Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to make a point. Of course, my amendment does not prevent the prescription drug benefit. It just means that we have to actually pay for it. It seems to me that is reasonable. The amendment in no way prevents a paid-for prescription drug benefit. I would not support such an amendment if I were given that. How much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me again thank not only the current chairman but the previous chairman of the Budget Committee. They have sincerely shown an interest--I am a member of the committee--in trying to get these budget rules back in place. I understand why this motion is being made. The point is, the chairman has indicated a willingness to move forward. I understand he will hold those hearings the Senator from New Mexico was just referring to that are a part of the process. I want them to know I sincerely would like to see us come together on this in the coming months. It was absolutely essential for the American people to have the confidence that we cared about the deficit issue, that we finally gave the American people that wonderful sense of confidence that it mattered to us that we were running deficits. It helped everybody's mood. It helped the economy. It was a terrific thing for this country. That confidence is now gone. The way you rebuild it is by getting these rules in place so people can point to those rules and say: We can't go beyond these limits. That is what we need. I think we need it in statute as well as in the rules of the Senate. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would restore a valuable--and statutorily mandate--service to our Nation's veterans and their families. In July 2002, Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management Laura Miller sent a memo to Veterans Integrated Service Network Directors ordering them to ``ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within [their] networks.'' This memo cited an increased demand for VA health care services as the reason for this change in policy. While it is clear that more funding should be provided for VA health care and other programs, it is inappropriate for the VA to institute a policy to stop making veterans aware of the health care services for which they may be eligible. I joined with a number of our colleagues last year in sending a letter to the President asking that this policy be immediately reversed. I regret that the VA's reply indicated that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs stands by this policy, which remains in effect. The bill that I am introducing today, Veterans Outreach Protection Act, would rescind the policy issued in this memorandum and prohibit the VA from using Federal funding to enforce this policy. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced in the House by Congressman Paul Kanjorski earlier this year. I have long been concerned that tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible. We can and should do more to educate our veterans and their families about these benefits, and to provide adequate funding to ensure that all veterans who wish to take advantage of their benefits are able to do so. Halting health care marketing activities is not the answer. Our brave veterans have earned these benefits. The Federal department that is charged with advocating for and providing benefits to our veterans should not be allowed to continue to restrict health care outreach activities. In addition to this bill, I am currently working to draft legislation to improve VA-wide outreach efforts. Our veterans and their families have made great personal sacrifices to protect our freedoms. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Making sure that our veterans know about the benefits that they have earned is an important first step in starting to reply this debt. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would restore a valuable--and statutorily mandate--service to our Nation's veterans and their families. In July 2002, Department of Veterans Affairs Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management Laura Miller sent a memo to Veterans Integrated Service Network Directors ordering them to ``ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within [their] networks.'' This memo cited an increased demand for VA health care services as the reason for this change in policy. While it is clear that more funding should be provided for VA health care and other programs, it is inappropriate for the VA to institute a policy to stop making veterans aware of the health care services for which they may be eligible. I joined with a number of our colleagues last year in sending a letter to the President asking that this policy be immediately reversed. I regret that the VA's reply indicated that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs stands by this policy, which remains in effect. The bill that I am introducing today, Veterans Outreach Protection Act, would rescind the policy issued in this memorandum and prohibit the VA from using Federal funding to enforce this policy. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced in the House by Congressman Paul Kanjorski earlier this year. I have long been concerned that tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible. We can and should do more to educate our veterans and their families about these benefits, and to provide adequate funding to ensure that all veterans who wish to take advantage of their benefits are able to do so. Halting health care marketing activities is not the answer. Our brave veterans have earned these benefits. The Federal department that is charged with advocating for and providing benefits to our veterans should not be allowed to continue to restrict health care outreach activities. In addition to this bill, I am currently working to draft legislation to improve VA-wide outreach efforts. Our veterans and their families have made great personal sacrifices to protect our freedoms. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Making sure that our veterans know about the benefits that they have earned is an important first step in starting to reply this debt. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement Act,'' along with Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and my colleague Senator Kohl, the senior Senator from Wisconsin. This bill addresses the growing problem of the use of involuntary bankruptcy petitions as a means to harass public officials. A similar bill has been introduced in the other body by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. I believe this bill should be enacted on its own as soon as possible or, if necessary, be a part of any bankruptcy-related legislation that goes through the Congress this year. Involuntary bankruptcy petitions are a rarely used, but legitimate, creditor tool to prevent the wasting of an asset that would otherwise be available to satisfy creditor claims. Unfortunately, tax protestors and others with real or imagined grievances against the government have filed fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petitions against government officials as a way to harass and harm them. This problem came to my attention recently because of a case in my home State of Wisconsin. In that case, a man named Steven Magritz undertook a vendetta against thirty-six Ozaukee County officials after the County pursued a foreclosure action against him for failing to pay taxes by filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions against those officials. Although the petitions were ultimately dismissed and Magritz was convicted of criminal slander and sentenced to five years in prison, the petitions had, and are still having, an impact on the credit ratings of the officials. Current law provides for punitive damages to be assessed against someone who files an erroneous petition of this kind. But because bankruptcy filings are public records and credit reporting agencies include information in their reports for ten years, erroneous or fraudulent filings can have a devastating impact on the credit ratings of the individuals involved even if the perpetrator is punished. The local government officials that were the subject of this vendetta have had great difficulty in obtaining loans or refinancing their homes. Although a comprehensive study of this problem has not been done, I understand that fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petitions have been filed against federal district court judges in Ohio and Maine, a U.S. Attorney in Maine, and IRS agents in Ohio. A district in California reported that over 10 percent of the involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed in recent years were likely filed in bad faith. The bill I am introducing today will address this problem in two ways. First, it requires the bankruptcy court on motion of the debtor to expunge from the court's file all records relating to the filing of an involuntary petition and any references to such petition, if 1. the debtor is an individual; 2. the petition is dismissed; and 3. the petition is false or contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement. Second, the bill authorizes a bankruptcy court to prohibit credit reporting agencies from issuing a consumer report that contains any information relating to an involuntary bankruptcy petition or to the case commenced by such petition where the debtor is an individual and the court has dismissed the petition. These steps will retain involuntary bankruptcy as a legitimate tool to preserve debtor assets, but will allow the courts to address the real harm that can befall an innocent victim of harassment. I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and necessary reform of the bankruptcy laws. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2003. This bill provides that when plaintiffs bring a lawsuit that acts as a catalyst for a change in position by the opposing party, they will be considered the ``prevailing party'' for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees under Federal law. The bill will help ensure that people who are the victims of civil rights, environmental and worker rights' abuses can obtain legal representation to enforce their rights. Over the course of our history, Congress has often enacted laws encouraging private litigants to implement public policy through our court system. An integral part of many such laws are provisions that help individuals obtain adequate legal representation by providing that the defendants will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees in cases were the plaintiff prevails. In laws involving public accommodations, housing, labor, disabilities, age discrimination, violence against women, voting rights, pollution and others, Congress has acted over and over again to empower private litigants in their pursuit of justice. Presently, there are over two hundred statutory fee-shifting provisions that allow for some sort of payment of attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Until 2001, in interpreting these fee-shifting statutes in cases where a settlement was reached before trial, nine circuit courts of appeals embraced the ``catalyst theory'' to determine whether attorneys' fees could be obtained. The catalyst theory required the payment of fees where the lawsuit caused a change in the position or conduct of the defendant. Only one circuit court, the Fourth Circuit, applied a more narrow definition of prevailing party, requiring a judgment or a court approved settlement in order for a plaintiff to obtain attorneys' fees. In Buckhannon Board of Care & Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (2001), a case arising out of the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that plaintiffs may recover attorneys' fees from defendants only if they have been awarded relief by a court, not if they prevailed through a voluntary change in the defendant's behavior or a private settlement. The Buckhannon ruling eliminated the catalyst theory for all fee shifting statutes in federal law. The bill I introduce today restores the catalyst theory that the vast majority of courts had approved prior to the Buckhannon decision as a basis for seeking attorneys fees under Federal fee shifting statutes. It provides a new definition of ``prevailing party'' for all such statutes to encompass the common situation where defendants alter their conduct after a lawsuit has commenced but without waiting for a court order requiring them to do so. This critical change in the definition of ``prevailing party'' will allow attorneys representing clients who cannot otherwise afford to hire a lawyer to recover their costs and to be paid a reasonable rate for their work. The Buckhannon case itself illustrates the need for this legislation. Buckhannon Board and Care Home in West Virginia, an operator of assisted living residences, failed a state inspection because some residents were incapable of ``self-preservation'' as defined by state law. After receiving orders to close its facilities, Buckhannon sued the state seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the ``self- preservation'' requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the lawsuit was pending but before the court ruled, the state legislature eliminated the ``self- preservation'' requirement. Imagine how the plaintiffs felt when they learned that their lawsuit had forced a change in the law not only for their own case but also for all of the other individuals who had been subject to the improper self- preservation doctrine. If ever there was a complete and total victory caused by litigation, this was it. But, as Casey Stengall once said, ``It ain't over 'til it's over.'' Once the state legislature changed the law, the District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case as moot and denied Buckhannon's request for attorneys' fees. The court ruled that the legislative action did not amount to a judicially required change in position that would permit Buckhannon to be considered a ``prevailing party'' in the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs, ruling that because the change in the defendants' conduct was voluntary rather than ordered by the court, Buckhannon was not a prevailing party. I believe the narrow definition of ``prevailing party'' endorsed by the Buckhannon decision will result in many injustices going unchallenged. Indeed, in calculating whether to take a case, an attorney for a plaintiff will have to consider not only the chances of losing, but the chances of winning too easily. If businesses or individuals are able to engage in egregious conduct, refuse to change their behavior without a lawsuit being filed against them, and then avoid paying attorneys' fees by changing their conduct on the eve of trial, the effect will be that some lawyers will decide they cannot afford to take a case even if the claims are very strong. Imagine a case involving a legitimate claim of housing discrimination where, after many months, perhaps even years of work, as the attorney who labored for the plaintiff prepares into the evening for opening statements, the attorney learns that the defendant has admitted its wrongful conduct and offered substantial compensation and a promise to change its practices. This offer came about only because of the spotlight the lawsuit put on the defendant and the possibility of a large jury verdict. This would be a complete victory for the plaintiff, but under Buckhannon, the attorney who labored for years to bring about this result may not be paid. Later, if the same defendant returns to discriminatory practices, the next plaintiff might very well not be able to find competent counsel who will take the case. Ironically, the failure to correct the Buckhannon decision could lead to plaintiffs' attorneys dragging out law suits far beyond a point in time where the parties could reach a fair settlement, in order to insure that they meet the Buckhannon definition of ``prevailing party.'' This will increase the costs of litigation and discourage settlement. Simply put, Buckhannon creates unnatural tensions between attorneys and clients and may even push attorneys to not act in the best interest of their clients. Certainly we can do better. Congress has passed important laws to protect the public in the work place and in our communities; we must ensure that these laws can be enforced, when necessary, in court. The Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2003 will help insure that all our citizens have the ability to meaningfully challenge injustice.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to add my thoughts to the debate on the defense budget for fiscal year 2004. First and foremost, I want to thank the members of the United States Armed Forces for the excellent work that they are doing in the ongoing fight against terrorism, their efforts in Iraq, and the many missions they have been assigned elsewhere at home and abroad. These dedicated men and women do an exemplary job in every mission that they have been asked to undertake, often at great personal sacrifice. They spend time away from their homes and families in different parts of the country and the world, and are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to all our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and members of the Coast Guard for their selfless service. I am pleased that this bill authorizes a 3.7-percent pay raise for our men and women in uniform, and that it includes a provision authorizing additional pay for members of the Guard and Reserve who have been called to active duty multiple times. The men and women of our National Guard and Reserve are a cornerstone of our national defense, and we should ensure that they have adequate pay and benefits. I am pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to give guardsmen and reservists the opportunity to enroll in TRICARE, the military's health care program, whether or not they are on active duty. The provision also would enable these personnel to elect to keep their civilian health insurance for their families while on active duty with a federal reimbursement program. We owe it to our guardsmen and reservists to give these options to help to ensure that they and their families have access to affordable, stable health care coverage. I have long advocated for the creation of an additional 23 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, which are staffed by full-time members of the National Guard. These important teams play a vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating these new threats. As the events of September 11, 2001, so clearly and tragically demonstrated, local first responders are on the front lines of combating terrorism and responding to other large-scale incidents. The tragic events of September 11, the ongoing threat of terrorist activities, and the ongoing military action in Iraq make the presence of at least one WMD-CST in each State all the more imperative. Currently, there are 32 full-time WMD-CSTs and 23 part-time teams. As a Senator representing one of the states without a full-time team, I was pleased that last year's DoD authorization bill included a statutory requirement that 23 additional full-time teams be established, and that at least one team be located in every State and territory. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for working with me to ensure that resources for 12 of these 23 teams are provided in this bill. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee to ensure that the resources authorized in this bill for the new WMD-CSTs are appropriated. I am also pleased that the committee report contains language asking the Pentagon to include funding for the remaining 11 full-time WMD-CSTs in its fiscal year 2005 budget request. I urge the Secretary of Defense to do so, and to make every effort to select and begin staffing, training, and equipping the 12 new teams authorized by this bill as expeditiously as possible. These teams will improve the overall capability of Wisconsin and other States with part-time teams to respond to potential WMD threats in the future. On a related matter, as I noted on the floor earlier this week, I share the concern expressed by many of our colleagues about a provision in the Committee-passed bill that would repeal the 10-year ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, or so-called ``mini-nukes.'' Lifting this ban could be the first step in a resumption of nuclear testing and the creation of new classes of nuclear weapons, which I oppose. I regret that the Senate failed to pass an amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, of which I was a cosponsor, that would have reinstated this ban. While proponents of lifting the ban argue that it will permit only study into the development of mini-nukes, I am concerned that such study will be the first step toward the eventual resumption of an active nuclear program by the United States. Nuclear weapons, low-yield or otherwise, are relics of the cold war. Instead of a true transformation during which outdated systems are replaced with new technology geared toward combating emerging threats, this bill regrettably continues the process of piling on expensive new versions of the weapon systems that we used to fight and win the cold war. We cannot keep adding on to this behemoth defense budget. There are projects and programs that can and should be subtracted. As an editorial in the May 20 New York Times points out: [G]ood ideas for reforming the military are included [in this bill]. But so are outdated submarines and jet fighters designed for combat against the defunct Soviet threat. There is a reasonable $1.7 billion for the next generation of unmanned aerial drones and an unreasonable $42 billion for anachronistic fighter planes. As social, education and health care programs are being squeezed, the Pentagon is asking for $9.1 billion to build a missile defense system that does not work yet. On that last point, I am deeply concerned about the $9.1 billion included in this bill for missile defense. We continue to pour billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into this still unproven program year after year, despite the fact that DoD has not developed performance criteria for this system and does not have an operational testing program in place to verify whether such criteria can be met. I remain concerned about the President's December 2002 decision to field a ground-based interceptor system by October 2004, despite the fact that the system has not yet been fully tested. I am troubled that, despite this accelerated scheduled, the Pentagon has proposed cutting the number of tests that were slated to be conducted on this costly program. While not everyone agrees on whether we actually need a missile defense system, I think we can all agree that such a system should work. I was pleased to support an amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, that will require the Pentagon to develop performance criteria for the missile defense system and an operational test plan for these criteria. I am pleased that the Senate adopted a modified version of the amendment, and I look forward to reviewing these performance criteria. I will support this flawed bill, but with some reluctance. While it provides a well-deserved pay increase and other benefits for our men and women in uniform, it clings to the hardware of the cold war. Our military personnel deserve top-notch equipment that will help them to combat the threats of the 21st century. I regret that there is little in the way of true transformation in this bill, and I will continue to work to change the cold war mentality of the Pentagon. I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the New York Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2003. This bill provides that when plaintiffs bring a lawsuit that acts as a catalyst for a change in position by the opposing party, they will be considered the ``prevailing party'' for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees under Federal law. The bill will help ensure that people who are the victims of civil rights, environmental and worker rights' abuses can obtain legal representation to enforce their rights. Over the course of our history, Congress has often enacted laws encouraging private litigants to implement public policy through our court system. An integral part of many such laws are provisions that help individuals obtain adequate legal representation by providing that the defendants will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees in cases were the plaintiff prevails. In laws involving public accommodations, housing, labor, disabilities, age discrimination, violence against women, voting rights, pollution and others, Congress has acted over and over again to empower private litigants in their pursuit of justice. Presently, there are over two hundred statutory fee-shifting provisions that allow for some sort of payment of attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Until 2001, in interpreting these fee-shifting statutes in cases where a settlement was reached before trial, nine circuit courts of appeals embraced the ``catalyst theory'' to determine whether attorneys' fees could be obtained. The catalyst theory required the payment of fees where the lawsuit caused a change in the position or conduct of the defendant. Only one circuit court, the Fourth Circuit, applied a more narrow definition of prevailing party, requiring a judgment or a court approved settlement in order for a plaintiff to obtain attorneys' fees. In Buckhannon Board of Care & Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (2001), a case arising out of the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that plaintiffs may recover attorneys' fees from defendants only if they have been awarded relief by a court, not if they prevailed through a voluntary change in the defendant's behavior or a private settlement. The Buckhannon ruling eliminated the catalyst theory for all fee shifting statutes in federal law. The bill I introduce today restores the catalyst theory that the vast majority of courts had approved prior to the Buckhannon decision as a basis for seeking attorneys fees under Federal fee shifting statutes. It provides a new definition of ``prevailing party'' for all such statutes to encompass the common situation where defendants alter their conduct after a lawsuit has commenced but without waiting for a court order requiring them to do so. This critical change in the definition of ``prevailing party'' will allow attorneys representing clients who cannot otherwise afford to hire a lawyer to recover their costs and to be paid a reasonable rate for their work. The Buckhannon case itself illustrates the need for this legislation. Buckhannon Board and Care Home in West Virginia, an operator of assisted living residences, failed a state inspection because some residents were incapable of ``self-preservation'' as defined by state law. After receiving orders to close its facilities, Buckhannon sued the state seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the ``self- preservation'' requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the lawsuit was pending but before the court ruled, the state legislature eliminated the ``self- preservation'' requirement. Imagine how the plaintiffs felt when they learned that their lawsuit had forced a change in the law not only for their own case but also for all of the other individuals who had been subject to the improper self- preservation doctrine. If ever there was a complete and total victory caused by litigation, this was it. But, as Casey Stengall once said, ``It ain't over 'til it's over.'' Once the state legislature changed the law, the District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case as moot and denied Buckhannon's request for attorneys' fees. The court ruled that the legislative action did not amount to a judicially required change in position that would permit Buckhannon to be considered a ``prevailing party'' in the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs, ruling that because the change in the defendants' conduct was voluntary rather than ordered by the court, Buckhannon was not a prevailing party. I believe the narrow definition of ``prevailing party'' endorsed by the Buckhannon decision will result in many injustices going unchallenged. Indeed, in calculating whether to take a case, an attorney for a plaintiff will have to consider not only the chances of losing, but the chances of winning too easily. If businesses or individuals are able to engage in egregious conduct, refuse to change their behavior without a lawsuit being filed against them, and then avoid paying attorneys' fees by changing their conduct on the eve of trial, the effect will be that some lawyers will decide they cannot afford to take a case even if the claims are very strong. Imagine a case involving a legitimate claim of housing discrimination where, after many months, perhaps even years of work, as the attorney who labored for the plaintiff prepares into the evening for opening statements, the attorney learns that the defendant has admitted its wrongful conduct and offered substantial compensation and a promise to change its practices. This offer came about only because of the spotlight the lawsuit put on the defendant and the possibility of a large jury verdict. This would be a complete victory for the plaintiff, but under Buckhannon, the attorney who labored for years to bring about this result may not be paid. Later, if the same defendant returns to discriminatory practices, the next plaintiff might very well not be able to find competent counsel who will take the case. Ironically, the failure to correct the Buckhannon decision could lead to plaintiffs' attorneys dragging out law suits far beyond a point in time where the parties could reach a fair settlement, in order to insure that they meet the Buckhannon definition of ``prevailing party.'' This will increase the costs of litigation and discourage settlement. Simply put, Buckhannon creates unnatural tensions between attorneys and clients and may even push attorneys to not act in the best interest of their clients. Certainly we can do better. Congress has passed important laws to protect the public in the work place and in our communities; we must ensure that these laws can be enforced, when necessary, in court. The Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2003 will help insure that all our citizens have the ability to meaningfully challenge injustice.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from California and the Senator from Massachusetts. I am pleased to have cosponsored it. I commend the Senators for offering this important amendment, and I am extremely pleased to be one of a large group of Senators who have come to the floor to express their concern about this policy and to support this amendment. I share their concern, as I know that many of our colleagues do, about the provision in the underlying bill that would repeal the 10- year ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Lifting this ban could be the first step in the resumption of nuclear testing and the creation of new classes of nuclear weapons which I oppose. Our men and women in uniform are facing new threats, but our defense procurement policy remains planted firmly in the cold war by calling for more nuclear weapons. We should not endorse a policy that could start or spark another nuclear arms race. I am deeply concerned that the administration's Nuclear Posture Review represents a departure from this country's longstanding nuclear weapons policy. Lifting the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons and funding a feasibility study on the so-called robust earth penetrator and directing the Secretary of Energy to accelerate the readiness posture for the Nevada Test Site from 24 to 36 months to 18 months all point toward a disturbing destination--the resumption of an active nuclear weapons program, including underground testing by the United States. These decisions send dangerous signals to our allies and adversaries alike. The United States has urged nonnuclear states and rogue operators not to pursue nuclear programs. But if we, as a nuclear power with enough of these weapons to destroy the world many times over, begin developing mini-nukes or other new forms of these dangerous weapons, I think we run the risk of inviting other countries and other organizations to do so as well. I supported the Moscow Treaty earlier this year because, while it is not perfect, it does move us closer to the goal of reducing the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia. I don't think we should undermine this worthy goal by now starting down the path toward smaller, more easily transported nuclear weapons that could fall into the wrong hands. I recognize that the underlying bill would lift the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons without authorizing that such weapons be tested, acquired, or deployed by the United States. But I still think this is a perilous first step toward a new class of nuclear weapons. It is one we should not take. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the Senators from Massachusetts and California. I yield the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I honor the late Mike Jendrzejczyk, the Washington director for the Asia division of Human Rights Watch, and a voice I have trusted and valued for many years. Mike was kind, smart, unquestionably committed, and amazingly energetic. He kept so many of us in Congress informed, always combining savvy and idealism in his updates and enthusiastic calls to action. He brought extraordinary human rights leaders from Asia to the Hill, and by connecting us to these courageous people, he helped to round out our view of faraway places--showing us not just the ugly reality of abuse, but also the promise and bravery of those who resist. By introducing Washington to these heros, Mike turned resignation to resolve and did the crucial work of sustaining momentum for action and change. He became a hero himself. Mike helped countless people overseas in profound ways, but he helped the Congress as well. Mike helped us to believe that it is possible to do the right thing. His death is a terrible loss.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It is late, but I cannot let the characterization of the AIDS program in Uganda pass without suggesting that the characterization by the Senator from Kansas is an oversimplification of how they reduced the AIDS incidence in Uganda. Most importantly, what Uganda did is to destigmatize AIDS, to not make people who have AIDS pariahs, and to talk about a range of alternatives, not simply abstinence. The House approach to this does not characterize the way in which they succeed in Uganda. In fact, I suggest it does just the opposite. I object to the use of the Uganda example, which is one of the leading examples of the world. Without the ABC, all three of them, it would not have succeeded. The House approach is too limited to save the lives we all want to save.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Kennedy's important amendment. The Senate should not be silent on this issue. Senator Kennedy's amendment requires that pharmaceuticals procured by the United States for treatment initiatives authorized in this bill be purchased at the lowest possible cost while maintaining high quality standards. In the past, Congress has been reluctant to address treatment issues, shying away from the complexities associated with providing treatment and resources. But just because it has been difficult does not mean it is impossible. And recognizing and accepting complexity is no excuse for ignoring urgent needs. I have served on the African Affairs Subcommittee in the Senate now for almost 11 years, and I am pleased to be able to say that it appears that the tide is finally beginning to turn on this issue after so many years with people cavalierly dismissing the notion of providing access to antiretroviral drugs in the developing world. I often recall the very end of almost a marathon meeting with the Senegalese public health community. An extraordinary group of Senegalese doctors, nurses, and volunteers and religious leaders had come out on a Saturday to spend hours talking with me and others about their coordinated campaign to fight AIDS. We were wrapping up when a gentleman who had been among those briefing me stood up, and speaking softly he told me that he was HIV positive. He wanted to know if there would be any help for him, any assistance with the kind of treatment that is out of reach for some in Africa. There has to be an answer to his question. I heard the President of the United States answer positively in the State of the Union that basic human decency tells us that we cannot stand by while tens of millions die and societies collapse. Recently, in South Africa I met with pediatricians whose exhaustion showed on their faces and their posture and in their tired, angry voices. They were tired of watching children die when they know that the treatment actually exists to save them. There is much more to say about what we have seen in Africa. But what we are talking about here is a tremendous commitment of U.S. resources in this bill and in this time of crises. I think we have to get the most that we can for our money. The amendment is about using taxpayer dollars wisely. It would be beyond shameful and almost reprehensible for us to use the resources authorized in this bill for what might end up being sweetheart deals with big pharmaceutical companies for their products if we could get equally safe and effective products at a better price. The amendment is in no way targeted to the pharmaceutical industry. It does not prejudge anyone's intentions. It does not exclude any single provider of safe and effective drugs. It simply demands that the U.S. Government get the quality we need at the best available price. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, one quick point to reinforce what Senator Kennedy said in response to what the Senator from Indiana said. Obviously, the Senator from Massachusetts and I are not going to offer an amendment to provide unsafe treatments. In fact, the WHO guarantees the bioequivalency of a given product. And that just means they actually verify that it is exactly the same as a product that has been thoroughly tested for safety by an institution such as the FDA. So it is not a valid point that somehow this approach that we are suggesting will lead to products that are not safe. They are as safe as the ones we would use ourselves.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Durbin amendment, which strikes an important balance between supporting the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, and Malaria and demanding accountability and appropriate burdensharing. The Global Fund holds tremendous promise for leveraging donations to ensure maximum impact, helping us all to get the most for our money. It not only deserves U.S. support--it needs it to survive, because our leadership sends a critical signal to the rest of the donor community. Today we are being urged to strengthen the President's hand with other donors at the next G-8 meeting. Well Mr. President, I want to strengthen his hand. Making a strong commitment to the fund--and conditioning part of that commitment on a significant effort from other donors, definitely fits the bill. The President's historic commitment in his State of the Union Address raised expectations around the world. But the United States cannot possibly tackle this pandemic alone. We must throw down the gauntlet, and signal our substantial support for the fund and our respect for its mission. This is the kind of leadership that can make the President's vision a reality, making a real difference in the lives of millions around the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the issue of the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2003, S. 950, introduced by the junior Senator from Wyoming. I am cosponsoring this bill because I do not think the United States Government should tell its citizens where they can and cannot travel I also think greater people-to-people contacts with societies living under dictatorial regimes can help encourage the spread of democratic ideas. It is for these reasons that I support S. 950. Lifting our ban on travel to Cuba is not a gift to Fidel Castro, and it should not be interpreted as an endorsement of his regime or as a sign of diminished commitment to improving human rights conditions for the Cuban people. The recent harsh prison sentences meted out to dozens of peaceful political dissenters in Cuba, and the execution of three men involved in a ferry hijacking, provide further evidence of the fundamentally repressive and undemocratic nature of the Castro regime. Cuba has been stubbornly impervious to the democratizing trend sweeping the hemisphere in recent years. This, however, merely demonstrates the failure of our 40-year policy isolation. Lifting travel restrictions on our citizens is not likely to bring about a transformation in Cuba overnight. But we have already seen what perpetuating the ban has accomplished--nothing. We have been depriving our own citizen of their liberty without bringing the blessings of liberty any closer to the Cuban people. It is time to end this fruitless policy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week, some of our colleagues came to the floor to discuss the President's recent appearance on the USS Abraham Lincoln and the propriety of that appearance. I, however, come to the floor today to discuss some of what the President said on the Lincoln, especially with regard to the fight against terrorism. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the fight against global terrorism--an effort that is surely our highest national security priority. I want to spend a few minutes talking about the fight against terrorism today because it is not at all clear to me that we are as focused on this mission as we should be. I fear that our mission has become obscured and our approach unfocused. I also fear that this confused approach will undermine our goal rather than enhance our security. I had planned to make these remarks even before yesterday's terrible terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia. Early reports indicate that those deplorable attacks killed several, including at least 10 Americans. Many more innocent people were wounded. Al-Qaida is strongly suspected to be responsible. Of course, my heart and all of our hearts go out to all of the families who are grieving today and to those who are left with the terrible uncertainty as they wait to hear news of loved ones. More information will surely be emerging shortly, but Secretary Powell has already pointed out one of the most important conclusions that can be drawn from this incident in Saudi Arabia, and that is that those forces who would have us live in fear have not been destroyed. I have no doubt that everyone in this Chamber was gratified to hear the recent better news about Pakistan's arrest of several members of an important al-Qaida cell, including a Yemeni man believed to be involved in the October 2000 attack on the U.S. warship Cole in Yemen. I look forward to more information about this development. But I also look forward to more information about another related matter. The President reminded us on the USS Lincoln that he has pledged that terrorists who attacked America ``would not escape the patient justice of the United States.'' I think the country expects nothing less. But how many people noticed when, according to reports, 10 men escaped from a prison in Yemen on April 11--10 men who apparently were being held on charges of involvement in the terrorist attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors, including one from my home State of Wisconsin? I want to know--is this so? If so, how did they escape? Did they have assistance? Critically, why are we not hearing more about this? This escape occurred, apparently, just as our brave troops were entering Baghdad--at least in part in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism. But no one seems to be discussing at all this potentially dangerous lapse in Yemen. Did the perpetrators of the murder of 17 Americans on the USS Cole escape or not? And what does this mean? Americans pledge every day to never forget September 11, 2001. We pledge this to ourselves, to each other, and to the rest of the world, but I fear that the administration and the Congress are losing sight of our most important goals and priorities. September 11 is invoked in some surprising and, I think, largely unrelated contexts. Sometimes the very idea of terrorism is used by some on the right and some on the left as a politically convenient attack on whomever or whatever they do not agree with. Rhetoric about September 11 and the fight against terrorism seems to be everywhere, and our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, raised this very same issue in his remarks last week. In many ways, the actual business of combating the terrorist organizations or organization responsible for the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, for the attack on the USS Cole, for the horror of September 11, and now possibly for last night's attacks in Riyadh, seems to be lost in the shuffle. A few days ago, from the deck of the USS Lincoln, our President told the American people that ``the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001.'' And polls indicate a majority of the American people believe the Saddam Hussein regime was involved in the September 11 attacks. But I have never--I have never-- not in hearings, not in classified briefings, I have never heard once our officials assert we have intelligence indicating this is the case. President Bush was, of course, right to praise our dedicated service men and women during that speech for they have performed their duties with skill and bravery and superb professionalism. I enthusiastically join the President in thanking them and in welcoming those who are now coming home. But I cannot and will not join in any attempt to blur what must be the necessary and principal focus on the international terrorist threat by too easily merging it with different issues, including the issue of Iraq. Last October, I was not able to support the resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. I felt that in terms of the constantly shifting justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the engagement's aftermath, I felt the administration had not made a sufficiently compelling case for Congress to grant war powers to the President. I had no problem granting such power to the President to make war on those who attacked this country on September 11, but Iraq was a different issue which, of course, is why it required its own resolution authorizing force. If, in fact, there was a connection in planning together for the 9/11 attack by Saddam Hussein and his agents and the perpetrators of 9/11 and al-Qaida, then I believe there was no need for additional authority and resolution. The administration had and continues to have all the authority required to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, but Iraq was and is a different issue. In fact, many of us feared it would be a distraction from the urgent task of fighting terrorism. I said on the floor in October, right after the President's famous speech in Cincinnati, the administration's arguments regarding Iraq did not add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al-Qaida and related organizations. Of course, a majority of my colleagues in this Chamber voted in favor of authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. We did proceed, and the brave men and women of the United States military answered the call to service and performed brilliantly. It is certainly my understanding when the Senate voted to authorize the use of force, and it remains my understanding today, that most Senators were convinced by the most compelling argument that the administration put forward. That is the one relating to Iraq's failures to comply with its obligations to verifiably dismantle and destroy its weapons of mass destruction program. All of us recognize this as a serious issue, but now we are talking less and less about those weapons, it seems, and there is less and less clarity about this matter. So before returning to the principal issue of the fight against terrorism, let me spend a few minutes on the issue of WMD in Iraq. I raise this issue not in an attempt to revisit the debate about our wisdom in the approach in Iraq and not because I am searching for a smoking gun. I raise it because it does matter whether or not we find WMD. Most importantly, it matters because if those materials were in the country in the first place and we cannot find them now, that is a security problem. Where did they go? Whose hands are they in? These are, obviously, very serious questions, and accounting for these materials cannot be written off as some sort of distraction or legalistic irrelevance. Just yesterday the New York Times reported that the nuclear expert for the Army's Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha was unaware of any U.S. policy as to how to handle radioactive material that may be found in Iraq, material that could be used to make a dirty bomb. On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the group directing the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is ``winding down operations'' after a host of fruitless missions. For months, I and others asked the administration: What is the plan for securing these weapons? We tried to understand how we would use the intelligence that was shared in the briefing room to quickly secure weapons of mass destruction and the means to make them. We asked the question for good reason. We were concerned that in the midst of the disorder and disarray likely to accompany military action and the fall of Saddam that WMD could be spirited out of the country or sold to the highest bidder, compounding the threat to the United States rather than eliminating it. We were right to ask about this issue, and today it appears we either had a problem with our intelligence or we had an inadequate plan. Either way, we are talking about a serious problem that should be examined carefully and one that should not be repeated. I also think the issue of weapons of mass destruction matters in terms of how the rest of the world and history will understand this undertaking in Iraq. Those perceptions and judgments do affect our security and global stability. We cannot afford to have the world believing the United States will conjure up pretexts to wage wars and overthrow governments around the world at will. That is not who we are, and it is not in our interest to be perceived in that fashion. Do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting at all this was conjured up. There is no doubt that Iraq was not in compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441 when this conflict began, but I think we need to continue to focus on disarmament to keep from muddying the waters with regard to our intentions, and I believe we should accept credible and qualified international assistance in this regard. Yes, what the rest of the world thinks surely matters. Turning back to the paramount issue of the fight against terrorism, I believe we have to keep this truth about how we are perceived throughout the rest of the world in mind. Perhaps the most important form of American power projected over the last century has been the power of our ideas and our values. If we lose our capacity to lead in that sense, then all of us in Government will have presided over the greatest loss of power in American history, regardless of how much we spend on our mighty and admirable military forces. And we will have put ourselves at a great disadvantage, likely a decisive and crippling disadvantage, in the fight against terrorism, which is our first national priority, which is our first priority in terms of national security. I recognize many issues are interlinked, that our approach to one policy issue may affect the course of the campaign against terrorism. There can be no doubt about our primary responsibility and our most important security concern. We should be having a more focused dialog and exercising our oversight responsibilities in a more focused way. A tremendous number of questions came to the surface on September 11. How can we win a war against a shadowy network of nonstate actors? How can we define success? How will we know when we have been victorious? All of us, Democrats and Republicans, the Congress and the executive branch, waded through these questions recognizing that some answers would take time to take shape. So today many questions remain. Where are we in this fight against terrorism? Our colleague Senator Graham of Florida, one of the most respected Members of this body, suggested recently on the Today show that the war on terrorism has been ``essentially abandoned over the past year,'' and that it is ``a fundamental mis- characterization'' to describe the war in Iraq as part of the fight against global terrorism.'' Both issues should be the subject of intense focus in Congress. How are we finding our way in this new kind of conflict? How stable and robust is the multilateral coalition committed to combating terrorism of global reach? The task at hand is difficult enough without obscuring the issues. Recently when Secretary Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he noted that Americans have concluded that terrorism must be eradicated. But, he said: Some in Europe see it differently. Some see terrorism as a regrettable but inevitable part of society and they want to keep it at arm-length and as low key as possible. At this point, I am uncertain as to how to interpret this. Are our European partners really unconvinced of the need to fight terrorism? Which partners is he talking about? What steps are they unwilling to take to combat international terrorist organizations? These are real issues and the Secretary is quite right to raise them. But I am left uncertain. Are we conflating policy divergence on Iraq with divergence on international terrorism? Is that what we are talking about? The President has asserted that: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice. . . . Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. But if it is our policy to eradicate terrorist networks of global reach, then what does it mean when U.S. forces sign a cease-fire agreement with a designated foreign terrorist organization, as they did on April 15 with the Iraq-based Iranian organization known as the People's Mujahedeen or more formally as the Mujahedeen Khalq, the MEK? Are we making peace with terrorist organizations? For what purpose; to what end? Is there a question about the way we apply the terrorist organization designation? Now we read that the organization is surrendering weapons to U.S. forces in a reversal of the April 15 decision. What are the terms of this new agreement? The issues are difficult, but the elected representatives of the American people should be working on shaping the answers together, not picking up hints about ad-hoc decisions by scanning the wires. Few would argue with the fact that this administration is intensely secretive. And, in this atmosphere of tightly controlled information, too often the elected representatives of the American people are stifled in our ability to fulfill Congress's very important oversight role. With only vague information at our disposal, it is difficult to assess progress or the wisdom of our policy course. The absence of clarity and the absence of data are dangerous. I think it endangers the American people. The President was right when he said that we have not forgotten the victims of September 11. We have not, and we cannot. But in the same vein, we must not allow the mission that we accepted in the aftermath of that day to become an ever-shifting idea, one that we can never pin down in order to evaluate our performance and take stock of our needs. Let us hear less rhetoric and more about disturbing reports, such as the possible escape of the perpetrators of the dastardly attack on the USS Cole. That surely relates to the fight against terrorism. We certainly cannot permit the fight on terrorism, this most serious of issues, this horror that unites all Americans in resistance and resolve, to become a matter of rhetorical convenience. Our national security is at stake. We need clarity, we need focus, and we need candor. The American people deserve nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) in introducing comprehensive legislation to address the problem of chronic wasting disease. This legislation is similar to legislation we introduced last year, updated to reflect current status of this issue. I am delighted to be continuing my efforts with him on this bill and to again also be working with my senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and commend them and their staff for all their tireless efforts. This disease is a serious problem affecting both wild and captive deer in my home State of Wisconsin. It has spread from Wisconsin to the neighboring states of Minnesota and Illinois. This legislation is acutely needed, as Wisconsin's experience in getting Federal assistance to address this problem, though eventually forthcoming, has been extremely slow and frustrating. The Federal Government must make chronic wasting disease a higher priority, and Congress must provide the relevant federal agencies with the additional funds and authority so that they can do so. Congress delayed action on this bill in the last Congress, under promises that the Department of the Interior, DOI, and the Department of Agriculture, USDA, would be acting quickly to put together and implement a comprehensive CWD management plan. It has now been nearly a year, and no such plan has emerged. I was successful in getting a provision included in the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill calling for the plan to be released no later than May 20, 2003. That deadline is rapidly approaching, and the legislation we introduce today will provide a clear message--CWD must be a priority for the Federal Government and for this administration. A coordinated approach is needed, due to the severity of this disease, its ability to spread, and our urgent need for information to address it. Chronic wasting disease belongs to the family of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSEs, diseases. TSEs are a group of transmissible, slowly progressive, degenerative diseases of the central nervous systems of several species of animals. Animal TSEs include, in addition to chronic wasting disease, CWD, in deer and elk, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, feline spongiform encephalopathy in cats, and mink spongiform encephalopathy in mink. The State of Wisconsin has just completed an historic effort to test the deer in our State. Results from more than 41,000 whitetail deer tested in our State have turned up 207 CWD positive animals. Almost all of the infected deer, 201 of the total, came from a 411 square mile eradication zone of Dane, Iowa and Sauk counties. My State began intensive testing of deer after CWD was discovered on February 28, 2002. Over 1,200 people in my State have been involved, conducting thousands of hours of work at millions of dollars of expense. CWD has also been found in several captive herds in my State as well. In that vein, the legislation we are introducing in comprehensive, addressing both captive and wild animals and short term and long term needs. It authorizes a $34.5 million Federal chronic wasting disease program that will be administered by the United States Departments of Interior and Agriculture, USDA. It is similar to legislation being introduced today in the House of Representatives by the Representatives from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), and from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and was cosponsored on a bipartisan basis by Wisconsin delegation members in the House Of Representatives in the last Congress. I think it is extremely appropriate that legislators from Colorado, the state that has the longest history in chronic wasting disease, have made a concerted effort to work with Wisconsin members who are struggling with a new outbreak. I deeply appreciate the commitment of the Representative from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), toward finding a solution that works for both our States. I think these are good comprehensive efforts, and I would like to highlight a few provisions in detail. The bill I am introducing with the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), authorizes $16 million for grants to States and tribal governments battling CWD. The Interior Department to give up to $10 million in grants to States to help them plan and implement management strategies to address chronic wasting disease in both wild herds of deer and elk. The Interior Department is directed, in addition, to develop a national chronic wasting disease incident database, building on the existing USDA reporting program. The USDA is authorized to award up to $6 million in grants to those same entities for the management of CWD in captive deer and elk. These amounts are nearly triple $5.6 million that USDA made available to States for use to address CWD in both captive and wild cervids. I am particularly pleased that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), has incorporated provisions that I authored to address Wisconsin's ongoing need for enhanced testing capacity to move toward a system of widely available testing for hunters. Under the bill, USDA is required to release, within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue to be tested. USDA is further required to develop a certification program for Federal and non-Federal labs, including private labs, conducting chronic wasting disease tests within 30 days of enactment. I hope all these measures will enhance Wisconsin's capacity to continue its deer testing program. To address longer term needs, the USDA is directed to accelerate research into the development of live animal tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests, and the development of testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing time. This bill is needed, because State wildlife and agriculture departments do not have the fiscal or scientific capacity to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding, research grants, and scientific expertise is urgently needed. Federal and state cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health. I look forward to working with my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Allard), to seek passage of this measure. This is a good bill and it deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) in introducing comprehensive legislation to address the problem of chronic wasting disease. This legislation is similar to legislation we introduced last year, updated to reflect current status of this issue. I am delighted to be continuing my efforts with him on this bill and to again also be working with my senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and commend them and their staff for all their tireless efforts. This disease is a serious problem affecting both wild and captive deer in my home State of Wisconsin. It has spread from Wisconsin to the neighboring states of Minnesota and Illinois. This legislation is acutely needed, as Wisconsin's experience in getting Federal assistance to address this problem, though eventually forthcoming, has been extremely slow and frustrating. The Federal Government must make chronic wasting disease a higher priority, and Congress must provide the relevant federal agencies with the additional funds and authority so that they can do so. Congress delayed action on this bill in the last Congress, under promises that the Department of the Interior, DOI, and the Department of Agriculture, USDA, would be acting quickly to put together and implement a comprehensive CWD management plan. It has now been nearly a year, and no such plan has emerged. I was successful in getting a provision included in the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill calling for the plan to be released no later than May 20, 2003. That deadline is rapidly approaching, and the legislation we introduce today will provide a clear message--CWD must be a priority for the Federal Government and for this administration. A coordinated approach is needed, due to the severity of this disease, its ability to spread, and our urgent need for information to address it. Chronic wasting disease belongs to the family of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSEs, diseases. TSEs are a group of transmissible, slowly progressive, degenerative diseases of the central nervous systems of several species of animals. Animal TSEs include, in addition to chronic wasting disease, CWD, in deer and elk, bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, feline spongiform encephalopathy in cats, and mink spongiform encephalopathy in mink. The State of Wisconsin has just completed an historic effort to test the deer in our State. Results from more than 41,000 whitetail deer tested in our State have turned up 207 CWD positive animals. Almost all of the infected deer, 201 of the total, came from a 411 square mile eradication zone of Dane, Iowa and Sauk counties. My State began intensive testing of deer after CWD was discovered on February 28, 2002. Over 1,200 people in my State have been involved, conducting thousands of hours of work at millions of dollars of expense. CWD has also been found in several captive herds in my State as well. In that vein, the legislation we are introducing in comprehensive, addressing both captive and wild animals and short term and long term needs. It authorizes a $34.5 million Federal chronic wasting disease program that will be administered by the United States Departments of Interior and Agriculture, USDA. It is similar to legislation being introduced today in the House of Representatives by the Representatives from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), and from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and was cosponsored on a bipartisan basis by Wisconsin delegation members in the House Of Representatives in the last Congress. I think it is extremely appropriate that legislators from Colorado, the state that has the longest history in chronic wasting disease, have made a concerted effort to work with Wisconsin members who are struggling with a new outbreak. I deeply appreciate the commitment of the Representative from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), toward finding a solution that works for both our States. I think these are good comprehensive efforts, and I would like to highlight a few provisions in detail. The bill I am introducing with the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), authorizes $16 million for grants to States and tribal governments battling CWD. The Interior Department to give up to $10 million in grants to States to help them plan and implement management strategies to address chronic wasting disease in both wild herds of deer and elk. The Interior Department is directed, in addition, to develop a national chronic wasting disease incident database, building on the existing USDA reporting program. The USDA is authorized to award up to $6 million in grants to those same entities for the management of CWD in captive deer and elk. These amounts are nearly triple $5.6 million that USDA made available to States for use to address CWD in both captive and wild cervids. I am particularly pleased that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), has incorporated provisions that I authored to address Wisconsin's ongoing need for enhanced testing capacity to move toward a system of widely available testing for hunters. Under the bill, USDA is required to release, within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue to be tested. USDA is further required to develop a certification program for Federal and non-Federal labs, including private labs, conducting chronic wasting disease tests within 30 days of enactment. I hope all these measures will enhance Wisconsin's capacity to continue its deer testing program. To address longer term needs, the USDA is directed to accelerate research into the development of live animal tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests, and the development of testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing time. This bill is needed, because State wildlife and agriculture departments do not have the fiscal or scientific capacity to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding, research grants, and scientific expertise is urgently needed. Federal and state cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health. I look forward to working with my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Allard), to seek passage of this measure. This is a good bill and it deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from California for yielding time and for her leadership. I thank the Senator from Arizona. He is a person of great integrity, and the way he concedes if he didn't say something exactly perfectly this morning is an example of exactly the kind of relationship I have with him on these debates. They are good debates. I appreciate that. It is also true the Senator from California and the Senator from Arizona almost always agree on these kinds of issues. They are one of the most formidable combinations here in the Senate, in a bipartisan combination. I take great pride in the bipartisan work I have had a chance to do with people such as the other Senator from Arizona and the Senators from Maine. So I take my hat off to them for having done that. I have often been on the other side of their view, which is not easy because they are well prepared and they are very dedicated and they like to get things done. I guess that is why I think this is kind of a significant moment, when Senator Feinstein and I actually agree on a point, when the two of you so frequently agree. I think it is a sign that there is something that needs to be fixed in this bill. It is modest, but it is very important. I remind the Senator from Arizona that I think I essentially said this: I voted for this in committee in the hope it would be fixed on the floor. My goal here is not to kill this bill. I do know how to vote against bills I don't like. My goal is to fix it because I think there is a problem with this issue. That is where we are with this amendment. This is an attempt to fix this bill on a very important point without, in my view, doing any serious harm at all to the goal of the Senator from Arizona and the goal of the Senator from New York. The way I understand this operates is that in these cases the FISA court is going to grant this warrant upfront, essentially every time in the first request, because there will be the evidence or the presumption that there is a problem. Where this, the Feinstein amendment, has a real impact is where they come back later and they have to come back for a renewal. If after a couple of years there is just no evidence at all or virtually no sign at all that the original belief about what this guy was about to do isn't bearing any fruit at all, in that case, and only in that case, should this, in terms of our laws and our tradition, be returned to the regular criminal court--only in that circumstance. In other words, yes, the Government was trying to protect the American people, as they should. They had a person here who they believed might have a connection to a foreign power or be connected to a terrorist organization. But it turns out after some period of time that it just didn't happen to be one of those cases where that was true. It is still a person who intended, perhaps, to do something very wrong. It is still a person who should be prosecuted. But it is a person who deserves the protections of the laws of the United States-- because I am sure the Senator from Arizona agrees with me, barring this unusual kind of circumstance that is the basis for the FISA law, everyone who commits a crime on our soil, whether an American citizen or not, is entitled to the protections of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a criminal proceeding. The FISA law is only a narrow exception to that. So let's be very clear on the record. I do want to get at these lone wolves who may have some connection to international actors, such as foreign powers, or to terrorist organizations. As the Senator from California pointed out, if it is simply a person committing a bad act on our soil, a person who is not an American citizen, that is what our criminal courts are for. That is what title III is for. That is the foundation of our system. This is really an incredibly narrow exception, a backstop, a safeguard to make sure that the good intentions of what this bill is all about don't go too far. That is what the Senator from California said, so that there is not overreaching. I have just one other point about what the Senator from New York said. He seemed to be setting up a scenario where there might be a conflict between the FISA judges, almost as if there were different circuits like in the regular courts. That is not the way the FISA courts are set up. There are different FISA judges, but together they constitute the appeals courts. There would not be different areas of the country that would have different laws of this kind of thing that would present any kind of problem in terms of a conflict in the circuits. I don't think this argument holds up. Let me return to the point. The Senator from California has been so careful in making sure this is just a safeguard down the line, when somebody has been identified as a potential lone wolf and it does not really pan out, that there is some discretion rather than a permanent warrant into perpetuity for eavesdropping on somebody who certainly maybe needs to be evesdropped upon, but for whom that authority should be obtained through the normal criminal procedure, not on the basis of a law that was crafted under the assumption that this is a foreign threat to our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alex Busansky, a detailee with my office from the Department of Justice, be granted floor privileges for the duration of this Congress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 536.

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