Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, our government agencies collect and report a range of economic information but much of what we see or hear is most suited to describing the general state of the country's economy. This information does not reflect what is happening in and what matters most to our families and the quality of our lives. For example, our national unemployment figures don't tell us that those who are employed may not have benefits, or that they are working two or three jobs to earn the income that they report, or that their mortgage debt and college loans are jeopardizing their ability to repay their credit card debt or their medical bills. By knowing and reporting this kind of information we can not only more accurately reflect what our families are experiencing economically, we can better inform policymakers about what matters most to people and the steps that need to be taken to address household economic needs and concerns. To address this need I am re-introducing the Commission on Measures of Household Economic Security Act of 2009. The bill would establish a bipartisan congressional commission of 8 economic experts to look at existing government economic data and identify the possible need for new information, more accurate methodologies and better ways to report these economic measures to give a more accurate and reliable picture of the economic well being of American households. As part of their effort, the Commission will be asked to meet with representative groups of the public so that their views are taken into account in the Commission's recommendations. In doing this, the Commission will look at such things as the current debt situation of American individuals and households, including categories of debt such as credit card debt, education related loans and mortgage payments; the movement of Americans between salaried jobs with benefits to single or multiple wage jobs with limited or no benefits with a comparison of income to include the value of benefits programs such as health insurance and retirement plans; the percentage of Americans who are covered by both employer-provided and individual health care plans and the extent of coverage per dollar paid by both employers and employees; the savings rate, including both standard savings plans and pension plans; the disparity in income distribution over time and between different demographic and geographic groups; and the breakdown of household expenditures between such categories as food, shelter, medical expenses, debt servicing, and energy. In addition, the Commission will consider the relevance of certain non-market activities, like household production, education, and volunteer services that affect the economic well-being of households but are not measured or valued in currently reported economic statistics. As Robert F. Kennedy famously said, some of our economic indicators measure ``everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.'' We need to make an effort to value more than just our gross domestic product and sales receipts. We need to better measure and understand what matters to American households. This effort to improve how we measure what matters in our economy is very much in the Wisconsin tradition of accountable good government. It was Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr. who, in 1932, introduced a resolution requiring the U.S. Government to establish a more scientific, specific and accurate set of measures of the health of the U.S. economy. From his request, Simon Kuznets, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor, developed the first set of national accounts which form the basis for today's measure of GDP and other economic indicators. Kuznets won the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics ``for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development''. His work was the basis for much of the New Deal reform policies. Yet Kuznets specifically acknowledged that his measures were incomplete and did not go far enough to measure what may really matter. In his 1934 report to the Senate on his compilation of statistics associated with Gross National Product he concluded: ``The welfare of a nation can . . . scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as [so] defined. . . .'' This bill is intended to advance these earlier efforts to make our economic statistical measures more reflective of the welfare of our families and our nation. The cost of this commission will be fully covered by amounts already authorized and appropriated to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Dorgan. Frankly, this amendment should be a no-brainer--it saves taxpayers and consumers money by bringing down prices for prescription drugs. I don't think American consumers should have to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, particularly when those prices keep going up. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that brand-name drugs cost, on average, 35 to 55 percent less in other industrialized nations than they do in the United States. And the AARP released a study recently that found that the price of drugs most commonly used by seniors has risen faster than the general inflation rate every year since 2004. In 2007, the price spiked by 8.7 percent--three times the general inflation rate of 2.9 percent. It is no wonder that Americans turn to Canada to buy more affordable, and entirely safe, prescription drugs. Americans are now importing more than $1 billion in prescription drugs from Canada alone. Consumers would not go to such lengths to buy their medicines this way if they were not saving money. Now, the drug industry has said that drug importation can't be done safely. I give PhRMA credit. They have gone to great lengths to scare the public. The reality is drug importation has occurred within European Union countries--called parallel trade--for the last 25 years. The pharmaceutical industry should know drug importation is safe. The industry has imported drugs and sold them in the U.S. for decades. One- quarter of the drugs consumed by Americans today are made in foreign manufacturing plants. The Dorgan amendment includes a number of protections to ensure that imported drugs are safe--and certainly safer than the completely unregulated system we have today. I don't need to remind my colleagues about the deficit hole we are in. Federal spending is one of the top concerns I hear about from my constituents--they want to know what we are doing to get our deficit under control. That is why I introduced legislation, the Control Spending Now Act, to propose concrete ways to bring down runaway government spending. And one of the proposals I included was Senator Dorgan's drug importation legislation, because it is such a commonsense and effective way to save the government tens of billions of dollars. I am pleased that the health care reform bill we are debating already includes three other proposals in my control spending bill, championed by Senator Bingaman and others, that would slash Federal spending on prescription drugs by billions of dollars. With passage of the Dorgan amendment we can make it four. We do a lot of things in Congress that leave our constituents scratching their heads. 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 prescription drugs they need are more affordable. Again, that sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act, which was introduced by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. The CLASS Act would create an optional insurance program to help pay for home care and other assistance for adults who become disabled. Those choosing to participate would pay monthly premiums into an insurance trust, and after 5 years, could access a cash benefit if they become disabled and need assistance. Over 10 million Americans are currently in need of long-term care, and that number is expected to rise to 15 million in the next 10 years. These individuals struggle to remain independent with limited assistance, and many turn to Medicaid as an insurer of last resort. In order to qualify, however, people need to go through a substantial ``spend down'' of their assets and commit to unemployment to remain eligible. Mr. President, this is totally inefficient. Instead of ensuring that an individual can remain an independent and functional member of society, the current policy requires that to receive assistance, a person basically becomes a ward of the State. Medicaid pays for half of long-term care costs and increased expenditures are expected to add $44 billion each year to Medicaid over the next decade. Not only is this unsustainable it is nonsensical. This is as much about protecting people's dignity as it is about fiscal responsibility. Too many Americans fall on hard times, becoming disabled from an accident or illness, with no safety net to help them stay independent. Ensuring that these people have an alternative to Medicaid, so that they can remain active and independent, will reduce the Federal deficit by $73.4 billion over 10 years and save Medicaid $1.6 billion in the first 4 years benefits are available. Medicaid savings will continue to grow over time as more beneficiaries utilize CLASS Act benefits instead of Medicaid. And thanks to amendments accepted in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the bill language is stronger than ever. Senator Gregg, my colleague on the Budget Committee, amended the bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set premiums that are actuarially sound for a 75-year window, and maintain sustainable enrollment and benefit structure. While some have suggested that the CLASS Act is fiscally not sound, the Gregg amendment should put those concerns to rest. Long-term care reform has been a cornerstone of my work in public office since my days in the Wisconsin State Senate. I have seen how important it is to give people options so that they can match the level of care and assistance to their personal needs. Pushing anyone and everyone into Medicaid, or into a nursing home, is a waste of potential, a waste of opportunity, and a waste of money. Medicaid and our Nation's nursing homes have a critical role to play for some Americans. But for many Americans, it is simply not the right fit. The CLASS Act will ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent enrolling only those who truly need Medicaid into the program, and help others save for a time when they might need some assistance to remain independent. The CLASS Act is a critical part of this health reform bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to weaken or strike this program from the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just over 6 months ago, this Congress was abuzz with concern about piracy off Somalia's coast. Following the attack on a U.S.-flagged ship, the MV Maersk Alabama, and capture of CPT Richard Phillips, no less than five congressional committees held hearings on this topic. There was intense discussion about the steps that should be taken by our ships and our Navy to help prevent these attacks. And the State Department subsequently announced several steps it would take to combat piracy, including working with the International Contact Group on Piracy to expand the multinational naval operation to patrol the waters off Somalia's coast. The United States, China, India, Russia, the European Union and many other countries have deployed naval forces to the region that are working together to combat piracy--a remarkable show of international cooperation. Those naval efforts have had some success. But while piracy attacks declined considerably over the summer months with the monsoon season, attacks appear to be on the rise again. The International Maritime Bureau reports that 38 ships have been attacked and 10 hijacked in the past 2 months. This includes the Maersk Alabama, which was attacked again on November 18. It also includes a supertanker carrying $20 million in crude oil that was seized this week en route from Saudi Arabia to New Orleans. The UN Secretary General warned in July that ``as a result of the military presence in the region, pirates have employed more daring operational tactics, operating further seawards, toward the Seychelles, and using more sophisticated weaponry.'' The recent attacks bear out the Secretary General's concern. Even more disconcerting, Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times reported this week that more Somalis and new Somali subclans are being drawn into the piracy business, attracted by the vast ransom payments. I said back in the spring that while naval action was needed to confront these pirates, we would likely see more episodes of piracy if we did not also address the conditions on land that contribute to this problem. The recent events have proven this to be true. Both Director of National Intelligence Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army LTG Michael Maples, in their testimony before Congress earlier this year, cited lawlessness and economic problems on land in Somalia as the cause of rising piracy at sea. In the absence of local law enforcement capacity and amidst a dire economic situation, piracy is an attractive choice for many young people in northwest Somalia. The renewed piracy attacks show that this remains the case, regardless of the increased pressure from naval forces and maritime vessels adopting new defensive precautions. Now, let me be clear: when I say we should address the conditions on land, I do not mean that we should carry out some kind of military action against those villages where the pirates are known to live, as some have suggested. In fact, such operations would do little to change those conditions and they would likely make matters worse by inciting local resentment. Nor am I in any way excusing the behavior of the criminals behind these attacks--nothing can justify their actions. What I am saying is that what is needed is a serious international commitment to help establish stability, functional governance, capable law enforcement, and economic opportunity in Somalia. As leading Somalia expert Dr. Ken Menkhaus has said, it will be impossible to end the piracy when ``the risks are so low, rewards so high and alternatives so bleak in desolate Somalia.'' Changing that equation requires real change on land. In particular, we know that most of the pirates come from communities in northern Somalia. Yet, despite this, we have done little to directly engage the regions of Puntland and Somaliland, and their regional governments. I am not arguing that we should recognize their independence, but I believe it is in our national interest to engage these regions--diplomatically and economically--and to promote governance and stability there. It is in our interest from the standpoint of not just counterpiracy, but also counterterrorism. The terrorist threat in northern Somalia is, or should be, more apparent now than ever. Last October, terrorists attacked in Somaliland and Puntland. And last month, a well-known judge and legislator in Puntland were assassinated. We need to help both of these regions to maintain and shore up their relative stability. And in the case of Somaliland, there is a unique tradition of democratic rule that we ought to encourage, although I am disappointed that Somaliland's elections have been repeatedly postponed. At the same time, more engagement with northern Somalia does not mean we should neglect the rest of the country. The raging conflict and resulting humanitarian crisis in central and southern Somalia is worse than ever. Just yesterday, a suicide bomber attacked a graduation ceremony in Mogadishu, killing at least 10 people, including 3 Ministers of the Transitional Federal Government. This demonstrates the fragility of the TFG, which continues to face a strengthened al Shebaab and allied militias. Over the weekend, al Shebaab, a group with links to al-Qaida, seized another major town in southern Somalia. In addition to these security challenges, the TFG has struggled to broaden its grassroots appeal or demonstrate its ability to make a difference in people's lives. The result is that the TFG is reportedly being seen by some Somalis as a proxy of the West and little different than its predecessors. This is extremely worrisome, especially if we believe that this government offers the best chance for establishing stability and inclusive governance in Somalia. Even more than the threat of piracy, the terrorist threat shows why we need to be paying more attention to Somalia. Al-Qaida and its affiliates continue to exploit Somalia's instability, which has real ramifications for our national security. Last month, the Justice Department announced that terrorism charges were being brought in the District of Minnesota against eight defendants for recruiting and raising funds for Somali-Americans to fight on behalf of al Shebaab. Fourteen people have now been charged in this investigation, reportedly the largest group of American citizens suspected of joining an extremist movement with links to al-Qaida. We should not equate these individuals with al-Qaida suspects, but we should be mindful of what Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Michael Leiter testified to in September--that ``the potential for al-Qaida operatives in Somalia to commission Americans to return to the United States and launch attacks against the Homeland remains of significant concern.'' Our close partners in the region--Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda--are also justifiably concerned about al Shebaab's threat to attack them. Recent history has shown that there are no easy answers to Somalia's troubles. Moreover, it has shown that we can complicate and even aggravate dynamics in Somalia, and many Somalis continue to view the United States with a high level of suspicion and resentment. We need to be conscious of this. But that does not mean we should just disengage and let matters in Somalia play out, as some commentators suggest. Rather, what I believe the recent history of the United States involvement in Somalia should teach us is that we cannot afford a half- hearted or fragmented policy toward Somalia where we are not clearly communicating to Somalis our intentions and our commitment. We need a comprehensive strategy toward Somalia that includes serious, high-level diplomatic support for a sustainable and inclusive peace. I have been calling for such a strategy for nearly a decade now and I still do not believe we have one. With piracy resurging and the terrorist threat more real than ever, I hope that will finally change.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, disappointed that the Senate health care debate has gotten off on the wrong foot. The first amendment voted on would add almost a billion dollars to our budget deficits over the next 10 years. We should make sure health plans cover women's preventive care and screenings, but we should also find a way to pay for it, rather than adding that cost to the already mountainous public debt. At a time of record deficits, Americans expect fiscal responsibility from their representatives in Congress.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I opposed Senator McCain's attempt to send the bill back to committee because it would have effectively ended the current debate on health care reform. Moreover, while I have concerns about some of the offsets in the bill--such as cuts to hospice and home health care--it would be fiscally irresponsible to throw out provisions that cut down on wasteful spending and reward quality, as the McCain motion would have done. Those provisions are key to helping to put Medicare on the path to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this week I join my colleagues and the Nation in observing the 88th annual American Education Week. The United States of America has a rich history of providing a free public education to its children, and the education that millions of students receive every year opens countless doors of opportunity to these students. Teachers, administrators, and support staff in our Nation's communities plant the seeds of knowledge in our students, who are the future of the American economy, American innovation, and American society. And sometimes I do not feel like enough is said of these individuals who have dedicated their lives to the cause of public education and who have touched the lives of millions of children. So this week, let us reflect on the positive impact teachers and schools have on this country. While enormous strides have been made in expanding access to public education since our Nation's founding, the United States still has a long way to go before we can say that every child in our Nation has access to a high-quality public education. There is still a persistent achievement gap in many of our Nation's schools with respect to low-income and minority students. The nationwide high school graduation rate hovers around 70 percent and is even lower for students of color and low-income students. This is unacceptable and is a matter of fairness and equality that must be addressed. We can do better. We must do better. The future of our country rests on our efforts. Federal, State and local governments must work together to continue to support our educators and help ensure that every child has access to good teachers and high-quality schools. That is why I am looking forward to working with educators as Congress undertakes the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind. We now have the opportunity to rethink the proper role for the Federal Government in education reform and how we can best support States and school districts as they continue to work to educate all our Nation's children and close the persistent achievement gap that still exists in too many of our Nation's schools. We need to work together to solve problems, strengthen our public school system, and make certain that all our students receive the education they deserve. As Chief Justice Warren wrote when he delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. More than 50 years later, these words still ring true, and as we celebrate American Education Week, let us honor the outstanding work that our Nation's educators do every day and recommit ourselves to working with these educators to address the continued inequities in American education so that all children, regardless of their background, can receive a high-quality public education.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with the modifications I send to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand the amendment will now be accepted.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the amendment offered by Senator Inhofe, No. 2774. It is time for Congress to allow the administration to work toward the goal that so many of us support: closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay once and for all. The administration has provided its plan to Congress, and has provided individualized reports on each detainee before any transfer occurs. While closing Guantanamo may not be easy, it is vital to our national security that we close this prison, which is a recruiting tool for our enemies. In particular, I oppose this amendment because it would prohibit the executive branch from spending money to upgrade security at U.S. detention facilities where Guantanamo detainees might be held, thereby making the American people less safe. Amendment No. 2743

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I wish to remember victims of the horrific shootings at Fort Hood. This was a senseless attack on innocent people who were serving their country. To know that these people, 12 servicemembers and 1 civilian, were taken from their families in this way is very difficult to accept. I join with people across the country in mourning these tragic deaths. My thoughts are with each and every one of their families. As a Senator from Wisconsin, I do feel a special duty to remember the two Wisconsinites who were killed. Both were extraordinary members of our Armed Forces, and their deaths are a terrible blow to all who knew them, and to our State. Wisconsin takes so much pride in its long traditon of military service, and in the Wisconsinites who serve so bravely in the Armed Forces today. Wisconsin has already lost so many servicemembers in recent years--90 in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom. We recently honored our veterans by celebrating Veterans Day, and we are thinking of these men and women and the sacrifice they made, so to suffer these additional losses at this time is simply tragic. SSG Amy Krueger from Kiel, WI, and CPT Russell Seager from Mount Pleasant, WI, were both outstanding servicemembers, and their families and communities are heartbroken by their deaths. Staff Sergeant Krueger, who was just 29, joined the Army after the 2001 terrorist attacks. She had deployed previously to Afghanistan in 2003 and helped soldiers dealing with combat stress. Staff Sergeant Krueger arrived at Fort Hood on November 3 and was scheduled to be redeployed to Afghanistan in December. She graduated from Kiel High School in 1998 and was very proud to serve her country. About 500 family and friends gathered recently at the Veterans Memorial Park in Kiel to remember and pay tribute to Sergeant Krueger. CPT Russell Seager, 47, was a registered nurse and advanced practice nurse prescriber who was with the primary care mental health integration program at Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee. He also taught classes at Bryant and Stratton College in Milwaukee. As part of the combat stress control unit, Seager was tasked with watching for warning signs among soldiers on the front lines that could signal long- term mental health problems. He is survived by his wife and adult son. It is so tragic to think that these two people, who were trained to help fellow servicemembers cope with the stress of combat, were struck down when their help is needed the most. These servicemembers are really unsung heros of our military today--the men and women who help other servicemembers deal with post traumatic stress disorder, which has skyrocketed since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Staff Sergeant Krueger and Captain Seager were truly selfless people who helped their fellow servicemembers through some very tough times. Both were part of the 467th Medical Detachment, which is based in Madison, WI. It is an outstanding unit doing much-needed work, and it is terrible that the unit suffered these losses. I also want to say a few words about the four Wisconsinites who were injured at Fort Hood. At the recent memorial at Fort Hood, which was such a moving tribute to those who were killed, I had the privilege of meeting Specialist John Pagel, 28, of North Freedom, WI, who was also with the 467th Medical Detachment. Specialist Pagel is married and has two children. I also had the privilege of meeting SPC Grant Moxon, 23, of Lodi, WI, another member of the 467th, who is a mental health specialist. Specialist Moxon graduated from UW-La Crosse. He joined the military just last year and had arrived in Texas one day before the shooting incident. Both Sergeant Pagel and Specialist Moxon were shot but are now both doing well. CPT Dorothy ``Dorrie'' Carskadon, 47, of Madison, WI, is also a member of the 467th. Carskadon fought with the Army in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and then enlisted in the Army Reserve 2 years ago. She is a clinical social worker with the U.S. Army Reserve. She was set to deploy to Iraq to counsel troops suffering from PTSD. She was shot twice in the hip and underwent an all-night surgery. Fortunately, she is expected to make a full recovery. Army PFC Amber Bahr, 19, of Random Lake, WI, with the 187th medical battalion, has been at Fort Hood for a year working as an Army nutritionist. She was scheduled to deploy for the first time in January. In the midst of the shootings, Bahr was putting a tourniquet onto another soldier and helping him out of harm's way before she discovered that she was shot herself. She was released Friday night from the hospital. I think the conduct of Private First Class Bahr, and everyone at the base who responded to the attack with such heroism, says volumes about the men and women who serve today. I am so proud of them, and so profoundly saddened by this attack. As the nation grieves, we offer heartfelt thanks to all the brave servicemembers who so selflessly serve our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I can call up amendment No. 2746.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment would enhance the security of our strategic nuclear weapons arsenal and help ensure that the Defense Department makes the best use of taxpayer dollars. I am pleased it has the support of the chairmen of both the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee. The amendment would require the department to submit an analysis of alternative designs for any major military construction projects to secure our nuclear weapons that it plans to initiate. GAO recently found that the Navy initiated two significant new projects without fully analyzing all of the alternatives. Therefore, we cannot be sure that we have found the safest and most cost effective means of protecting our nuclear weapons. Ensuring the security of our nuclear materials and weapons is more important today that it has ever been. The Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States recently concluded that the threat posed by the danger of terrorists accessing nuclear materials is greater than the threat that a foreign government would choose to use such weapons against us. Unfortunately, in the face of this new threat, our stewardship of our own arsenal has grown lax in recent years. All of my colleagues are aware of the serious breakdown in leadership which resulted in the unintentional shipment of nuclear-related intercontinental ballistic missile parts to Taiwan. They are likely also aware that a B-52 bomber flew across the continental United States mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads. These incidents led to the resignation of the Air Force Chief of Staff and Air Force Secretary. Just recently, a wing commander was relieved of command for substandard performance during several nuclear surety inspections at Minot Air Force Base. Clearly, this is an area that warrants sustained congressional oversight. I recently wrote to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Dr. Michael Nacht, asking him to include in the Nuclear Posture Review an analysis of the ideal means to secure our domestic nuclear complex from a terrorist attack. Securing nuclear materials is not just about command and control--it is also about ensuring the physical security needed to ward off an attack. In 2008, the Department of Energy's Office of Independent Oversight conducted an evaluation, including a mock terrorist attack, of a U.S. lab that stores weapons-grade nuclear materials. The oversight office found that the lab's security program had significant weaknesses. In light of these numerous security incidents, Congress must step up its efforts to conduct oversight of our nuclear weapons complex. This amendment is a small step in that direction. As the Defense Department completes the Nuclear Posture Review and stands up a new command in the Air Force to handle nuclear weapons, it is important that we send a message that we want a careful analysis of the best means to secure our nuclear weapons. The Defense Department spends roughly a billion dollars annually on nuclear weapons security, including about $50 million annually on military construction. GAO recently found that ``the Navy plans to spend about $1.1 billion on security improvements to protect ballistic missile submarines while in transit, but selected one alternative without considering the full life cycle costs of the available alternatives.'' In particular, the ``Navy did not consider the military construction costs of building new facilities to support the new security measures. . . .'' In another case, the Navy interpreted DOD guidance as ``precluding the considerations of costs and benefits.'' This amendment will ensure that this does not happen again. GAO also found that DOD occasionally cited costs ``as a criterion for deviations from security requirements.'' This amendment will ensure that the Department conducts a full cost benefit analysis and provides it to Congress. That way we can ensure that DOD is not deviating from security requirements unnecessarily for cost. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment No. 2748 to Amendment No. 2730

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I could, I would like to move on, set that amendment aside in favor of bringing up amendment No. 2748.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment would establish a pilot program to give grants to community-based organizations to conduct outreach for veterans. Many veterans are not aware of care and benefits available to them through the VA or need help navigating the VA bureaucracy to access those benefits. The VA has recognized the need to conduct additional outreach to veterans but does not have the presence in certain underserved communities, including rural areas, to do so directly. This amendment would ensure the VA makes grants to organizations, including State and local governmental entities, that have a presence in the community and experience working with veterans. This amendment is based on my Veterans Outreach Improvement Act, which I first introduced over 5 years ago. That bill has been endorsed by the American Legion; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; National Guard Association of the United States; Wounded Warrior Project; and the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs. The companion bill has already passed the House. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has endorsed the idea of a pilot grant program and has authorized the program in the pending Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009. The amendment would set aside $5 million in funding for the grants. CBO has certified that the amendment has no score and is deficit- neutral. The grants would be awarded on a competitive basis. A wide variety of groups could apply for the grants. State departments of veterans affairs could apply for the grants. In Wisconsin, the Department of Veterans Affairs runs a ``supermarket'' of benefits where veterans can come and learn about programs available to them through the VA. In the first several years of the program, over 10,000 Wisconsin veterans learned about VA programs for which they were eligible. If that many veterans in Wisconsin alone were unaware of these programs, you can imagine the need for greater outreach nationwide. Other groups that may apply for grants include the county veteran service officers who are present in counties throughout most States. These individuals have a presence in many rural communities where the VA's presence is minimal. Rather than hiring contractors that know nothing about veterans issues to conduct outreach by phone to veterans, as the VA has done, this amendment would allow the VA to leverage existing expertise in the community. Both State and local governmental entities are currently conducting outreach notwithstanding the fact that this is a Federal responsibility. Given the current strain on State and local budgets, we cannot assume that they will continue to be able to offer these services. Community-based nonprofits with experience working with veterans will also be eligible for the grants. These organizations may have special skills for working with underserved veterans, such as expertise in assisting those with mental disabilities. Given the high number of service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we conduct outreach to these veterans now to ensure that they get the services they need from the VA. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on November 16, 1989, six Jesuit Fathers, their housekeeper, and her daughter were brutally murdered by members of the Salvadoran Army. The Senate has passed a resolution remembering and honoring the lives and work of these individuals, and today, as we solemnly mark the 20th anniversary of this tragedy, I am struck by the enduring legacy of those who lived and taught their commitment to justice, human rights, and peace in the face of violence and oppression. A New York Times article published on November 17, 1989, a day after their murders, remembered Father Ignacio Ellacuria Bescoetxea as a strong advocate for human rights and a key participant in successful negotiations for the release of the President's daughter in 1985. Father Ignacio Martin-Baro was ``a gentle academic type, with an office overflowing with books, papers, everything,'' and the editor of a widely distributed scholarly journal. Father Segundo Montes worked to collect data on atrocities committed in El Salvador's war so that, some day, justice could be done and victims would not be forgotten. Father Amando Lopez was a committed professor of theology and served the seminary as its rector. Father Juan Ramon Moreno was the assistant director of the university's chapel which also served as an auditorium for lectures making relevant church teachings to the situation in El Salvador. Father Joaquin Lopez y Lopez was the director in El Salvador of Fe y Alegria which organized primary schools for children in the poorest neighborhoods. These men put their faith and academic expertise in philosophy, political science, sociology, economics, and theology to good use. They maintained a distinct hope for an El Salvador at peace, and a country that respected and protected the rights and well-being of all its people--including the very poorest. These teachers were invaluable educators not only for their students and fellow Salvadorans, but also for the global community, bringing international attention and awareness to the plight of those most deeply affected by the conflict in their country. Though tragic, their deaths, and those of their housekeeper, Julia Elba Ramos, and her daughter, Celina Mariset Ramos, helped bring about the negotiations that ultimately led to peace in 1992, and their work on human rights and social justice is continued today by many in El Salvador and around the world, including the 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in the U.S. The civil war is long over, and we witnessed a landmark for democracy this spring as El Salvador hosted its first transfer of power between political parties in a relatively peaceful and transparent election. The new government faces many challenges, including widespread poverty, crime, and gang violence, and the work of the six priests remains just as important today--to address these great challenges, El Salvador must commit itself to the causes of education, justice, and human rights that they championed two decades ago.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I voted to confirm David Gompert to be Deputy DNI during the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's, SSCI, consideration of his nomination. He is highly qualified, and the responses he provided to questions from members of this committee have generally demonstrated a strong grasp of many of the issues he will face. However, one issue--the statutory obligations to notify the full committee of intelligence activities--requires further comment. I voted against the confirmation of Robert Litt to be the ODNI's general counsel and that of Stephen Preston to be CIA's general counsel because of their misinterpretation of the National Security Act. Specifically, they misread the ``Gang of Eight'' provision, which is included only in section 503 of the act covering covert action, to apply to section 502, which covers all other intelligence activities. When I asked Mr. Gompert about this, he acknowledged that the provision is not in section 502 but nonetheless cited the views of the general counsel. I have no reason to believe that, as a matter of policy, Mr. Gompert won't elect to notify the full SSCI, regardless of the statutory interpretations of the general counsel. Nonetheless, this confirmation process should serve to remind Mr. Gompert and other leaders of the intelligence community that those clear statutory obligations apply to them, regardless of the general counsels' misinterpretation of the law and regardless of the practices of the previous administration. These obligations are consistent with basic notions of statutory interpretation. They are also consistent with recent testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by two experts on congressional notifications, both of whom worked on the Church Committee. Frederick ``Fritz'' Schwarz testified that the ``Gang of Eight'' provision ``should be read as limited to covert action'' and noted CIA Director Panetta's testimony at his confirmation hearing supporting this view. Britt Snider's testimony traced the entire history of the provision, describing amendments passed in 1991 and noting that he was general counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of the amendments and was ``heavily involved in their development.'' Another important change brought about by the 1991 amendments limited the ``gang of 8'' option to covert actions, rather than making it available to notify the committees of any intelligence activity that was particularly sensitive. This was done for several reasons. First, the gang of 8 option had, to that point, only been used for covert action. Sensitive collection programs had been briefed to the committees as a whole. The view on the two intelligence committees was that if an agency was instituting a new, ongoing program to collect intelligence, they all needed to know about it, regardless of its sensitivity. This was what the committees were set up to do. They had to authorize the funding for these programs. How could they not know of them? Again, the [George H.W.] Bush Administration did not resist the change . . . There have been no major changes to the congressional notification requirements since the 1991 Amendments. But I think it is fair to say that practice under the law has changed over time. It changed, for example, in the late 1990s when the CIA began to disclose more information to the committees about its collection operations, especially those that were experiencing problems. (Emphasis added.) Both the plain language of the statute and its history are thus clear. Moreover, the practice of violating the statute in this manner is not longstanding; it was limited to the George W. Bush administration. It is therefore particularly dangerous for the current administration and any current leaders of the intelligence community to associate themselves with this misinterpretation of the law.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, last spring, a first grade teacher at Barton Elementary School in Milwaukee contacted my office seeking help in furthering a project her classroom had started. The Ruby Bridges Project began as a modest effort to teach a first grade class in Milwaukee, WI, about the courage and bravery another first grader displayed on November 14, 1960, when she became the first child to integrate a public elementary school in New Orleans, LA. Soon, the Ruby Bridges Project grew and expanded because these first graders at Barton Elementary School wanted to teach other students in Milwaukee about Ruby Bridges. These first graders' efforts were featured in the local media and supported by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and then State Superintendent of Education Elizabeth Burmaster, who wrote letters of commendation for the project. The class also started a petition which garnered over 2,000 signatures from Wisconsinites, and which was sent to President Obama asking him to designate a national day of recognition honoring Ruby Bridges. On November 14, 1960, Ruby Bridges became the first African-American child to attend William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans, LA. While she is forever immortalized in Norman Rockwell's painting as a six-year-old child being escorted to school by U.S. Marshals, with tomatoes splattered in the background, her story is one of courage, bravery and a lifelong commitment to raising awareness of diversity through improved educational opportunities for all children. Even though Ruby Bridges endured riots and protests and retaliations against her family, she attended school at William Frantz every day during the 1960-61 school year. She was supported by her teacher, Ms. Barbara Henry, who herself faced retaliation and was not invited back to teach at William Frantz the following school year. Ruby went on to graduate high school and college, have a career and raise a family. In 1999, Ruby Bridges established the Ruby Bridges Foundation to help eliminate racism and improve society by educating students around the country about her experiences, discussing ongoing efforts to promote diversity and providing lessons students could take back to their communities. Even today, 49 years after Ruby Bridges became the first child to attend integrated school in New Orleans, LA, her story provides an inspiring example for our young people. The story of Ruby Bridges has affected and influenced the lives of children across the country and one first grade class in Milwaukee, WI, in particular. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this Senate resolution recognizing November 14, 2009, as the 49th anniversary of the first school integration in New Orleans, LA, and commending Ruby Bridges for her bravery, courage and lifetime commitment to raising awareness of diversity through education.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, it is with great sadness that I mark the passing of an important judicial figure in Wisconsin and a dear family friend, Myron Gordon. Myron was a good friend of my father, Leon Feingold, for many years, and I was privileged to know him well myself. He was a man of so much integrity, and I admired him tremendously, as my father did. In his obituary in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, people describe him as a ``giant'' of the legal profession and the ``king of judges,'' and he truly was. His outstanding character served him well in his many years on the bench, on Milwaukee County Civil Court, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and, finally, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where he served as a Federal judge until his retirement in 2001. Myron had so many wonderful qualities that came through in his work. He was very wise, and he was absolutely fairminded, refusing to play favorites in the courtroom or be swayed by outside opinion. He was an example for us all, and I am so glad that he was able to serve the State he loved so well for so many years. I was fortunate to know him, and Wisconsin is fortunate to have benefited from his lifetime of service and his commitment to the public good. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in 2002, then-Senator Biden chaired a series of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on U.S. policy toward Iraq. These hearings challenged many prevailing assumptions and called into question the wisdom of invading Iraq. To the detriment of our Armed Forces, our counterterrorism efforts, and the standing of the United States around the world, our government ignored those prescient warnings. Our country is again contemplating sending tens of thousands of troops into battle, this time as an escalation of the 8-year war in Afghanistan. In fact, the escalation has already begun, with an additional squadron to begin deploying in November. Sadly, the impact of our expanding military engagement in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly and painfully clear, as October has become the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began, and more servicemembers have been killed this year than in the first 4 years combined. I commend Senator John Kerry for holding a series of exceptional hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee over the past month on U.S. policy in this critical region. Expert witnesses have provided a sober analysis of the situation there. I urge my colleagues, if they have a chance, to read the transcripts of these hearings and consider the opinions of this diverse group of former military officials, intelligence officers, diplomats, academics, and experts in the region. Of course, a handful of the witnesses supported an escalation of our military involvement in Afghanistan, but the majority of the regional experts--including CIA veterans who have deep experience in the region--questioned whether the stated aims of our military strategy are achievable or necessary in order to deny al- Qaida an uncontested safe haven in Afghanistan. Many expressed concern that our current military-focused approach may be making things worse. President Obama has refocused our attention on the Afghanistan- Pakistan region, and for this I give him great credit. I am also pleased to see this administration is taking the time to have serious discussions about our strategy and the many possible alternatives. We must find a way to relentlessly pursue al-Qaida's global network without destabilizing this critical region, overstretching our military or needlessly spending money we do not have. This will require a smaller, more targeted, and sustainable military strategy combined with far more robust regional diplomatic engagement. I would like to go over what I consider to be some of the myths that are being used to support the notion of a significant buildup of troops in Afghanistan. One is that preventing a potential al-Qaida safe haven in Afghanistan is more important than addressing existing safe havens elsewhere. That is not what we heard at the hearings. The committee's hearings have revealed that calls for an open-ended or increased military presence in Afghanistan are based upon several flawed assumptions or myths. The first common myth is that preventing a potential al-Qaida safe haven in Afghanistan is more important than other potential safe havens. Again and again, we hear that if we do not send more troops, the Taliban will regain control of Afghanistan and again provide a safe haven in which al-Qaida could reestablish training facilities or launch attacks on the United States. That statement may be true, but it contains a number of assumptions that need to be closely examined. Will more troops make a difference? How likely is it the Taliban will actually regain control of Afghanistan? Even if it does, what will its relationship be with al-Qaida? But the biggest unasked question is: What are the costs of pursuing this strategy and is it necessary to address the very real threat posed by al-Qaida? Al-Qaida already has a safe haven in Pakistan and is operating in other countries around the globe. Addressing this global threat requires a smart and sustainable use of our resources around the world, including in Afghanistan, rather than disproportionately directing our resources toward only one of many potential safe havens. Several witnesses called into question even the likelihood that the Taliban would overrun Kabul. Even if the Taliban were to continue to exert control over certain areas, experts challenged the simplistic assumption that al-Qaida would then be able to reestablish the kind of operational freedom it had in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Moreover, sending more troops to Afghanistan may not prevent an al- Qaida safe haven there. As General McChrystal noted in his own assessment, even if we send additional troops, they would necessarily be focused on limited areas and would still leave substantial portions of the country outside the control of the Afghan Government or U.S. forces. Several witnesses questioned whether we can afford to dedicate so many resources to one country when we face a global adversary. Instead, as Robert Grenier, the former CIA station chief in Islamabad during the 2001 invasion in Afghanistan, testified: The best that we can hope for is not a permanent elimination of a safe haven [in Afghanistan] . . . but rather the elimination of an uncontested safe haven. [W]e need to be in a place where we can continue to play the game, which means that we need to be able to do that on a sustainable basis. . . .What we are currently doing I believe is not sustainable either by us or by the Afghans. We have to have a sustainable, targeted counterterrorism strategy that can contest potential safe havens and, thus, prevent al-Qaida from regaining the footing they had in the 1990s. Trying to achieve total elimination of such safe havens through a large-scale, open-ended military mission is not only infeasible, it is physically and politically unsustainable and could provoke even greater instability in the region. It is time we develop a counterterrorism policy for Afghanistan that places it in the context of al-Qaida's many current and potential safe havens, including in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa and many other places around the world. A second oft-cited myth is, we already tried engaging in such a limited counterterrorism operation in Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion and the situation on the ground only deteriorated. On the contrary, the strategy of the United States in Afghanistan, over the past 6 years, has been uncoordinated and neglected and much of the limited resources went to pursuing militants in Afghanistan while al-Qaida was rebuilding in Pakistan. This strategy failed not because it was targeted at al-Qaida but because it generated resentment among the local population and created a groundswell of opposition. It also failed because it turned a blind eye to the corruption and lack of legitimacy of both the Afghan and Pakistani Governments. The previous administration's extreme reliance on Pervez Musharraf not only failed to achieve our immediate counterterrorism goals, but it undermined the perception among the Pakistani population that we were working with them against mutual threats. As a result, we lost a crucial opportunity to eliminate al-Qaida and the Taliban from, and bring stability to, Afghanistan. By contrast, the Obama administration has focused on Pakistan and supported the emergence of a civilian government that shares our counterterrorism goals. We have a strong interest in Pakistan's continued military operations. We must remain engaged so any tactical successes are accompanied by rules of engagement that protect the civilian population and ensure humane treatment of displaced persons, which are essential to ensuring that these successes actually result in strategic victories. Much more remains to be done, including efforts to strengthen responsive civilian governance and encourage Pakistan to tackle the deeper socioeconomic problems that the Director of National Intelligence has testified are driving instability in that country. None of this will be easy, but counterterrorism in Pakistan will not be achieved through our escalation in Afghanistan. One thing is certain. At no point in the last 8 years has this kind of comprehensive, focused strategy for Pakistan been attempted. In Afghanistan, I am not suggesting we would necessarily just limit ourselves to what some have called an over-the-horizon presence. We may need to maintain bases and consider a range of counterterrorism options. But we will never return to the neglect and strategic drift of the pre-9/11 period, nor should we resume the unfocused mission we saw for much of the previous administration. This recognition is why several witnesses testified that a targeted counterterrorism strategy, which has never been tried before, would likely succeed in denying al-Qaida an uncontested safe haven. This sustainable strategy, along with a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of troops of the United States from Afghanistan, could easily reduce the perception that we are engaging in an open-ended military occupation of that country. As to a third myth, there are many who argue that a larger military presence is required in order to stabilize Afghanistan. However, many of the experts testified that an increase of foreign troops in Afghanistan will likely provoke additional militancy. Reports indicate that militancy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan has increased over the years. According to Milt Bearden, the former CIA station chief in Islamabad: ``40,000 troops will beget 40,000 more enemy . . . '' We must appreciate that our military presence may well be counterproductive and, in fact, driving the conflict, creating more militants than it is eliminating. Indeed, it may even be undermining our ability to divide our enemies. CIA veterans Robert Grenier and Mark Sageman testified that, in Mr. Grenier's words, Afghans ``tend to coalesce against what is perceived as an outsider.'' It is not surprising, then, that many of the witnesses who appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee agreed that a political solution is essential to stability in Afghanistan. As Mr. Bearden testified, there is no ``military solution--for us or the Afghans.'' We can and will relentlessly pursue al-Qaida. We have to find a way to do so that does not further destabilize the region. Increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan will only make this more difficult. As to a fourth myth, another frequently cited myth is we must maintain a large military presence in Afghanistan in order to prevent the destabilization of Pakistan. In reality, our massive military footprint in Afghanistan has contributed to instability in Pakistan. Several witnesses agreed the majority of Pakistanis would not welcome an increased military presence in Afghanistan. Mr. Grenier stated: I think that a large increase in U.S. presence in Afghanistan would not be welcomed by the majority of Pakistanis. I think that it would make the struggle seem all the more starkly one of the U.S. against Muslims as opposed to the U.S. supporting Afghans in their own struggle. As former British diplomat Rory Stewart testified, the ``stabilized Pakistan'' rationale for a military presence in Afghanistan also ignores ``the real drivers of the problems in Pakistan. Pakistan will not stand or fall on Afghanistan. It's about the Pakistani government, it's about the Pakistani military, it's about the Pakistani economy and the Pakistani society . . . by and large, Afghanistan is far less important to the future of Pakistan than we're suggesting.'' In fact, our presence in Afghanistan could be counterproductive. CIA veteran Paul Pillar recently testified in the House that ``an expanded U.S.-led counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would be more likely to complicate rather than to alleviate the task of Pakistani security forces insofar as it succeeded in pushing additional militants across the Durand line.'' We need to carefully consider the unintended consequences of sending additional troops to Afghanistan, lest we further destabilize its nuclear-armed neighbor, Pakistan. The Afghanistan hearings provided a crucial forum to question conventional wisdom, justifying our current and proposed military strategy. These expert witnesses have challenged many of the assumptions underlying many of the myths I outlined. In his testimony before the House, Pillar warned that: An expanded military effort in the cause of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would be unwarranted. The benefits in terms of ultimately adding to the safety and security of the American people would be marginal and questionable. At best, the difference such an effort would make in the terrorist threat facing Americans would be slight. At worst, the effort would be counterproductive and would not reduce the threat at all. Even at its best, the benefit would be, in my judgment, outweighed by the probable costs of the counterinsurgency. There is strong consensus that we must not abandon Afghanistan, and the lack of strategy and focus on this region that occurred over the past 6 years must not be repeated. But there has also been significant agreement among the witnesses that we continue to greatly overestimate the potential benefits and underestimate the risks associated with maintaining or expanding a large, open-ended military presence. I urge my colleagues, again, to review this excellent testimony from these hearings. We need to reduce our unsustainable military presence in Afghanistan in order to pursue al-Qaida without further destabilizing the region and work through diplomatic channels and the provision of assistance to support the emergence of legitimate, competent governments in both countries that will be effective partners in fighting terrorism. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce, along with Senators Klobuchar, Tester, Harkin and Kerry, the Same Day Registration Act of 2009, a bill that would significantly increase voter participation by allowing all eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day or the same day that they vote. In many ways, the machinery of our democracy needs significant repair. We live in an age of low turnout and high cynicism. The American people have lost faith in our election system, in part because they are not confident that their votes will be counted or that the ballot box is accessible to each and every voter regardless of ability, race, or means. What we see instead are long lines at polling places; faulty voting machines; under-trained, under-paid, over-worked poll workers; partisan election administrators; suspect vote tallies; caging lists; intimidation at the polling place; misleading flyers; illegal voter- file purges; and now, the Supreme Court approving discriminatory voter ID laws. If people cannot trust their elections, why should they trust their elected officials? Three years ago, Professor Dan Tokaji, a leading election law expert, called for a ``moneyball approach to election reform.'' Named after Michael Lewis' book about the Oakland A's data-driven hiring system, Tokaji's approach is quintessentially progressive, as that term was understood at the turn of the century. ``I mean to suggest a research- driven inquiry,'' Tokaji wrote, ``in place of the anecdotal approach that has too often dominated election reform conversations. While anecdotes and intuition have their place, they're no substitute for hard data and rigorous analysis.'' This bill embodies the moneyball approach to election reform. In stark contrast to many so-called election reform proposals, this bill addresses a real problem--low voter turnout; it targets a major cause of the problem--archaic registration laws; and it offers a proven solution--same day registration SDR sometimes known as Election Day registration, EDR. The bill is very simple: it amends the Help America Vote Act to require every state to allow eligible citizens to register and vote in a Federal election on the day of the election, or on any day where voting is permitted, like during early voting. Voters may register using any form that satisfies the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act, including the Federal mail in voter registration form and any state's standard registration form. North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, is exempted from the bill's requirements. The bill itself is simple, but it addresses a significant problem: the low voter turnout that has plagued this country for the last 40 years. We live in a participatory democracy, where our government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a consent embodied in the people's exercise of their fundamental right to vote. It is self evident that a participatory democracy depends on participation. This may be a government of the people, Mr. President, but the people are not voting. Since 1968, American political participation has hovered around 50 percent for Presidential elections and 40 percent for congressional elections. Even in 2008, a record-breaking year, national turnout was only 61.7 percent of the voting age population. The U.S. may be the only established democracy in the world where the fact that nearly 40 percent of the electorate stayed home is considered cause for celebration. In fact, our predecessors in the Senate would be surprised to find us celebrating such low turnout: a 1974 report by the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service bemoaned the ``shocking'' drop in turnout in the 1972 election. And what was the number that so troubled the Committee? Fifty-five percent. The report went on: ``[i]t is the Committee's conviction that our disquieting record of voter participation is in large part due to the hodgepodge of registration barriers put in the way of the voter. Such obstacles have little, if anything, to recommend them. At best, current registration laws in the various states are outmoded and simply inappropriate for a highly mobile population. At worst, registration laws can be construed as a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who desperately need entry into the decision-making processes of our country.'' What a shame, that the Committee's findings are still valid. Our archaic registration laws have been reformed, but they are still archaic. We have passed a number of important bills designed to combat low turnout, but turnout is still low. America is even more mobile than it was in 1974, and yet our registration laws are still out of touch with the reality that more than 40 million Americans move every year. Worst of all, our registration laws still fall especially hard on the young, the old, and the poor. We have long known that complicated voter registration requirements constitute one of the major barriers to voting. In fact, many states adopted voter registration in order to prevent certain segments of the population from voting. Alexander Keyssar, the preeminent scholar on the history right to vote in this country, writes that although ``[r]egistration laws emerged in the nineteenth century as a means of keeping track of voters and preventing fraud; they also served--and were intended to serve--as a means of keeping African-American, working-class, immigrant, and poor voters from the polls.'' It is time for a fundamental change. A large body of research tells us that unnecessarily burdensome voter registration requirements are the single largest factor in preventing people from voting. Simply put, voter registration restrictions should not keep eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote. The solution to this problem is same day registration. Decades of empirical research confirm same day registration's positive impact on turnout. As one academic paper states, ``the evidence on whether EDR augments the electorate is remarkably clear and consistent. Studies finding positive and significant turnout impacts are too numerous to list.'' Mr. President, studies indicate that same day registration alone increases turnout by roughly 5 to 10 percentage points. In general, States with same day registration boast voter turnout that is 10-12 percentage points higher than States that require voters to register before Election Day. Turnout in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which implemented same day registration over 35 years ago has been especially high: in 2004, for example, when national turnout was just 55 percent, 78 percent of eligible Minnesotans and 75 percent of eligible Wisconsinites went to the polls. The last time national voter turnout was above 70 percent, it was 1896, there were only 45 States, and the gold standard was the dominant campaign issue. Critics might worry about the possibility of fraud, but same day registration actually makes the registration process more secure. Voters registering when they vote do so in the presence of an elections official who verifies the voter's residency and identity on the spot. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's Secretary of State, points out that same day registration ``is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you--not a postcard in the mail. That is a no-brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.'' In contrast to most election reforms, the cost of same day registration is negligible. A recent survey of 26 local elections officials in six same day registration States found that ``officials agreed that incidental expense of administering EDR is minimal.'' In fact, same day registration may actually result in a net savings because it significantly reduces the use of provisional ballots. Provisional ballots, which are required by the Help America Vote Act, are expensive to administer. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that provisional ballots cost State and local governments about $25 million a year. In some States the number of provisional ballots cast is surprisingly large. For example, in 2004, more than 4 percent of California's registered voters cast provisional ballots--that is 644,642 provisional ballots. In Ohio, 157,714 provisional ballots were cast, about 2 percent of all registered voters. In contrast, in 2004 only 0.03 percent of voters in SDR states cast a provisional ballot. In Wisconsin, only 374 provisional ballots were cast. In Maine, only 95 provisional ballots were cast. In fact, only 952 provisional ballots were cast in all the SDR states combined in 2004. To be sure, this bill is no cure-all: it does not address long lines, deceptive flyers, and faulty voting machines. Other bills, good bills, address those issues. The bottom line is this: the Same Day Registration Act would substantially increase civic participation, improve the integrity of the electoral process, reduce election administration costs, and reaffirm that voting is a fundamental right. It has been proven effective by more than 30 years of successful implementation in Minnesota and Wisconsin and decades of empirical research. Same day registration is good for voters, good for taxpayers, and good for democracy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce, along with Senators Klobuchar, Tester, Harkin and Kerry, the Same Day Registration Act of 2009, a bill that would significantly increase voter participation by allowing all eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day or the same day that they vote. In many ways, the machinery of our democracy needs significant repair. We live in an age of low turnout and high cynicism. The American people have lost faith in our election system, in part because they are not confident that their votes will be counted or that the ballot box is accessible to each and every voter regardless of ability, race, or means. What we see instead are long lines at polling places; faulty voting machines; under-trained, under-paid, over-worked poll workers; partisan election administrators; suspect vote tallies; caging lists; intimidation at the polling place; misleading flyers; illegal voter- file purges; and now, the Supreme Court approving discriminatory voter ID laws. If people cannot trust their elections, why should they trust their elected officials? Three years ago, Professor Dan Tokaji, a leading election law expert, called for a ``moneyball approach to election reform.'' Named after Michael Lewis' book about the Oakland A's data-driven hiring system, Tokaji's approach is quintessentially progressive, as that term was understood at the turn of the century. ``I mean to suggest a research- driven inquiry,'' Tokaji wrote, ``in place of the anecdotal approach that has too often dominated election reform conversations. While anecdotes and intuition have their place, they're no substitute for hard data and rigorous analysis.'' This bill embodies the moneyball approach to election reform. In stark contrast to many so-called election reform proposals, this bill addresses a real problem--low voter turnout; it targets a major cause of the problem--archaic registration laws; and it offers a proven solution--same day registration SDR sometimes known as Election Day registration, EDR. The bill is very simple: it amends the Help America Vote Act to require every state to allow eligible citizens to register and vote in a Federal election on the day of the election, or on any day where voting is permitted, like during early voting. Voters may register using any form that satisfies the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act, including the Federal mail in voter registration form and any state's standard registration form. North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, is exempted from the bill's requirements. The bill itself is simple, but it addresses a significant problem: the low voter turnout that has plagued this country for the last 40 years. We live in a participatory democracy, where our government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a consent embodied in the people's exercise of their fundamental right to vote. It is self evident that a participatory democracy depends on participation. This may be a government of the people, Mr. President, but the people are not voting. Since 1968, American political participation has hovered around 50 percent for Presidential elections and 40 percent for congressional elections. Even in 2008, a record-breaking year, national turnout was only 61.7 percent of the voting age population. The U.S. may be the only established democracy in the world where the fact that nearly 40 percent of the electorate stayed home is considered cause for celebration. In fact, our predecessors in the Senate would be surprised to find us celebrating such low turnout: a 1974 report by the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service bemoaned the ``shocking'' drop in turnout in the 1972 election. And what was the number that so troubled the Committee? Fifty-five percent. The report went on: ``[i]t is the Committee's conviction that our disquieting record of voter participation is in large part due to the hodgepodge of registration barriers put in the way of the voter. Such obstacles have little, if anything, to recommend them. At best, current registration laws in the various states are outmoded and simply inappropriate for a highly mobile population. At worst, registration laws can be construed as a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who desperately need entry into the decision-making processes of our country.'' What a shame, that the Committee's findings are still valid. Our archaic registration laws have been reformed, but they are still archaic. We have passed a number of important bills designed to combat low turnout, but turnout is still low. America is even more mobile than it was in 1974, and yet our registration laws are still out of touch with the reality that more than 40 million Americans move every year. Worst of all, our registration laws still fall especially hard on the young, the old, and the poor. We have long known that complicated voter registration requirements constitute one of the major barriers to voting. In fact, many states adopted voter registration in order to prevent certain segments of the population from voting. Alexander Keyssar, the preeminent scholar on the history right to vote in this country, writes that although ``[r]egistration laws emerged in the nineteenth century as a means of keeping track of voters and preventing fraud; they also served--and were intended to serve--as a means of keeping African-American, working-class, immigrant, and poor voters from the polls.'' It is time for a fundamental change. A large body of research tells us that unnecessarily burdensome voter registration requirements are the single largest factor in preventing people from voting. Simply put, voter registration restrictions should not keep eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote. The solution to this problem is same day registration. Decades of empirical research confirm same day registration's positive impact on turnout. As one academic paper states, ``the evidence on whether EDR augments the electorate is remarkably clear and consistent. Studies finding positive and significant turnout impacts are too numerous to list.'' Mr. President, studies indicate that same day registration alone increases turnout by roughly 5 to 10 percentage points. In general, States with same day registration boast voter turnout that is 10-12 percentage points higher than States that require voters to register before Election Day. Turnout in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which implemented same day registration over 35 years ago has been especially high: in 2004, for example, when national turnout was just 55 percent, 78 percent of eligible Minnesotans and 75 percent of eligible Wisconsinites went to the polls. The last time national voter turnout was above 70 percent, it was 1896, there were only 45 States, and the gold standard was the dominant campaign issue. Critics might worry about the possibility of fraud, but same day registration actually makes the registration process more secure. Voters registering when they vote do so in the presence of an elections official who verifies the voter's residency and identity on the spot. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's Secretary of State, points out that same day registration ``is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you--not a postcard in the mail. That is a no-brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.'' In contrast to most election reforms, the cost of same day registration is negligible. A recent survey of 26 local elections officials in six same day registration States found that ``officials agreed that incidental expense of administering EDR is minimal.'' In fact, same day registration may actually result in a net savings because it significantly reduces the use of provisional ballots. Provisional ballots, which are required by the Help America Vote Act, are expensive to administer. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that provisional ballots cost State and local governments about $25 million a year. In some States the number of provisional ballots cast is surprisingly large. For example, in 2004, more than 4 percent of California's registered voters cast provisional ballots--that is 644,642 provisional ballots. In Ohio, 157,714 provisional ballots were cast, about 2 percent of all registered voters. In contrast, in 2004 only 0.03 percent of voters in SDR states cast a provisional ballot. In Wisconsin, only 374 provisional ballots were cast. In Maine, only 95 provisional ballots were cast. In fact, only 952 provisional ballots were cast in all the SDR states combined in 2004. To be sure, this bill is no cure-all: it does not address long lines, deceptive flyers, and faulty voting machines. Other bills, good bills, address those issues. The bottom line is this: the Same Day Registration Act would substantially increase civic participation, improve the integrity of the electoral process, reduce election administration costs, and reaffirm that voting is a fundamental right. It has been proven effective by more than 30 years of successful implementation in Minnesota and Wisconsin and decades of empirical research. Same day registration is good for voters, good for taxpayers, and good for democracy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.