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, to extend the Regulatory Flexibility Act provisions to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That approach will not only address some of the concerns of the Senator from Kansas but also other small businesses that may fall under the oversight of that new bureau.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there were two amendments I supported during debate on the financial reform bill that would take steps to improve our Nation's housing policy. Unfortunately, only one of these amendments was adopted by the Senate. Senator McCain offered an amendment, that I supported, that would have required the Federal Government to end its conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 2 years after the financial reform bill was signed into law. While the amendment was not perfect, I supported it because neither the current structure of Fannie and Freddie nor the billions of taxpayer dollars that the Federal Government is using to prop up Fannie and Freddie are sustainable. Federal taxpayer support of Fannie and Freddie needs to end, and the McCain amendment would have provided a timetable for bringing that Federal support to an end. I was pleased that the Senate did adopt an amendment I supported, offered by Senator Merkley, to curb predatory lending practices throughout the Nation. These unconscionable predatory lending practices contributed to the subprime housing mess, and the Merkley amendment included commonsense provisions to address some of these practices. Too often, loan originators received higher compensation if they steered borrowers into subprime loans than if they had placed those borrowers into qualifying prime loans. The Merkley amendment would address this perverse financial incentive to put borrowers into predatory loan products by preventing loan originators from receiving payments based on the terms of loans. The amendment, which also includes stronger underwriting standards, provides sensible protections to Wisconsin's borrowers.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, 3 weeks ago I supported invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill. Proceeding to this measure was essential to being able to debate, amend, and strengthen it. But as I noted at that time, after 30 years of acquiescing to the wishes of Wall Street lobbyists, it is essential that Congress get it right this time, and finally enact tough reforms to prevent Wall Street from driving our economy into the ditch again. In particular, that means eliminating the risk posed to our economy by the massive financial firms that are considered ``too big to fail.'' Over the last few weeks, this body has repeatedly rejected amendments that address ``too big to fail.'' And perhaps the most important amendment in this respect--one offered by the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, to reinstate the protective firewalls of the Glass- Steagall Act--may not be considered if we invoke cloture on the underlying measure. Three weeks ago, I said that for me the test for this legislation is a simple one--whether or not it will prevent another financial crisis. And central to that test is how this bill will address ``too big to fail.'' Right now, this bill fails that test, and for that reason I will not support ending debate on the measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of two amendments to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act that seek to ensure there is greater transparency around how international companies are addressing issues of foreign corruption and violent conflict that relate to their business. Creating these mechanisms to enhance transparency will help the United States and our allies more effectively deal with these complex problems, at the same time that they will also help American consumers and investors make more informed decisions. Mr. President, I am very pleased that my colleagues agreed yesterday to accept the first amendment, sponsored by Senator Brownback. This amendment specifically responds to the continued crisis in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Despite efforts to curb the violence, mass atrocities and widespread sexual violence and rape continue at an alarming rate. Some have justifiably labeled eastern Congo as ``the worst place in the world to be female.'' Several of us in this body, including Senators Brownback and Durbin and I, have traveled to this region and seen first-hand the tragedy of this relentless crisis. Increasingly, American citizens are also learning of the devastating situation in eastern Congo and are actively engaged to bring about policy changes. I am pleased to see Americans so engaged on this issue. One of the underlying reasons this crisis persists is the exploitation and illicit trade in natural resources, specifically cassiterite, columbite-tantalite, wolframite and gold. The United Nations Group of Experts has reported for years how parties to the conflict in eastern Congo continue to benefit and finance themselves by controlling mines or taxing trading routes for these minerals. In response to these reports, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1857, 2008, encouraging Member States ``to ensure that companies handling minerals from the DRC exercise due diligence on their suppliers.'' Over a year ago, Senator Brownback, Senator Durbin, and I teamed up to author legislation that would do just that: the Congo Conflict Minerals Act, S. 891. Senator Brownback's amendment is taken from that bill, but includes modifications based on discussions with representatives from industry, U.S. Government agencies, and the Banking Committee. The amendment applies to companies on the U.S. stock exchanges for which these minerals constitute a necessary part of a product they manufacture. It will require those companies to make public and disclose annually to the Securities and Exchange Commission if the minerals in their products originated or may have originated in Congo or a neighboring country. Furthermore, it will require those companies to provide information on measures they have taken to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody to ensure activities involving such minerals did not finance or benefit armed groups. I recognize that this conflict minerals problem is a complex one, given the importance of this trade to the local economy in eastern Congo and given the extensive supply chains and processing stages between the source and end use of these minerals. The Brownback amendment was narrowly crafted in consideration of those challenges, and it includes waivers and a sunset clause after 5 years. However, I believe strongly that the status quo in eastern Congo is unacceptable to the people there and it should be to us as well. We have put financial resources toward mitigating this crisis, but we need to get serious about addressing the underlying causes of conflict. The Brownback amendment is a significant, practical step toward doing that, and I thank my colleagues for their support of it. I thank Senator Brownback for his longstanding leadership on these important humanitarian issues. The second amendment, led by Senator Cardin and Senator Lugar, is different than the Congo amendment but would complement it. This amendment would require companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose in their SEC filings extractive payments made to foreign governments for oil, gas, and mining. This information would then be made public, empowering citizens in resource-rich countries in their efforts to combat corruption and hold their governments accountable. In far too many countries, natural resource wealth has fueled corruption and conflict rather than growth and development. This so-called ``resource curse'' is especially problematic in Africa, and in 2008, I chaired a subcommittee hearing on this very topic. I said then that we must look for ways that the United States can use our leverage to push for greater corporate transparency in Africa's extractive industries. In addition to helping countries combat the ``resources curse,'' it is also in our national interest to improve transparency in the extractive industries. The amendment was drawn from an important piece of legislation, the Energy Security through Transparency Act, S. 1700. The bill was given this title because enhancing transparency in the extractive industries can have real benefits for U.S. energy security. This will ultimately create a more open investment environment and increase the reliability of commodity supplies. Energy security is a topic that Senator Lugar and his staff have worked on for years, and we all know how central it is to our national security. I thank Senator Lugar and Senator Cardin for their work on this important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from New York bringing us together to discuss the DISCLOSE Act, S. 3295, which he introduced last week and which I am proud to cosponsor. As the name suggests, the central goal of this bill is disclosure. It aims to make sure that when faced with a barrage of election-related advertising funded by corporations, which the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case has made possible, the American people have the information they need to understand who is really behind those ads. That information is essential to being able to thoughtfully exercise the most important right in a democracy--the right to vote. It is no secret that the Senator Schumer and I, and all of the original cosponsors of the bill, were deeply disappointed by the Citizens United decision. We reject the Court's theory that the first amendment rights of corporations, which can't vote or hold elected office, are equivalent to those of citizens. And we believe that the decision will harm our democracy. I, for one, very much hope that the Supreme Court will one day realize the mistake it made and overturn it. But the Supreme Court made the decision and we in the Senate, along with the country, have to live with it. The intent of the DISCLOSE Act is not to try to overturn that decision or challenge it. It is to address the consequences of the decision within the confines of the Court's holdings. Congress has a responsibility to survey the wreckage left or threatened by the Supreme Court's ruling and do whatever it can constitutionally to repair that damage or try to prevent it. In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations could not constitutionally be prohibited from engaging in campaign related speech. But, with only one dissenting Justice, the Court also specifically upheld applying disclosure requirements to corporations. The Court stated: [P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are `` in the pocket' of so- called moneyed interests. The Court also explained that disclosure is very much consistent with free speech: The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. The Court also made clear that corporate advertisers can be required to include disclaimers to identify themselves in their ads. It specifically reaffirmed the part of the McConnell v. FEC decision that held that such requirements are constitutional. The DISCLOSE Act simply builds on disclosure and disclaimer requirements that are already in the law and that the Court has said do not violate the first amendment. Notwithstanding the Court's strong endorsement of disclosure and the fact that for years opponents of campaign finance reform have claimed that timely and exacting disclosure requirements are preferable to other campaign finance restrictions, we are already hearing claims that this bill violates the first amendment. Let me take a minute to address some of the criticisms of this bill that have been made. First, there is the claim that the disclosure requirements are intended to chill political expression. It is, of course, entirely possible that some organizations will decide not to run ads if they have to identify who is really footing the bill for them. But if that happens, it is not because the disclosure requirements interfered with their right to speak out, it is because they were not willing to provide the information that the Supreme Court has said ``enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' Candidates disclose their donors. There is no reason for those who want to elect or defeat those candidates not to disclose theirs. We do not intend to chill speech with this bill. We intend to make it easier for the public to evaluate that speech. Second, some claim that the requirements of the DISCLOSE Act are too burdensome, and the expense will prevent some groups from speaking. This seems highly unlikely in light of the already high cost of campaign advertising. Surely any group that is able to spend the kind of money it takes to run television ads attacking or promoting a candidate will have the resources to make sure that the American people have the information they need to evaluate those ads. Third, the bill is criticized because it requires additional reporting of corporations that spend money directly from their treasuries rather than setting up a campaign related activity account. But this is the wrong way to look at the bill. The Citizens United decision allows spending directly from corporate treasuries. That's the default way of doing it, and the bill sets up a disclosure system that will ensure that adequate information about the real sources of the spending is made available to the public. It then sets up an alternative format for disclosure that a corporation can choose to take advantage of if it agrees to spend money on campaign spending only from a separate account. That promise to spend only from the campaign related activities account makes the more comprehensive disclosure of contributions to the treasury unnecessary. And it should always be remembered that any donor to a corporation or organization who wants to remain anonymous need only specify that the contribution cannot be use for campaign spending. These features of the bill show that it is narrowly tailored, not that it is discriminatory. It is also very important to note that the bill applies equally to groups on both sides of the political fence. Corporations, unions, groups on the left and the right, will all have to disclose their spending and their donors if they want to spend treasury money on political ads. This bill doesn't discriminate against anyone. It treats all political actors equally. Any argument that the bill favors unions or other organizations that mostly support Democrats is simply wrong. I have a long history of bipartisan work on campaign finance issues. I am not interested in legislation that has a partisan effect. This bill is fair and evenhanded. It deserves the support of Senators on both sides of the aisle. Most of the complaints about the bill come from interests that want to take advantage of one part of the Citizens United decision--the part that allows corporate spending on elections for the first time in over 100 years--and at the same time pretend that the other part of the decision--the part upholding disclosure requirements--doesn't exist. But the law doesn't work that way. As the old saying goes, ``you can't have your cake and eat it too.'' Once again, I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senator from New York and look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to pass this bill. I now yield for the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there are many important issues that demand Congress's attention, but one that we cannot afford to neglect the situation is Sudan. We are in the midst of a decisive period that will determine the future of that country and shape the conflicts that have long besieged its people. In less than 9 months, the people of South Sudan will hold their referendum on self-determination, with the option to forge an independent state. There are serious challenges involved with the holding of that referendum and any subsequent transition to independence. The potential for instability is high. Meanwhile, the conflict in Darfur remains unresolved and is likely to get worse. Over 2 million displaced people are still living in camps, and earlier this week, one of the largest rebel groups in Darfur suspended their involvement in peace talks after alleging that the Sudanese Government has launched fresh attacks. Finally, the peace in eastern Sudan, one of the country's most impoverished regions, continues to be fragile. The dynamics in each of Sudan's regions and the future of the country in general will have profound implications for neighboring countries, as well as the wider region. Last month, the people of Sudan held their first multiparty elections in 24 years. I join the White House in commending the Sudanese people for their efforts to make these elections peaceful and meaningful, and I am pleased that the voting witnessed no major armed violence. However, I was disappointed by statements of the U.S. Special Envoy in the runup to the election suggesting that the elections would be ``as free and as fair as possible.'' This was clearly not the case. For months beforehand, many of us had expressed concern about the political, security, and logistical challenges to credible elections. The environment was clearly not conducive for opposition parties to freely operate and campaign, nor was it conducive for all voters to safely and confidently go to the polls. The inability of the government both in the north and in the south--to adequately address the significant infrastructure and logistical challenges resulted in decreased voter access. There is good reason for the international community to question the extent to which the results reflect the will of the Sudanese people. Furthermore, the fact that the winner of the Presidential election has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes is problematic. In no way should the international community allow this outcome to take away from the serious charges President Bashir faces. The White House statement after the Sudanese election was thoughtful and balanced. It acknowledged the significant problems with the process but also distinguished between the credibility of elections and the potential still for democratic progress. These elections were seriously flawed, but indeed there was evidence of the beginnings of citizen engagement at the local levels that did not exist before. It will be important to build on that momentum going forward. The White House statement rightly pointed out that continued pressure will be critical to make progress for the civil and political rights of all Sudanese people. That pressure must come first and foremost from within the country, but there remains an important role for the United States and other members of the international community. Over the last year, I have been concerned at times that the Obama administration has not exerted the requisite pressure to hold Khartoum accountable for a failure to live up to its commitments. There are too many promises, commitments, and agreements broken without consequence. Theoretically, I am not opposed to engaging the Government of Sudan, but I share Nicholas Kristof's concern that our engagement ``ends up as a policy to go soft on [Bashir] and to reduce pressure on Khartoum to honor the referendum in the south.'' With the election now concluded, the international community must redouble its efforts to prepare for South Sudan's referendum and its outcome, whatever that may be. It is critical that this referendum be held on time and that it be held as fairly and peacefully as possible. In order for this to happen, there is much work to be done both logistically and politically including efforts to resolve the outstanding issues the CPA, as well as ambiguous postreferenda matters, such as resource allocation and citizenship rights. In the case of separation, these two issues are likely to be the most inflammatory and difficult to address. The international community, as well as countries in the region, has an active role to play in advancing related negotiations and preparations for the referendum. Sudan's neighboring states especially have interests at stake that could be directly affected by either a peaceful separation or a return to conflict. We must see serious and detailed contingency planning for all possible scenarios, both pre- and post-referendum and they must get underway now. While the most obvious tripwire for a return to war would be a delay of the referendum, planning must also include clear guidance on how to deal with the possibility that the different actors could seek to manipulate, or disrupt, the results of that referendum. I continue to be concerned that the NCP could foment insecurity in the south as it has done in the past, but I am particularly concerned by the internal security challenges within South Sudan. They are considerable and will not be easily resolved. Humanitarian organizations reported that over 2,500 people were killed and an additional 350,000 were displaced by interethnic and communal violence within southern Sudan throughout 2009. The Lord's Resistance Army continues to wreak havoc on communities in the southwestern corner of the country. In his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in February, the Director of National Intelligence identified South Sudan as the area in which ``a new mass killing or genocide is most likely to occur.'' The task of transforming the army and police into modern security organs that protect civilians and respect human rights is daunting but vital. We need to roll up our sleeves and get to work on helping the South Sudanese to accomplish this task, while empowering UNMIS in the meantime to better protect civilians and monitor flashpoints. Of course security sector reform cannot be separated from the other governance and economic challenges facing the region. Most South Sudanese have not seen much progress in the 5 years since the signing of the CPA. Communities continue to lack access to basic services including water, health, and infrastructure. It is no secret that the Government of South Sudan still has limited capacity, and in some cases limited will, to provide this assistance or manage its own revenues. This lack of will and capacity concerns me particularly because it is closely linked with the growing problem of corruption within the government. A lack of transparency plagues this young government by complicating and undermining efforts to distribute services and reform the security services. This is not cause for delaying the referendum, as to do so would be a retreat from our commitment as guarantors of the CPA and could be seen as a reason to abrogate the agreement by either party. Instead, it is cause for increasing our efforts in South Sudan and helping the region to reach a basic level of political and economic stability. I am pleased that the Obama administration is in the process of scaling up our diplomatic and development personnel and activities in South Sudan to prepare for the referendum and its aftermath. I urge other governments to do the same, if they are not already. The regional states and international community all have a stake in facilitating an orderly process and preventing an outbreak of violence. It is in our interest to work together and coordinate our efforts to help the South Sudanese meet the many challenges in front of them. Finally, as we do this, we should not turn our backs on the other conflicts within Sudan, particularly the situation in Darfur. We have seen in the past how the National Congress Party can effectively manipulate the international community's narrow focus on one region or conflict at the expense of another. Despite some small successes, the situation in Darfur is unresolved and the events of recent weeks have shown that a peace deal remains elusive. The situation could become more difficult and complex to resolve over time, especially if the CPA collapses and the north-south war is reignited. The Obama administration must maintain its focus on building a credible peace process for Darfur at the same time that it seeks to shore up the CPA. We need to keep the pressure on to ensure there is a cessation of attacks and to begin seriously addressing the legitimate grievances of Darfurians. Mr. President, in the critical months ahead, we need to have a bold, comprehensive approach toward all of Sudan that brings resources to bear and ensures consistent, high-level engagement from the White House as well as here in Congress. To that end, I will continue to do my part, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we recently learned that David Obey, one of the longest serving Members of the other body, a friend, and a fellow member of the Wisconsin delegation, has decided to retire. To come here and try to sum up his record and accomplishments isn't easy to do; Congressman Obey has achieved so much for Wisconsin, and for this Nation. He has been the dean of the Wisconsin delegation, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and a national leader on many issues affecting hardworking families. Congressman Obey understood the concerns of the people of the 7th District of Wisconsin, and he has been their champion for more than 40 years. He and I are both so fortunate to represent this beautiful swath of Wisconsin's north woods, including the magnificent Apostle Islands. In fact, Congressman Obey and I worked together to protect the Apostles, designating almost 80 percent of the Apostles as federally protected wilderness. That was just one of many ways that Congressman Obey and I worked together. Recently, we were also proud to come together to honor our friend, the late Gaylord Nelson, on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. And through the years, I have had the chance to work with Congressman Obey in areas where he has shown tremendous leadership, including advocating for veterans, farmers, and seniors. Wisconsin veterans have a terrific ally in Congressman Obey, who has stood up for better funding and facilities for our veterans time and again. I have been so pleased to work with him to open new veterans' health clinics, push for more vet centers, and fight for the best possible care for those men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country. Congressman Obey has also worked tirelessly on behalf of the farmers of our State. He has fought for country-of-origin labeling and other issues critical to ginseng farmers, worked for emergency appropriations funding for direct payments to help shore up the safety net for dairy farmers in tough times, and pushed to create, extend and improve the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program. Those are just a few of the many things he has done for Wisconsin's farmers, and I was proud to join him in those efforts. He is also a determined advocate for our seniors, and was a critical member of our effort to save the SeniorCare Program in both 2007 and 2009. Congressman Obey also has a long and distinguished record on a host of other issues. He is committed to strengthening public education, improving our health care system, and a longtime advocate for political and congressional reforms. There are so many things he has accomplished, and so many reasons he will be missed. I want to take this opportunity to recognize Congressman Obey's outstanding service in the other body. I wish him all the best, and I thank him for his dedicated work for the people of Wisconsin and for every American.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am glad the Senate is finally considering the critically important issue of financial regulatory reform. Few things are as important as ensuring we never again suffer the kind of meltdown of the financial markets that shoved our economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression. I think it still remains to be seen if this bill will do that. While it certainly includes some good reforms, more needs to be done, and the track record of Congress in this area is, at best, checkered. For the last 30 years, Presidents and Congresses have consistently given into Wall Street lobbyists and weakened essential safeguards. As has been the case in so many areas, members of both political parties are to blame. Legislation that paved the way for the creation of massive Wall Street entities and removed essential protections for our economy passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. From the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s to the more recent financial crisis that triggered the horrible economic downturn from which we are still recovering, those three decades of bipartisan blunders have been devastating to our Nation. The price of those blunders has been paid by homeowners, Main Street businesses, retirees, and millions of families facing an uncertain economic future. The impact of the recent financial crisis on the Nation's economy has been enormous. Millions have lost their jobs and millions more who are lucky enough to have a job are forced to work fewer hours than they want and need to work. According to a study done by the Pew Trust, the financial crisis caused American households an average of nearly $5,800 in lost income. Of course, families lost a significant amount of their personal savings. As a nation, we lost $7.4 trillion in stock wealth between July 2008 and March 2009 and another $3.4 trillion in real estate wealth during that same time. We simply cannot afford to continue down the path policymakers have set over the past 30 years. The test for this legislation then is a simple one: Whether it will prevent another financial crisis. Central to that test will be how this bill will address too big to fail. This is a critical issue that has been growing for some time now as increased economic concentration in the financial services sector has put more and more financial assets under the control of fewer and fewer decisionmakers. Years ago, a former Senator from Wisconsin, William Proxmire, noted that as banking assets become more concentrated, the banking system itself becomes less stable, as there is greater potential for systemwide failures. Sadly, Senator Proxmire was absolutely right, as recent events have proved. Even beyond the issue of systemic stability, the trend toward further concentration of economic power and economic decisionmaking, especially in the financial sector, simply is not healthy for the Nation's economy. Banks have a very special role in our free market system: They are rationers of capital. When fewer and fewer banks are making more and more of the critical decisions about where capital is allocated, then there is an increased risk that many worthy enterprises will not receive the capital needed to grow and flourish. For years, a strength of the American banking system was the strong community and local nature of that system. Locally made decisions made by locally owned financial institutions--institutions whose economic prospects are tied to the financial health of the community they serve--have long played a critical role in the economic development of our Nation and especially for our smaller communities and rural areas. But we have moved away from that system. Directly as a result of policy changes made by Congress and regulators, banking assets are controlled by fewer and fewer institutions, and the diminishment of that locally owned and controlled capital has not benefited either businesses or consumers. Of course, most dramatically, taxpayers across the country must now realize that Senator Proxmire's warning about the concentration of banking assets proved to be all too prescient when President Bush and Congress decided to bail out those mammoth financial institutions rather than allowing them to fail. That was a bailout I strongly opposed. The trend toward increased concentration of capital was greatly accelerated in 1994 by the enactment of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act and especially in 1999 by the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which tore down the protective firewalls between commercial banking and Wall Street investment firms. Those firewalls had been established in the wake of the country's last great financial crisis 80 years ago by the Banking Act of 1933, the famous reform measure also known as the Glass-Steagall Act. Prior to Glass-Steagall, devastating financial panics had been a regular feature of our economy, but that changed with the enactment of that momentous legislation, which stabilized our banking system by implementing two key reforms. First, it established an insurance system for deposits, reassuring bank customers that their deposits were safe and, thus, forestalling bank runs. Second, it erected a firewall between securities underwriting and commercial banking so financial firms had to choose which business to be in. That firewall was a crucial part of establishing another protection--deposit insurance-- because it prevented banks that accepted FDIC-insured deposits from making these speculative bets with that money. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act tore down that firewall, as well as the firewall that separated insurance from Wall Street banks, and we have seen the disastrous results of that policy. I voted against tearing down the firewall that separated Main Street from the Wall Street banks. I did it for the same reason I voted against the Wall Street bailout: because I listened to the people of Wisconsin who did not want to give Wall Street more and more power. Wall Street was gambling with the money of hard-working families and too many Members of Congress voted to let them do it. I didn't support it before and I will not support it now. We have to get this legislation right and protect the people of Wisconsin and every State--protect them from something such as this ever happening again. So I was pleased to join the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing legislation to correct that enormous mistake Congress made in passing Gramm-Leach- Bliley. I look forward to supporting an amendment to this measure based on the Cantwell-McCain-Feingold bill. The measure before us seeks to make up for the lack of a protective firewall between the speculative investment bets made by Wall Street firms and the safety net-backed activities of commercial banking by imposing greater regulatory oversight. We have seen how creative financial firms can be at eluding regulation when so much profit is at stake. No amount of regulatory oversight can take the place of the legal firewall established by Glass-Steagall. So when it is offered, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Cantwell's amendment to restore that sensible protection. Rebuilding the Glass-Steagall firewall is essential in preventing another financial crisis. But even if we restore Glass-Steagall, there are additional steps we should take to address too big to fail in this bill. I am pleased to be joining the Senator from North Dakota in offering his amendment to address the problem directly by requiring that no financial entity be permitted to become so large that its failure threatens the financial stability of the United States. I am also looking forward to supporting an amendment that will be offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Kaufman, who is in the Chamber, that proposes bright line limits on the size of financial institutions. The disposition of those three proposals I have just reviewed will go a long way in determining my vote for the final version of this measure. I very much want to craft in this body a bill that can prevent the kind of crisis we experienced in the past, but the bill before us needs some work before we can legitimately make that claim. I thank the President and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining an effort spearheaded by the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, to put an end to the practice of Senators secretly holding up legislation or nominations. Senators who want to block a bill or nomination should be willing to state their objection on the record. Many of us thought we had addressed that problem when Congress approved the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Unfortunately, the problem of secret holds persists, and the new rule needs to be tightened. As with any Senator, there are times when I object to passage of a bill or confirmation of a nominee. It has not been my practice to try to keep my objection secret, however. For example, when the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and I objected to confirmation of the nomination of John Sullivan to a term on the Federal Election Commission last year, we released a statement publicly stating our action and our reasons. We made clear that, until the White House nominates replacements for the two other commissioners whose terms have expired, we would not consent to Mr. Sullivan's confirmation. The FEC is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock, and the President must nominate new commissioners with a demonstrated commitment to the existence and enforcement of the campaign finance laws. Similarly, when I had concerns about legislation introduced by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, S. 132, I discussed my concerns directly with her. I have proposed changes that would make the bill more effective in addressing the serious problem of gang-related violence, and I look forward to passage of the amended bill. Mr. President, it is not enough to fight for change--you need to lead by example, too. So I will make it my practice to have printed a statement in the Record when I object to bringing up legislation or a nomination. And I urge my colleagues to do the same, and to support efforts to eliminate loopholes in the current rule.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the bipartisan Federal Contracting and Oversight Act. Every year millions of taxpayer dollars are awarded to contractors with a history of poor performance and misconduct because our federal contracting oversight regime, though well-intentioned, is broken. The problems in our contracting oversight regime were first brought to my attention by my constituents in Wisconsin, several of whom are small businesses that have suffered as a result of misconduct by a Federal contractor. In one case, a Federal contractor that has received over $6 million in Federal contracts failed to pay small businesses in Wisconsin that worked as subcontractors. Several years later, the Army finally barred the contractor from receiving Federal dollars, finding that the contractor had ``a documented history of failing to pay subcontractors for services rendered pursuant to government contracts.'' We must ensure that these records of poor performance and misconduct are identified before federal contracts are awarded to contractors, not years later after the damage has already been done. As I studied the issue further, I learned that similar problems were widespread and well documented. The Government Accountability Office has documented numerous instances of suspended and debarred companies continuing to receive federal contracts. In one case, a company that had been debarred for attempting to ship nuclear bomb parts to North Korea continued to receive millions of dollars on an Army contract. In another case, a contractor that had been suspended after one of its employees was found to have sabotaged repairs on an aircraft carrier was awarded three new contracts a month after the incident. We must act to ensure that these incidents do not repeat themselves. American taxpayer dollars should be spent responsibly and the flaws of our contracting process should never be allowed to affect our security. Our Federal contracting process is in urgent need of reform and greater oversight. To that end, I am introducing the Federal Contracting and Oversight Act, which is an important step to prevent the continued Federal patronage of private companies unworthy of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I am encouraged that Senator Coburn has also taken note of the flaws of the Federal contracting process and has joined me in this effort as an original cosponsor. This bill also has the support of experts that closely track our federal contracting process, including the Project on Government Oversight, the Center for American Progress, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and OMB Watch. This bill will protect the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers by improving the federal contracting system in three ways: First, this bill will make the system more transparent. Sunshine continues to be the best disinfectant; unfortunately, some of the most important data concerning contractor performance and misconduct is shielded from the scrutiny of the full Congress and American people. This bill will broaden access to the new Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, FAPIIS, database, which contains a comprehensive picture of the records of Federal contractors including details of criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, contract defaults, suspension and debarments, and other violations of federal acquisition laws. Under my bill, every member of Congress will be able to access the database in order to review the records of contractors. This is an important step towards greater transparency in our contracting oversight system. Each member of Congress has an interest in monitoring how the taxpayer dollars of their constituents are being spent. Second, this bill will empower our contracting officers by giving them the tools and resources they need to adequately vet companies seeking Federal dollars. Contracting officers currently make award decisions with only a limited set of information that is insufficient to support an informed decision. These contracting officers often lack the information they need to adequately review a company's contracting history. This bill helps ensure that these officers have a more comprehensive picture of a company's contracting history before they make an award decision. Under this bill, the information available to them will include information on a broader range of misconduct, such as that occurring over 5 years ago, pertaining to a wider range of contracts or resulting in a more inclusive list of legal proceedings. This bill also requires companies vying for Federal dollars to self-report essential details about their past performance before they can receive a contract award. Together, these provisions will help ensure that those officials entrusted with awarding Federal contract dollars have all the resources they need to make an informed decision. Third, this bill will strengthen the current oversight regime by fixing loopholes and shortcomings that have undermined its effectiveness. An oversight regime can only be effective if it is used, and used properly. It is unacceptable that taxpayer dollars continue to go to companies that have already been suspended or debarred, just because contracting officers have failed to either record or check their status. Accordingly, this bill tasks the Comptroller General with producing an annual report on the extent to which companies that have been suspended and debarred continue to receive federal contracts or waivers to receive federal contracts. This is an important step towards ensuring that the problems in our contracting process receive the congressional and public scrutiny they deserve. This bill also requires the Inspectors General of each federal agency involved in the procurement process to conduct an annual audit to ensure that contracting officials are appropriately considering the past performance and misconduct of contractors. The source of the oversight regime's ineffectiveness also lies in its design, which is in need of both consolidation and modernization. When contracting officials begin to review a company's contracting history, the information they need is spread across numerous databases. They have to navigate an unorganized array of databases, including: the Excluded Parties List System, Central Contractor Registry, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, Federal Assistance Award Data System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Federal Business Opportunities Database, Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, Past Performance Information Retrieval System, and USAspending.gov, among others. We must integrate these databases to ensure that contracting officials have a one-stop source for relevant contracting information. I am pleased that the General Services Administration has taken some positive steps in this direction, but any consolidation must be comprehensive. Accordingly, this bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to develop and submit a plan to integrate and consolidate the nine most important databases into a single searchable and linked network. Another reason why suspended and debarred companies continue to receive federal contracts in error is because the unique identification system used to track companies is ineffective and in need of modernization. The Government Accountability Office has documented that the current identification system fails to adequately track subsidiaries, spin-offs, shell companies, and other related entities. This weak tracking system permits some suspended and debarred companies to access federal dollars to which they are not legally entitled. To that end, this bill requires the Inspector General of the General Services Administration to determine whether the existing system of identifying numbers for contractors is adequately tracking Federal contractors, and develop a plan for developing and adopting a new and more robust identification system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The American people entrust us with their hard-earned tax dollars, and we have a responsibility to ensure that their money is being spent appropriately.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the bipartisan Federal Contracting and Oversight Act. Every year millions of taxpayer dollars are awarded to contractors with a history of poor performance and misconduct because our federal contracting oversight regime, though well-intentioned, is broken. The problems in our contracting oversight regime were first brought to my attention by my constituents in Wisconsin, several of whom are small businesses that have suffered as a result of misconduct by a Federal contractor. In one case, a Federal contractor that has received over $6 million in Federal contracts failed to pay small businesses in Wisconsin that worked as subcontractors. Several years later, the Army finally barred the contractor from receiving Federal dollars, finding that the contractor had ``a documented history of failing to pay subcontractors for services rendered pursuant to government contracts.'' We must ensure that these records of poor performance and misconduct are identified before federal contracts are awarded to contractors, not years later after the damage has already been done. As I studied the issue further, I learned that similar problems were widespread and well documented. The Government Accountability Office has documented numerous instances of suspended and debarred companies continuing to receive federal contracts. In one case, a company that had been debarred for attempting to ship nuclear bomb parts to North Korea continued to receive millions of dollars on an Army contract. In another case, a contractor that had been suspended after one of its employees was found to have sabotaged repairs on an aircraft carrier was awarded three new contracts a month after the incident. We must act to ensure that these incidents do not repeat themselves. American taxpayer dollars should be spent responsibly and the flaws of our contracting process should never be allowed to affect our security. Our Federal contracting process is in urgent need of reform and greater oversight. To that end, I am introducing the Federal Contracting and Oversight Act, which is an important step to prevent the continued Federal patronage of private companies unworthy of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I am encouraged that Senator Coburn has also taken note of the flaws of the Federal contracting process and has joined me in this effort as an original cosponsor. This bill also has the support of experts that closely track our federal contracting process, including the Project on Government Oversight, the Center for American Progress, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and OMB Watch. This bill will protect the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers by improving the federal contracting system in three ways: First, this bill will make the system more transparent. Sunshine continues to be the best disinfectant; unfortunately, some of the most important data concerning contractor performance and misconduct is shielded from the scrutiny of the full Congress and American people. This bill will broaden access to the new Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, FAPIIS, database, which contains a comprehensive picture of the records of Federal contractors including details of criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, contract defaults, suspension and debarments, and other violations of federal acquisition laws. Under my bill, every member of Congress will be able to access the database in order to review the records of contractors. This is an important step towards greater transparency in our contracting oversight system. Each member of Congress has an interest in monitoring how the taxpayer dollars of their constituents are being spent. Second, this bill will empower our contracting officers by giving them the tools and resources they need to adequately vet companies seeking Federal dollars. Contracting officers currently make award decisions with only a limited set of information that is insufficient to support an informed decision. These contracting officers often lack the information they need to adequately review a company's contracting history. This bill helps ensure that these officers have a more comprehensive picture of a company's contracting history before they make an award decision. Under this bill, the information available to them will include information on a broader range of misconduct, such as that occurring over 5 years ago, pertaining to a wider range of contracts or resulting in a more inclusive list of legal proceedings. This bill also requires companies vying for Federal dollars to self-report essential details about their past performance before they can receive a contract award. Together, these provisions will help ensure that those officials entrusted with awarding Federal contract dollars have all the resources they need to make an informed decision. Third, this bill will strengthen the current oversight regime by fixing loopholes and shortcomings that have undermined its effectiveness. An oversight regime can only be effective if it is used, and used properly. It is unacceptable that taxpayer dollars continue to go to companies that have already been suspended or debarred, just because contracting officers have failed to either record or check their status. Accordingly, this bill tasks the Comptroller General with producing an annual report on the extent to which companies that have been suspended and debarred continue to receive federal contracts or waivers to receive federal contracts. This is an important step towards ensuring that the problems in our contracting process receive the congressional and public scrutiny they deserve. This bill also requires the Inspectors General of each federal agency involved in the procurement process to conduct an annual audit to ensure that contracting officials are appropriately considering the past performance and misconduct of contractors. The source of the oversight regime's ineffectiveness also lies in its design, which is in need of both consolidation and modernization. When contracting officials begin to review a company's contracting history, the information they need is spread across numerous databases. They have to navigate an unorganized array of databases, including: the Excluded Parties List System, Central Contractor Registry, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, Federal Assistance Award Data System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Federal Business Opportunities Database, Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, Past Performance Information Retrieval System, and USAspending.gov, among others. We must integrate these databases to ensure that contracting officials have a one-stop source for relevant contracting information. I am pleased that the General Services Administration has taken some positive steps in this direction, but any consolidation must be comprehensive. Accordingly, this bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to develop and submit a plan to integrate and consolidate the nine most important databases into a single searchable and linked network. Another reason why suspended and debarred companies continue to receive federal contracts in error is because the unique identification system used to track companies is ineffective and in need of modernization. The Government Accountability Office has documented that the current identification system fails to adequately track subsidiaries, spin-offs, shell companies, and other related entities. This weak tracking system permits some suspended and debarred companies to access federal dollars to which they are not legally entitled. To that end, this bill requires the Inspector General of the General Services Administration to determine whether the existing system of identifying numbers for contractors is adequately tracking Federal contractors, and develop a plan for developing and adopting a new and more robust identification system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The American people entrust us with their hard-earned tax dollars, and we have a responsibility to ensure that their money is being spent appropriately.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act with Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry. This legislation aims to update U.S. policy and to provide the necessary direction and flexibility for the United States to proactively push for democracy and economic recovery in Zimbabwe. In September 2008, the parties in Zimbabwe signed the Global Political Agreement, the GPA, and committed to work together to chart a new political direction for the country. Unfortunately, that commitment has not yet been fulfilled and political and human rights abuses continue at a disturbing rate. Nonetheless, the GPA and the formation of the transitional government have created new political realities and realignment in Zimbabwe, and subsequently, new opportunities to push for a genuine transition to democracy and for economic recovery. The United States and other international stakeholders can seize those opportunities by supporting reformers, while renewing and ramping up pressure on those who obstruct implementation of the GPA. Our bill aims to promote such a dynamic approach. We are all familiar with the tragic story of Zimbabwe's descent. Zimbabwe was one of Africa's most prosperous countries, a major food producer and home to the continent's best education system. Its leader Robert Mugabe was considered one of the great liberation leaders of southern Africa. Yet over time, Mugabe and his regime moved to tighten their grip on power, using increasingly violent tactics to stop the political opposition, stifle independent media, and take over private property. The results, particularly in the last decade, have been disastrous. Mugabe has presided over the collapse of Zimbabwe's economy and a dramatic decline in the living conditions of his people. At the end of 2008, Zimbabwe's economy reached a low point with world-record inflation, millions of people at risk of starvation, and unemployment over 90 percent. Meanwhile, Mugabe and his party have had to resort to increasing violence to repress the will of the people. Most recently, following the March 2008 election, the Mugabe regime and its cronies launched a brutal campaign of violence against members and supporters of the opposition MDC after Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of voting. I have closely followed the situation in Zimbabwe since 1999 when I traveled to Harare and witnessed then the early stages of this political crisis. During that trip, I also met some incredibly dynamic, committed and inspiring civil society leaders. Upon returning, I said on the Senate floor that we must not abandon these leaders; that the international community should move to arrest Zimbabwe's descent before it became more complex. I teamed up then with Senator Bill Frist to author legislation on U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe. And in 2001, President Bush signed that legislation, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, into law. ZDERA, as that bill is known, placed restrictions on U.S. support for any new international loan, credit or debt reduction for Zimbabwe until the President certifies that a number of political conditions have been met, namely an end to abuses and the restoration of rule of law. The bill also called for targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for politically motivated violence. At the same time, ZDERA also spelled out the United States' commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle to effect peaceful and democratic change. And it stated our commitment to be a strong partner in helping the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their country when that change was achieved. I have not given up on that commitment, despite the Mugabe regime's relentless and violent efforts to hold onto power. In 2002, I tried to return to the country, but my visa was revoked and the government blocked my entry into the country. In 2003, I traveled to South Africa and Botswana, in part to discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe and the regional consequences. Most recently, in 2008 and 2009, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I have held hearings specifically on Zimbabwe and U.S. policy options. With the signing of the GPA, I was skeptical that Robert Mugabe and his allies had any real intention to share power and respect the agreement. I remain skeptical as at almost every turn, hardliners in the transitional government have resisted any moves that would undermine their historic patronage system and power structures. Mugabe has refused to implement several parts of the agreement, continuing to use Western sanctions as a scapegoat. Meanwhile, state security forces remain largely under the control of ZANU-PF and continue to harass civil society activists and participate in illegal, often violent, seizures of private land and property. In this sense, little has changed in Zimbabwe. Yet at the same time, for many Zimbabweans, the establishment of a transitional government that includes former opposition leaders who were imprisoned and tortured as part of Zimbabwe's democratic struggle has brought forth a sense of possibility that has not existed for years. It has brought their struggle for democracy into the halls of government. And over the last year, some progress has been made toward enacting reforms. Most notably, the Finance Ministry has managed to halt Zimbabwe's economic decline and put an end to some of the disastrous fiscal activities of the previous regime. That said, progress has been slow and limited mostly to the economic sector. We cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that the return of food and other goods to stores is an indication that true democracy has taken root. Reformist elements in the government continue to lack the leverage as well as the qualified personnel and resources to overcome the resistance of hardliners and to break their hold on the security sector. They need greater support if they are going to win this struggle and achieve a genuine transition to democracy and economic recovery. I respect those who are cautious about changing the international posture toward Zimbabwe until there is greater progress and a clear transition underway. I too am cautious, as there is good reason to be so. But at the same time, I also believe we must support the Zimbabwean people in their ongoing struggle for peaceful, democratic change and we can best do that by reconsidering some of the strict polices of years prior. We must realize that the dynamics of that struggle have changed--not as much as we would like them to go, not even close but there has been change. Adhering to a strict wait-and-see approach allows Mugabe and his allies to continue to marginalize reformers in the transitional government and manipulate the political environment, while relying on their usual anti-Western propaganda to win local and regional support. Alternatively, through proactive and targeted engagement, there may be ways that we can better support reformers in government, create incentives for others in the government to embrace such reform, and isolate the hardliners. If we are to see institutional change in Zimbabwe, it is in our interest to pursue those possibilities. The United States has a key role to play in this regard. We continue to be very active in Zimbabwe, providing humanitarian assistance and support for civil society. In Fiscal Year 2009, the United States provided nearly $300 million to Zimbabwe, over half of which was food assistance. Over the last year, some within the administration have begun to explore ways we can better target our assistance to help reformers in order to consolidate democratic reforms and lay the groundwork for economic recovery. We have already provided some technical assistance to help certain ministries in the government. This is the right approach and we should continue to look for ways to proceed, both symbolically and substantively. At the same time, we should continue to update and increase targeted pressure on those individuals and institutions that are actively obstructing reform. We should also look for innovative ways to address illegal activities that are in violation of the GPA. The Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2010 seeks to encourage and provide the authority and flexibility for the Obama administration to pursue such a dynamic approach toward Zimbabwe. Our bill authorizes continued and expanded technical assistance to reformist ministries of the transitional government as well as to the Parliament as it seeks to repeal or amend repressive laws. It also amends the funding restrictions on Zimbabwe in the fiscal year 2010 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill to allow for greater engagement in the areas of health and education. Furthermore, it encourages the United States to promote agricultural development as much as possible within our food assistance efforts, while we actively press the government to reestablish security of tenure for all landowners. In addition, our bill would amend ZDERA to allow the United States greater flexibility and leverage when engaging with the International Financial Institutions on Zimbabwe. The law from 2001 restricts U.S. support for any international loan, credit or debt reduction to Zimbabwe until the President certifies that certain political conditions have been achieved in the country. This restriction currently has no discernible impact as Zimbabwe can only be eligible for such international support when it deals with its arrears, which now total billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this restriction has become a powerful symbol and it functionally ties the hands of the State and Treasury Departments to actively engage with the IMF, African Development Bank and other institutions to develop plans for supporting Zimbabwe's longer-term recovery when there is a genuine transition. Our bill would amend ZDERA to allow for such engagement, making U.S. support conditional on the proposed assistance itself, specifically whether there are sufficient controls for transparency and oversight, and whether funds will be administered by ministries that have demonstrated a commitment to reform. Amending ZDERA will help to provide flexibility and leverage for the U.S. government, but also to undercut Mugabe's propaganda. Over the years, Mugabe and his allies have conveniently portrayed ZDERA as a symbol of Western hostility and blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe. While those allegations are clearly false, the changes made by our bill will go a long way towards ensuring they have a much harder time spinning this lie and deflecting responsibility from their own disastrous policies. ZDERA, of course, is not to be conflated with our targeted sanctions against specific individuals and financial institutions that are directly involved in the breakdown of the rule of law and abuses of power. Our bill calls for the continuation of that program as I see no reason to terminate this sanctions program until we see an end to widespread abuses. Instead, our bill calls for the continued review and updating of those sanctions. It also encourages new action to address illegal activities involving diamonds in Zimbabwe that are reportedly fueling abuses and undermining democratic progress. Specifically, it urges the Obama administration to consider new sanctions on individuals overseeing these activities and to press for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Kimberley Process. Zimbabwe's continued participation in the Kimberley Process undermines the integrity and important work of that process. Finally, whenever it happens, Zimbabwe's next election will be a critical step toward any genuine transition to democratic rule and a sustainable economic recovery. The past elections have been flashpoints for increased violence and the breakdown of the rule of law. This cannot be the case this next time around if Zimbabwe is to move forward. The international community needs to prepare a coordinated strategy to help reduce the risk of violence and other abuses around such elections. Our bill directs the Obama administration to begin engaging with international partners now toward developing such a strategy. International actions alone will not determine whether real and lasting democratic change is achieved in Zimbabwe; that will ultimately be determined by the Zimbabwean people themselves. But I do believe that we can help Zimbabweans pursue a genuine transition toward democracy and economic recovery. To do this, we need an approach that is flexible and responsive to evolving conditions and challenges on the ground. I believe this bill helps move us toward such an approach. Nearly a decade ago, in passing ZDERA, the U.S. Congress committed to support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful, democratic change, achieve economic growth and restore the rule of law. Today, we can reaffirm that commitment by passing the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act with Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry. This legislation aims to update U.S. policy and to provide the necessary direction and flexibility for the United States to proactively push for democracy and economic recovery in Zimbabwe. In September 2008, the parties in Zimbabwe signed the Global Political Agreement, the GPA, and committed to work together to chart a new political direction for the country. Unfortunately, that commitment has not yet been fulfilled and political and human rights abuses continue at a disturbing rate. Nonetheless, the GPA and the formation of the transitional government have created new political realities and realignment in Zimbabwe, and subsequently, new opportunities to push for a genuine transition to democracy and for economic recovery. The United States and other international stakeholders can seize those opportunities by supporting reformers, while renewing and ramping up pressure on those who obstruct implementation of the GPA. Our bill aims to promote such a dynamic approach. We are all familiar with the tragic story of Zimbabwe's descent. Zimbabwe was one of Africa's most prosperous countries, a major food producer and home to the continent's best education system. Its leader Robert Mugabe was considered one of the great liberation leaders of southern Africa. Yet over time, Mugabe and his regime moved to tighten their grip on power, using increasingly violent tactics to stop the political opposition, stifle independent media, and take over private property. The results, particularly in the last decade, have been disastrous. Mugabe has presided over the collapse of Zimbabwe's economy and a dramatic decline in the living conditions of his people. At the end of 2008, Zimbabwe's economy reached a low point with world-record inflation, millions of people at risk of starvation, and unemployment over 90 percent. Meanwhile, Mugabe and his party have had to resort to increasing violence to repress the will of the people. Most recently, following the March 2008 election, the Mugabe regime and its cronies launched a brutal campaign of violence against members and supporters of the opposition MDC after Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of voting. I have closely followed the situation in Zimbabwe since 1999 when I traveled to Harare and witnessed then the early stages of this political crisis. During that trip, I also met some incredibly dynamic, committed and inspiring civil society leaders. Upon returning, I said on the Senate floor that we must not abandon these leaders; that the international community should move to arrest Zimbabwe's descent before it became more complex. I teamed up then with Senator Bill Frist to author legislation on U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe. And in 2001, President Bush signed that legislation, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, into law. ZDERA, as that bill is known, placed restrictions on U.S. support for any new international loan, credit or debt reduction for Zimbabwe until the President certifies that a number of political conditions have been met, namely an end to abuses and the restoration of rule of law. The bill also called for targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for politically motivated violence. At the same time, ZDERA also spelled out the United States' commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle to effect peaceful and democratic change. And it stated our commitment to be a strong partner in helping the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their country when that change was achieved. I have not given up on that commitment, despite the Mugabe regime's relentless and violent efforts to hold onto power. In 2002, I tried to return to the country, but my visa was revoked and the government blocked my entry into the country. In 2003, I traveled to South Africa and Botswana, in part to discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe and the regional consequences. Most recently, in 2008 and 2009, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I have held hearings specifically on Zimbabwe and U.S. policy options. With the signing of the GPA, I was skeptical that Robert Mugabe and his allies had any real intention to share power and respect the agreement. I remain skeptical as at almost every turn, hardliners in the transitional government have resisted any moves that would undermine their historic patronage system and power structures. Mugabe has refused to implement several parts of the agreement, continuing to use Western sanctions as a scapegoat. Meanwhile, state security forces remain largely under the control of ZANU-PF and continue to harass civil society activists and participate in illegal, often violent, seizures of private land and property. In this sense, little has changed in Zimbabwe. Yet at the same time, for many Zimbabweans, the establishment of a transitional government that includes former opposition leaders who were imprisoned and tortured as part of Zimbabwe's democratic struggle has brought forth a sense of possibility that has not existed for years. It has brought their struggle for democracy into the halls of government. And over the last year, some progress has been made toward enacting reforms. Most notably, the Finance Ministry has managed to halt Zimbabwe's economic decline and put an end to some of the disastrous fiscal activities of the previous regime. That said, progress has been slow and limited mostly to the economic sector. We cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that the return of food and other goods to stores is an indication that true democracy has taken root. Reformist elements in the government continue to lack the leverage as well as the qualified personnel and resources to overcome the resistance of hardliners and to break their hold on the security sector. They need greater support if they are going to win this struggle and achieve a genuine transition to democracy and economic recovery. I respect those who are cautious about changing the international posture toward Zimbabwe until there is greater progress and a clear transition underway. I too am cautious, as there is good reason to be so. But at the same time, I also believe we must support the Zimbabwean people in their ongoing struggle for peaceful, democratic change and we can best do that by reconsidering some of the strict polices of years prior. We must realize that the dynamics of that struggle have changed--not as much as we would like them to go, not even close but there has been change. Adhering to a strict wait-and-see approach allows Mugabe and his allies to continue to marginalize reformers in the transitional government and manipulate the political environment, while relying on their usual anti-Western propaganda to win local and regional support. Alternatively, through proactive and targeted engagement, there may be ways that we can better support reformers in government, create incentives for others in the government to embrace such reform, and isolate the hardliners. If we are to see institutional change in Zimbabwe, it is in our interest to pursue those possibilities. The United States has a key role to play in this regard. We continue to be very active in Zimbabwe, providing humanitarian assistance and support for civil society. In Fiscal Year 2009, the United States provided nearly $300 million to Zimbabwe, over half of which was food assistance. Over the last year, some within the administration have begun to explore ways we can better target our assistance to help reformers in order to consolidate democratic reforms and lay the groundwork for economic recovery. We have already provided some technical assistance to help certain ministries in the government. This is the right approach and we should continue to look for ways to proceed, both symbolically and substantively. At the same time, we should continue to update and increase targeted pressure on those individuals and institutions that are actively obstructing reform. We should also look for innovative ways to address illegal activities that are in violation of the GPA. The Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2010 seeks to encourage and provide the authority and flexibility for the Obama administration to pursue such a dynamic approach toward Zimbabwe. Our bill authorizes continued and expanded technical assistance to reformist ministries of the transitional government as well as to the Parliament as it seeks to repeal or amend repressive laws. It also amends the funding restrictions on Zimbabwe in the fiscal year 2010 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill to allow for greater engagement in the areas of health and education. Furthermore, it encourages the United States to promote agricultural development as much as possible within our food assistance efforts, while we actively press the government to reestablish security of tenure for all landowners. In addition, our bill would amend ZDERA to allow the United States greater flexibility and leverage when engaging with the International Financial Institutions on Zimbabwe. The law from 2001 restricts U.S. support for any international loan, credit or debt reduction to Zimbabwe until the President certifies that certain political conditions have been achieved in the country. This restriction currently has no discernible impact as Zimbabwe can only be eligible for such international support when it deals with its arrears, which now total billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this restriction has become a powerful symbol and it functionally ties the hands of the State and Treasury Departments to actively engage with the IMF, African Development Bank and other institutions to develop plans for supporting Zimbabwe's longer-term recovery when there is a genuine transition. Our bill would amend ZDERA to allow for such engagement, making U.S. support conditional on the proposed assistance itself, specifically whether there are sufficient controls for transparency and oversight, and whether funds will be administered by ministries that have demonstrated a commitment to reform. Amending ZDERA will help to provide flexibility and leverage for the U.S. government, but also to undercut Mugabe's propaganda. Over the years, Mugabe and his allies have conveniently portrayed ZDERA as a symbol of Western hostility and blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe. While those allegations are clearly false, the changes made by our bill will go a long way towards ensuring they have a much harder time spinning this lie and deflecting responsibility from their own disastrous policies. ZDERA, of course, is not to be conflated with our targeted sanctions against specific individuals and financial institutions that are directly involved in the breakdown of the rule of law and abuses of power. Our bill calls for the continuation of that program as I see no reason to terminate this sanctions program until we see an end to widespread abuses. Instead, our bill calls for the continued review and updating of those sanctions. It also encourages new action to address illegal activities involving diamonds in Zimbabwe that are reportedly fueling abuses and undermining democratic progress. Specifically, it urges the Obama administration to consider new sanctions on individuals overseeing these activities and to press for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Kimberley Process. Zimbabwe's continued participation in the Kimberley Process undermines the integrity and important work of that process. Finally, whenever it happens, Zimbabwe's next election will be a critical step toward any genuine transition to democratic rule and a sustainable economic recovery. The past elections have been flashpoints for increased violence and the breakdown of the rule of law. This cannot be the case this next time around if Zimbabwe is to move forward. The international community needs to prepare a coordinated strategy to help reduce the risk of violence and other abuses around such elections. Our bill directs the Obama administration to begin engaging with international partners now toward developing such a strategy. International actions alone will not determine whether real and lasting democratic change is achieved in Zimbabwe; that will ultimately be determined by the Zimbabwean people themselves. But I do believe that we can help Zimbabweans pursue a genuine transition toward democracy and economic recovery. To do this, we need an approach that is flexible and responsive to evolving conditions and challenges on the ground. I believe this bill helps move us toward such an approach. Nearly a decade ago, in passing ZDERA, the U.S. Congress committed to support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful, democratic change, achieve economic growth and restore the rule of law. Today, we can reaffirm that commitment by passing the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today it is with sadness that I remember the life of Mary Thurmaier, who passed away on April 25. I was fortunate to know Mary, who did so much for her community and for our state. Mary was a tireless activist and volunteer. Perhaps her most significant contribution of all was her 24 years of service on the Stevens Point Area School Board, from 1982 to 2006. Mary, a devoted mother of four herself, spent her nearly two and a half decades on the board working to strengthen public education for the children of Stevens Point. She focused much of her considerable effort on critical issues like early childhood education. Mary also served a vital role for her community when she managed the Point Area Bus Cooperative before the city took over the operations. She did a tremendous job in that position and later went on to serve as director of the Stevens Point Convention and Visitors Bureau. She also served as a Democratic national committeewoman for Wisconsin. Above all, Mary was a beloved wife, mother, and grandmother. My thoughts are with her family and friends today, as so many mourn her loss. I know all of us are grateful for Mary's life and her many contributions to Stevens Point and the State of Wisconsin, which will live on for many years to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, over the years, Members of Congress have had a lot of perks, but one of them stands out; that is, the ability to raise their own pay. Not many Americans have the power to give themselves a raise whenever they want, no matter how they are performing. To make it worse, Members do not even have to vote on this pay raise. Congress has set up a system whereby every year Members automatically get a pay raise. No one has to lift a finger. I do not take these pay raises, and I have been fighting for years to pass my bill to end this cozy system. Thanks to the majority leader, we took an important step last year when the Senate passed legislation to end automatic annual pay raises for Members of Congress. Unfortunately, the leadership of the other body has, so far, refused to take up that bill. Well, I am going to keep fighting to pass it, but there is another step we can take in the meantime; that is, to make sure we do not get a pay raise next year. We already enacted legislation to block a pay raise this year, and now we have to do the same thing for 2011. With so many Americans looking for jobs and trying to figure out how to pay their bills, now is no time to give ourselves a taxpayer-funded $1,600 pay increase. I have a bill to block the scheduled 2011 pay raise. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Burr, Vitter, Bennet, Lincoln, Grassley, McCaskill, Begich, and McCain all be added as cosponsors to the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Whitehouse be added as a cosponsor to the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3244, a bill to prohibit a cost-of-living adjustment for Members of Congress in 2011; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, be added as a cosponsor to the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I renew my request.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I will be urging the other body to pass this bill as soon as possible and send it to the President. I will keep fighting so that in the future the burden will be on those who want a pay raise--not on those who want to block one--to pass legislation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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