Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane Conservation Act of 2002. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational Rhino and Tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2003 through Fiscal Year 2007. In keeping with my belief that we should maintain fiscal integrity, this bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds from funds carried over the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my bill to make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or its effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should expend resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway. This flock of five birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane is a symbol of martial fidelity in many Asian cultures, especially Laos, Thailand and Indonesia. Additionally, in northern India, western Nepal, and Vietnam, these birds are a symbol of fertility, lending them as important religious significance. Standing at four feet tall, these birds can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides, which is found to be highly prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of humans, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2002.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote ``no'' on the nomination of D. Brooks Smith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Let me take a few minus to explain my decision. First, let me not that I did not reach this decision lightly. After this vote, we will have considered 64 judicial nominations of President Bush on the floor and I will have voted against only two. And this will be the first Court of Appeals nominee I have voted against on the floor. I voted against one other nominee in Committee, while I have voted in favor of 12 circuit court nominations. I also want again to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the majority leader for the way that they have handled judicial nominations. The pressure is intense, and the criticism quite harsh. It is my view that a process that gives a nominee a hearing, and then a vote in the committee, and then a vote on the floor is not an unfair process; it is the way the Senate is supposed to work. During the previous six years, the Senate, and the Judiciary Committee did not work this way. Literally dozens of nominees never got a hearing, as Judge Smith did, and never got a vote, as Judge Smith did in committee and is about to on the floor. Those nominees were mistreated by the committee. Judge Smith has not been mistreated. I commend Chairman Leahy for doing what he can to set a new course on the Judiciary Committee, even though most supporters of the President's nominees do not give him credit for that. I chaired the hearing that the Judiciary Committee held on Judge Smith. He is obviously a very intelligent man, and talented lawyer. He is personable and respectful. My opposition to his nomination is not personal. I oppose this nomination because I believe that Judge Smith has not demonstrated good judgment on certain ethical issues. Beyond that, I believe that he misled the Judiciary Committee when his conduct was fairly questioned. These are serious issues, not trifles, not excuses. I cannot in good conscience support his elevation to the Court of Appeals. People who came to our courts for justice don't get to pick their judges. And, at least at the Federal level, they don't get to elect judges. If our system is to work, if the people are to respect the decisions that judges make, they have to have confidence that judges are fair and impartial. Judges, more than any other public figures, have to be beyond reproach. The success of the rule of law as an organizing principle of our society is based on the respect that the public has for judges. A legal system simply cannot function if the public does not believe its judges will be fair and impartial. That is why I have focused on ethical issues on a number of nominations we have faced so far. I can't as a Senator assure my constituents that every decision made by a judge will be one with which they will agree, or even the correct one legally. But I should be able to assure them, indeed, I must be able to assure them, that those decisions will be reached fairly and impartially, that the judges I approve for the Federal bench are ethical, and beyond that, that they understand the importance of ethical behavior to the job that they have been selected to do. In 1988, Judge Smith was nominated to the Federal District Court in Pennsylvania. He had a distinguished legal and academic record, and his nomination faced no serious opposition. The one issue that aroused controversy was his membership in a hunting and fishing club called the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club that did not then, and does not today, permit women to be members. Judge Smith told Chairman Biden in a letter that he would try to convince the club to change its policy and if he was unsuccessful he would resign from the club. In answers to questions posed by Senator Schumer, Judge Smith stated: ``In my 1988 letter to the Judiciary Committee, I stated that I would resign from the Spruce Creek Rod & Gun Club if it did not amend its by- laws to admit women as members. I did not specify in my letter when I would resign.'' But Judge Smith also testified before this committee, under oath, in 1988. Senator Howell Heflin asked what steps he would take to change the restriction and how long he would wait. Judge Smith testified as follows: Well, first of all, Senator, I think the most important step would be to attempt an amendment to the bylaws. Failing that, I believe an additional step would and could be--and I would support, and have indicated to at least one member of the club that I would support and attempt--an application for membership from a woman. Failing that, I believe that I would be required to resign. I think it would be necessary for me to await an annual meeting which is, as I understand it--and I preface it with ``as I understand it'' because I have not been an active member in any real sense of the word, but I believe there to be an annual meeting every April--and I believe I would have to await that point in time to at least attempt a bylaws amendment. Now I suppose that our former colleague Senator Heflin, who was a State supreme court judge earlier in this career, could have nailed him down even tighter than he did. But we don't have to do that in the Judiciary Committee. The committee is not a court of law. We have a right to rely on the clear implications of sworn testimony of nominees who come before us. I believe everyone at that hearing, and everyone reading it fairly today would conclude that Judge Smith promised that he would resign in 1989, if he was unsuccessful in getting the club to change its policies at the next annual meeting. Judge Smith made that promise in October 1988. He was then confirmed by the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate. We learned after Judge Smith was nominated to the Third Circuit last year that he didn't resign from the club until 1999, eleven years later. Indeed, he didn't resign until after a vacancy arose on the Third Circuit Club of Appeals in which he was interested. This is what he wrote to the club when he resigned on December 15, 1999: After considerable thought, and not without a measure of regret, I hereby submit my resignation from membership in the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club, effective immediately. Certain of the Club's exclusive membership provisions, which I do not expect will change, continue to be at odds with certain expectations of federal judicial conduct. At this point, it certainly appears that Judge Smith recognized that his continued membership in the club was not consistent with the Canons of Judicial Conduct. After he was nominated to the Third Circuit vacancy last year, Judge Smith filled out of the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. This is how he responded to a question about membership in organizations that disciminate: I previously belonged to the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club, a rustic hunting and fishing club which admits only men to membership. I joined the club in 1982 largely for sentimental reasons: it is where my grandfather taught me to fish when I was seven or eight years old. I urged the club, through letters to club officers personal contacts with members, to consider changing its exclusive membership provision. These efforts were unsuccessful. Eventually, in late 1999, I voluntarily resigned my membership. It is noteworthy that in this answer, Judge Smith makes no mention of the argument that he and his supporters now advance, that he had no obligation to resign from the club because it is a purely social club. Only when questions began to be raised about his continued membership did this argument arise. Now I know that there is a dispute about whether business is conducted at this club. To be honest, I tend to credit the email and statements of Dr. Silverman, a supporter of Judge Smith, who said that a medical PAC held meetings there, rather than his letter to the committee saying that the events were just picnics, which was written after he learned that what he had said might be damaging to Judge Smith's confirmation. In my mind, if the club permits its members to invite business associates to the club and hold business meetings there, that is a club that should not discriminate against minorities or women. And the president of the club has confirmed that members can hold any meetings they want at the club. But for me, that's not the crucial point. The crucial point is that this nominee made a commitment to the Judiciary Committee under oath. He broke that commitment. And then he compounded his problem by coming up with an after-the-fact rationalization for why he broke his commitment. Even if he were obviously correct that he need not have resigned his membership, I still believe he was untruthful when he suggested to the committee that the changes to the Code of Conduct in 1992 ``afforded me the opportunity to reexamine the entire Code and consider it's application to my membership in Spruce Creek.'' I don't believe that Judge believed between 1992 and 1999 that his obligation had changed after 1992. If he did, I don't think he would have had, and I am quoting from his written answers to Senator Schumer's questions: numerous conversations with Club officers about changing the by-laws. In fact, in practically every conversation I had with members of the Club in which we talked of the Club, I recall discussing the by-law issue and advocating change. Why would he do that if he thought the club was not engaging in invidious discrimination? And why would he say in his resignation letter that the club's membership policies: ``continue to be at odds with certain expectations of Federal judicial conduct''? I have concluded that Judge Smith came up with his argument after questions were raised about his failure to resign. Some in the Senate may be convinced by this argument that they should ignore Judge Smith's failure to follow through on his commitment to the Judiciary Committee and the Senate in 1988. I cannot ignore that failure. I am afraid that this is not the only instance where Judge Smith has come up with after-the-fact rationalizations of his behavior that don't hold up under scrutiny. At his hearing, I asked Judge Smith about numerous trips he had taken to judicial education seminars paid for by corporate interests. Judge Smith indicated that had studied and been guided by Advisory Opinion No. 67, which instructs judges to inquire into the sources of funding of such seminars before attending them in order to be sure that there was no conflict of interest. I asked him if before he went on the trips he had inquired about the source of funding sponsored by The Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, known as FREE, and the Law and Economics Center of George Mason University, known as LEC. Judge Smith answered the question with respect to FREE, saying that he remembered inquiring more than once about FREE's funding by telephone. So I asked him a follow-up question in writing about whether he made a similar inquiry about the funding for seminars put on by the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University. Judge Smith gave an amazing answer. He said that because the trips were sponsored by a university, he had no obligation to inquire about the source of funding, and he claimed that he reached that conclusion in 1992 and 1993 when he was taking these trips. Both ethics professors with whom I consulted state in no uncertain terms that Judge Smith is wrong in his interpretation of the ethical obligations of a judge who wishes to go on one of these trips. As Professor Gillers states: ``Obviously, there would be room for much mischief if a judge invited to an expense-paid judicial seminar could rely on the non-profit nature of an apparently neutral sponsor to immunize the judge's attendance. Judge Smith is therefore wrong in his assumption.'' I believe if Judge Smith really reached this conclusion with respect to LEC at the time of the hearing, he would have told us when he answered my question at the hearing. His written response to the follow-up question indicates that he in fact did not understand the import of Advisory Opinion No. 67, then, or now. I find that very troubling. It undercuts his assurances to me at the hearing that he would refrain from taking additional trips until he was ``satisfied that funding does not come from a source that is somehow implicated in a case before him.'' I don't know how I can rely on that assurance. In addition, there is the question of Judge Smith's failure to recuse himself in two cases in 1997--SEC v. Black and United States v. Black. These are very complicated cases, so I sought the advice of two legal ethics experts. After reviewing Judge Smith's testimony and written answers to questions and all of the other materials submitted to the Judiciary Committee on this issue from both supporters and opponents of Judge Smith, both Professor Gillers and Professor Freedman conclude that Judge Smith violated the judicial disqualification statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455, by not recusing himself earlier in SEC v. Black, and by not recusing himself immediately upon being assigned the criminal matter in United States v. Black. Professor Freedman called his violations ``among the most serious I have seen.'' I was particularly disturbed by Judge Smith's failure to disclose his financial interest in the bank involved in the case to the parties in the criminal case. He told them about his wife's employment and that he had recused himself in the civil case. But he didn't give the parties full and complete information upon which they could base a decision whether to ask him to recuse himself. This was Judge Smith's obligation, in my view. In my opinion, these ethical questions individually raise serious concerns about Judge Smith's fitness to serve as a Circuit Court judge. Together, they are very significant. I cannot support a nomination plagued by such an ethical cloud, despite all of the heartfelt support he has received. I will therefore, reluctantly, vote no.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor S.J. Res 41. As the resolution makes clear, the time is ripe for an open debate on our plans for Iraq. Some are concerned that an open debate on our policy toward Iraq could expose sensitive intelligence information or that such a debate would tip our hand too much. Others fear that a meaningful debate could back the administration into a corner, and in so doing encourage the administration to adopt a tougher military response. Ultimately, all of these arguments against an open and honest debate on Iraq could be made with respect to nearly any military decision, and if taken to their extreme, these arguments would challenge the balance of powers in the Constitution by excluding Congress from future war- making decisions. Moreover, to answer some of these concerns more directly, I would also note that the almost daily leaks from the administration on our Iraq policy have tipped our hand even more than responsible congressional hearings and debate would. It is hardly a secret that the United States is considering a range of policy options, including military operations, when it comes to Iraq. And the argument that an open discussion of military action could, in effect, become self-fulfilling is too circular to be credible. I am concerned with the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein, as well as with the humanitarian situation in Iraq. But I am also very concerned about the constitutional issues at stake here. This may well be one of our last opportunities to preserve the constitutionally mandated role of Congress in making decisions about war and peace. On April 17, 2002, I chaired a hearing before the Constitution Subcommittee on the application of the War Powers Resolution to our current antiterrorism operations. The focus of that hearing was to explore the limits of the use of force authorization that Congress passed in response to the attacks of September 11. At the hearing, leading constitutional scholars concluded that the use of force resolution for September 11 would not authorize a future military strike against Iraq, unless some additional evidence linking Saddam Hussein directly to the attacks of Sept. 11 came to light. Many of the experts also questioned the dubious assertion that congressional authorization from more than 10 years ago for Desert Storm could somehow lend ongoing authority for a new strike on Iraq. On June 10, I delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate in which I outlined my findings from the April hearing. As I said then, I have concluded that the Constitution requires the President to seek additional authorization before he can embark on a major new military undertaking in Iraq. I am pleased that S.J. Resolution 41 makes that point in forceful legislative terms. So this is indeed an appropriate time to consider our policy toward Iraq in more detail. I look forward to hearings that Senator Biden will chair before the Foreign Relations Committee. I also look forward to additional debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate, and, when appropriate, in secure settings, where the administration can make its case for a given policy response, and the Congress can ask questions, probe assumptions, and generally exercise the oversight that the American people expect of us. Through these hearings and debates, it will be important to assess the level of the threat that exists, along with the relative dangers that would be posed by a massive assault on Iraq--dangers that include risks to American soldiers and to our relations with some of our strongest allies in our current anti-terror campaign. And it will be crucially important to think through the aftermath of any military strike. We don't have to divulge secret information to begin to weigh the risks and opportunities that confront us. But the American people must understand the general nature of the threats, and they must ultimately support any risks that we decide to take to secure a more peaceful future. I don't think the American public has an adequate sense yet of the threats, dangers or options that exist in Iraq. I don't think Congress has an adequate grasp of the issues either. And that is why additional hearings and debates are so necessary. Finally, I have always said that another military campaign against Iraq may eventually become unavoidable. As a result, I am pleased that S.J. Res 41 is neutral on the need for a military response, while recognizing the intrinsic value of open and honest debate. Following a vigorous debate, if we decide that America's interests require a direct military response to confront Iraqi aggression, such a response would be taken from a constitutionally unified, and inherently stronger, political position. We must also remember that constitutional unity on this question presents a stronger international image of the United States to our friends and foes, and, at the same time, a more comforting image of U.S. power to many of our close allies in the campaign against terrorism. I am pleased to cosponsor S.J. Res. 41, and I look forward to a vigorous debate on this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. I am please to be joined by Representatives Oberstar and Dingell, who are today introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4 majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non-navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands, streams, ponds, and other waterbodies. This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory birds. In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other waters. The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs, familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands. In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands. An estimate from my home state of Wisconsin suggested that more than 60 percent of the wetlands lost Federal protection in my State. My State is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland Managers have been collecting data from states across the country. For example, Nebraska estimates they will lose more than 40 percent of their wetlands. Indiana estimates they will lose 31 percent of total wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands. Delaware estimates the loss of 33 percent or more of their freshwater wetlands. These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most of the nations ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would have a devastating effect on our environment. In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to Federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to State and local governments. My home State of Wisconsin has passed State legislation to assume the regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of wetlands nationwide is unclear, confusing, and jeopardizes the migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands. Therefore, Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S. the understanding that Congress had when the Act was adopted in 1972 as reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC decision. The proposed legislation does three things. It adopts a statutory definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding definition of waters in the Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it deletes the term ``navigable'' from the Act to clarify that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and to reinforce that original intent. Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and wetlands, including those that are called isolated, on all relevant Constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property Clause, the Treaty Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Additionally, the findings clarify Congress' view that protection of isolated wetlands and other waters is critical to protect water quality, public safety, wildlife, and other public interests, including hunting and fishing. I also am very pleased to be have the support of so many environmental and conservation groups, and well as organizations that represent those who regulate and manage our country's wetlands such as Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and the National Association of State Wetland Managers. They know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the Federal role in isolated wetland protection. This legislation is a first step in doing just that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. I am please to be joined by Representatives Oberstar and Dingell, who are today introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4 majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non-navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands, streams, ponds, and other waterbodies. This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory birds. In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other waters. The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs, familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands. In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands. An estimate from my home state of Wisconsin suggested that more than 60 percent of the wetlands lost Federal protection in my State. My State is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland Managers have been collecting data from states across the country. For example, Nebraska estimates they will lose more than 40 percent of their wetlands. Indiana estimates they will lose 31 percent of total wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands. Delaware estimates the loss of 33 percent or more of their freshwater wetlands. These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most of the nations ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would have a devastating effect on our environment. In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to Federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to State and local governments. My home State of Wisconsin has passed State legislation to assume the regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of wetlands nationwide is unclear, confusing, and jeopardizes the migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands. Therefore, Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S. the understanding that Congress had when the Act was adopted in 1972 as reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC decision. The proposed legislation does three things. It adopts a statutory definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding definition of waters in the Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it deletes the term ``navigable'' from the Act to clarify that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and to reinforce that original intent. Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and wetlands, including those that are called isolated, on all relevant Constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property Clause, the Treaty Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Additionally, the findings clarify Congress' view that protection of isolated wetlands and other waters is critical to protect water quality, public safety, wildlife, and other public interests, including hunting and fishing. I also am very pleased to be have the support of so many environmental and conservation groups, and well as organizations that represent those who regulate and manage our country's wetlands such as Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and the National Association of State Wetland Managers. They know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the Federal role in isolated wetland protection. This legislation is a first step in doing just that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of a comprehensive and affordable prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. At the same time, we must modernize the entire Medicare benefits package by promoting regional equity in Medicare spending to ensure access to Medicare's basic services. The absence of affordable prescription drug coverage for most seniors is devastating, and we must address this issue with the same vigor that our predecessors in Congress brought to their effort to enact the original Medicare program. The addition of a prescription drug benefit will be the largest expansion of the Medicare program since it was initiated in 1965. But we should not simply add a benefit, we must get it right. Congress must pass an attractive benefit with an affordable premium and a provision on catastrophic costs that is an insurance policy for all Medicare beneficiaries. While I recognize that the cost of any new benefit will be shared with Medicare beneficiaries, any deductibles or co-payments must be low enough to ensure significant participation in the program. I am very encouraged that my colleagues from Florida and Georgia have recognized the importance of a comprehensive benefit through the Medicare program. It is affordable, comprehensive, and reliable. I am particularly supportive of their effort to fund a defined benefit with no deductible. While I am certainly open to working with my colleagues on the benefit structure, I am very concerned about proposals to enact this benefit outside the Medicare program that would amount to a privatized benefit. Past efforts to offer privatized benefits outside the Medicare benefit structure have simply not worked in Wisconsin. The Medicare+Choice program has offered very few choices to most Wisconsin seniors. While the structures of some of the private Medicare prescription drug benefits are plainly different from the Medicare+Choice program, I remain concerned that states like Wisconsin will end up with few choices. As with Medicare HMOs in the Medicare+Choice program, Wisconsin seniors will likely be faced with little choice with Medicare prescription drug HMOs. We must also harness the purchasing power of the Medicare program to ensure that the Federal Government gets a fair price for the prescription drug program. That's the reason why I support the Hatch- Waxman reforms in the underlying bill. By closing a series of loopholes in the original Hatch-Waxman law, these reforms will increase competition by preventing brand-name pharmaceutical firms from blocking generic drugs from entering the market. While I strongly support the original Hatch-Waxman law because it promoted competition and consumer choices, the reforms in the underlying bill will modernize the law and strengthen competition in the marketplace. If we simply allow pharmaceutical companies to dictate the price of prescription drugs to consumers, the cost of the prescription drug benefit will skyrocket out of control. I am not advocating price controls. But we must ensure that taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries get a fair price. And I have further concerns on behalf of American taxpayers, as each of the proposals we are likely to consider actually digs our deficit hole deeper at a time when our budget deficit already is getting worse every day. In its recently released mid-session review of the budget, the Office of Management and Budget estimates that the budget deficit for the current fiscal year, the one ending on September 30, will be a whopping $165 billion, and that includes the Social Security Trust Fund balances. If you look at the real budget deficit--the one that does not use the Social Security Trust Funds to help mask our fiscal problems--the figure is $322 billion. The projected $322 billion deficit for this year is just shy of the $340 billion deficit that we faced when I was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992. We spent the balance of the last decade climbing out of that deficit hole, and in the end, thanks to the virtuous cycle of fiscally responsible budget policies and a growing economy, we were able to balance our books and actually began to pay down some of the massive Federal debt that was racked up during the 1980s and early 1990s. But in the course of a little over a year, thanks in large part to the fiscally reckless tax cut enacted last year, the administration and Congress have squandered what was achieved during the previous eight years. Even OMB's estimate of the real deficit over the next five years is over $1 trillion! And that estimate may be based on overly optimistic assumptions. It is against that backdrop that we are now considering Medicare prescription drug proposals. There is no doubt that we need to modernize Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit. I strongly favor such a reform. But we should find offsets to fund a drug benefit. It would be far better if we pay for this new program. Unless we pay for this needed reform, it will always be at risk of being severely cut back or even eliminated. Medicare beneficiaries can not rely on any drug benefit enacted under such circumstances, and we will do a disservice to them if we do so. We must enact a real prescription drug benefit, one that provides meaningful help to seniors, and one which beneficiaries will know will be there for them when they really need it, not placed on the budget chopping block the instant it is enacted. Congress could achieve some of these cost savings by modernizing other aspects of the Medicare program. For example, I am hopeful that the Senate will consider proposals to modernize the underlying Medicare program to promote regional fairness among Medicare beneficiaries. We must address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors and health care providers. The Medicare program should encourage the kind of high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services that we have in Wisconsin. By encouraging this high-quality, low-cost care, we may well achieve cost savings to the program and offset part of the cost of a prescription drug benefit. To give an idea of how inequitable the distribution of Medicare dollars is, imagine identical twins over the age of 65. Both twins worked at the same company all their lives, at the same salary, and paid the same amount to the Federal Government in payroll taxes, the tax that goes into the Medicare Trust Fund. But if one twin retired to New Orleans, LA, and the other retired in Madison, WI, they would have vastly different health care options under the Medicare system. The twin in Louisiana would get much more. For example, in most parts of Louisiana, the first twin would have a wide array of options under Medicare. The high Medicare payments in those areas allow Medicare beneficiaries to choose between an HMO or traditional fee-for- service plan, and, because area health care providers are reimbursed at such a high rate, those providers can afford to offer seniors a broad range of health care services. The twin in Madison would not have the same access to care. Because of low Medicare payments in Madison, there is no option to choose an HMO, and there are fewer health care agencies that can afford to provide care under the traditional fee-for-service plan. How can two people with identical backgrounds, who paid the same amount in payroll taxes, have such different options under Medicare? They can because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are much less than what other states receive. The low payment rates received in Wisconsin are in large part a result of our historic high-quality, cost-effective practice of health care. In the early 1980s, Wisconsin's lower-than-average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since that time, Medicare's payment policies have only widened the gap between low- and high-cost states. I have introduced a package of legislation that will take us a step in the right direction by reducing the inequities in Medicare payments to Wisconsin's hospitals, physicians, and skilled nursing facilities. At the same time, my proposals would establish pilot programs to encourage high-quality, cost-effective Medicare practices. My proposal would reward providers who deliver higher quality at lower cost. It would also require that the pilot states create plans to increase the amount of providers providing high-quality, cost-effective care to Medicare beneficiaries. Congress must modernize Medicare and add a prescription drug benefit. It should do so in a fiscally-responsible manner. And it must also restore basic equity to the Medicare program and stop penalizing higher quality providers of Medicare services. The issue before us is an important one. And it is important enough to do it right.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer legislation today that will increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organizations or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 36.5 cents per mile. At a time when government is asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship. I have heard from a number of groups in Wisconsin in recent weeks on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that last year 54 volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. The Department noted that their volunteer drivers provided 4,676 rides, and drove nearly 126,000 miles. They also delivered 9,385 home-delivered meals, and nearly two-thirds of the drivers logged more than 100 miles per month in providing these needed services. Altogether, volunteers donated over 5,200 hours last year, and as the Department notes, at the rate of minimum wage, that amounts to over $27,000, not including other benefits. The senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging federal support. The 14 cent per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that the many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 36.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence. This doesn't make sense. Morever, the 14 cent per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill passed in 1999 that was vetoed by President Clinton. At the time of the 1999 measure, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis. Though the revenue loss is small, I have also included an offset to make the measure deficit neutral by including a provision that would impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 on failure to report interest in foreign financial transactions. That provision was recently included in the CARE Act legislation by the Senate Finance Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for non-profit groups and the volunteers themselves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer legislation today that will increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organizations or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 36.5 cents per mile. At a time when government is asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship. I have heard from a number of groups in Wisconsin in recent weeks on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that last year 54 volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. The Department noted that their volunteer drivers provided 4,676 rides, and drove nearly 126,000 miles. They also delivered 9,385 home-delivered meals, and nearly two-thirds of the drivers logged more than 100 miles per month in providing these needed services. Altogether, volunteers donated over 5,200 hours last year, and as the Department notes, at the rate of minimum wage, that amounts to over $27,000, not including other benefits. The senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging federal support. The 14 cent per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that the many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 36.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence. This doesn't make sense. Morever, the 14 cent per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill passed in 1999 that was vetoed by President Clinton. At the time of the 1999 measure, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis. Though the revenue loss is small, I have also included an offset to make the measure deficit neutral by including a provision that would impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 on failure to report interest in foreign financial transactions. That provision was recently included in the CARE Act legislation by the Senate Finance Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for non-profit groups and the volunteers themselves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to improve and streamline Federal support for first responders. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for our first responders, our fire fighters, law enforcement, rescue, and emergency medical service, EMS, providers, to help Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland Security improve and coordinate existing programs and future initiatives. The President has proposed a massive shift in the Federal Government by creating a new Department of Homeland Security. While Washington will surely be shaken up by this restructuring, nobody will feel the impact of this shift more than those on the front lines, our law enforcement, firefighters, rescue workers, EMS providers, and other first responders. I am concerned that as the proposed Department of Homeland Security moves forward, one of the most important functions has not received enough consideration, supporting first responders. A recent editorial by Amy Smithson, the Director of the Chemical and Biological Nonproliferation Project at the Henry L. Stimson Center, which was published in the New York Times, illustrates that even without this massive re-organization, Washington must do a more effective job in targeting the resources to the training and equipment programs that our communities need. Ms. Smithson details how Washington has already shifted key training and equipment programs for firefighters, police, paramedics, and others from the Defense Department to the Justice Department and now on to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. While these first responders are the most important people in any emergency, they received just $311 million of the more than $9.7 billion in counter-terrorism spending in 2001. While I commend the Administration for raising the funding dedicated to first responders for 2003 fiscal year to $5 billion, I share Ms. Smithson's concern that with the new layers of bureaucracy and reorganization, that number could shrink significantly. Providing resources is not the only answer. These resources need to be dedicated to those programs that meet the needs of the first responders serving our communities. The Federal agencies in the Department of Homeland Security must listen to the priorities of our communities. After all, the needs of first responders vary between regions, as well as between rural and urban communities. In Wisconsin, I have heard needs ranging from training to equipment to more emergency personnel in the field, just to name a few. We must listen to our law enforcement officials to identify which programs most effectively help them protect our communities. We must listen to our firefighters and fire chiefs to identify which programs most effectively prevent and respond to disasters. Once we have identified these programs and perceived needs, the Federal agencies under the New Department of Homeland Security must coordinate their activities in an effective manner. In the case of EMS providers, more than five Federal agencies currently support EMS services, but they lack coordination and the necessary input from our local EMS providers. Earlier this year, Congress approved legislation, sponsored by the Senator from Maine and myself, that would improve coordination between these services. We must ensure that the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security promote this same kind of coordination and not fall into the trap of five separate initiatives to address the same problem. Our legislation, the First Responder Support Act will promote effective coordination among Federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and ensure that our first responders, our firefighters, law enforcement, rescue, and EMS providers, can help Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland Security improve existing programs and future initiatives. Our proposal establishes a Federal Liaison on Homeland Security in each State, to provide coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and State and local first responders. This office will serve not only as an avenue to exchange ideas, but also as a resource to ensure that the funding and programs are effective. For example, they can help ensure that State and local priorities are matching up with those set out at the new Department. They can also identify areas of Homeland Security in which the Federal and State or local role is duplicative and recommend ways to decrease or eliminate unneeded resources. It would also direct the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and prioritize their activities that support first responders, and at the same time, ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars. As part of this coordination, the First Responders Support Act establishes a new advisory committee of those in the first responder community to identify and streamline effective programs. I am submitting this proposal in the hope that the Committee charged with creating the new agency will consider it during their mark up of any legislation. I recognize, however, that this consideration does not prejudge which committee will be charged with oversight of this new department. We must be aggressive in seeking the advice of our first responders, and helping them to attain the resources that they need to provide effective services. They are on the front lines, and deserve our support. In almost any disaster, the local first providers and health care providers play an indispensable role. If the Department of Homeland Security is to be effective, we need to ensure that the resources are delivered to the front line personnel in an effective and coordinated manner. I urge my Colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal and support our first responders.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to improve and streamline Federal support for first responders. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for our first responders, our fire fighters, law enforcement, rescue, and emergency medical service, EMS, providers, to help Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland Security improve and coordinate existing programs and future initiatives. The President has proposed a massive shift in the Federal Government by creating a new Department of Homeland Security. While Washington will surely be shaken up by this restructuring, nobody will feel the impact of this shift more than those on the front lines, our law enforcement, firefighters, rescue workers, EMS providers, and other first responders. I am concerned that as the proposed Department of Homeland Security moves forward, one of the most important functions has not received enough consideration, supporting first responders. A recent editorial by Amy Smithson, the Director of the Chemical and Biological Nonproliferation Project at the Henry L. Stimson Center, which was published in the New York Times, illustrates that even without this massive re-organization, Washington must do a more effective job in targeting the resources to the training and equipment programs that our communities need. Ms. Smithson details how Washington has already shifted key training and equipment programs for firefighters, police, paramedics, and others from the Defense Department to the Justice Department and now on to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. While these first responders are the most important people in any emergency, they received just $311 million of the more than $9.7 billion in counter-terrorism spending in 2001. While I commend the Administration for raising the funding dedicated to first responders for 2003 fiscal year to $5 billion, I share Ms. Smithson's concern that with the new layers of bureaucracy and reorganization, that number could shrink significantly. Providing resources is not the only answer. These resources need to be dedicated to those programs that meet the needs of the first responders serving our communities. The Federal agencies in the Department of Homeland Security must listen to the priorities of our communities. After all, the needs of first responders vary between regions, as well as between rural and urban communities. In Wisconsin, I have heard needs ranging from training to equipment to more emergency personnel in the field, just to name a few. We must listen to our law enforcement officials to identify which programs most effectively help them protect our communities. We must listen to our firefighters and fire chiefs to identify which programs most effectively prevent and respond to disasters. Once we have identified these programs and perceived needs, the Federal agencies under the New Department of Homeland Security must coordinate their activities in an effective manner. In the case of EMS providers, more than five Federal agencies currently support EMS services, but they lack coordination and the necessary input from our local EMS providers. Earlier this year, Congress approved legislation, sponsored by the Senator from Maine and myself, that would improve coordination between these services. We must ensure that the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security promote this same kind of coordination and not fall into the trap of five separate initiatives to address the same problem. Our legislation, the First Responder Support Act will promote effective coordination among Federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and ensure that our first responders, our firefighters, law enforcement, rescue, and EMS providers, can help Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland Security improve existing programs and future initiatives. Our proposal establishes a Federal Liaison on Homeland Security in each State, to provide coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and State and local first responders. This office will serve not only as an avenue to exchange ideas, but also as a resource to ensure that the funding and programs are effective. For example, they can help ensure that State and local priorities are matching up with those set out at the new Department. They can also identify areas of Homeland Security in which the Federal and State or local role is duplicative and recommend ways to decrease or eliminate unneeded resources. It would also direct the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and prioritize their activities that support first responders, and at the same time, ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars. As part of this coordination, the First Responders Support Act establishes a new advisory committee of those in the first responder community to identify and streamline effective programs. I am submitting this proposal in the hope that the Committee charged with creating the new agency will consider it during their mark up of any legislation. I recognize, however, that this consideration does not prejudge which committee will be charged with oversight of this new department. We must be aggressive in seeking the advice of our first responders, and helping them to attain the resources that they need to provide effective services. They are on the front lines, and deserve our support. In almost any disaster, the local first providers and health care providers play an indispensable role. If the Department of Homeland Security is to be effective, we need to ensure that the resources are delivered to the front line personnel in an effective and coordinated manner. I urge my Colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal and support our first responders.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will support the nomination of Lavenski R. Smith, of Arkansas, to be a U.S. Circuit Judge. I did so as a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I will do so again on the floor. But I will also support the effort made by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to advance the long overdue appointment of a commissioner to the expired position on the Federal Elections Commission, and in doing so I opposed the cloture motion to bring debate on the Smith nomination to a close. As we have seen, the FEC commissioners have a direct impact on Federal election laws, even to the extent of obstructing the will of Congress. Given the recent behavior of the FEC, it is reasonable for us to take every appropriate step to facilitate the filing of the expired position.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support S. 2673, the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002, and I commend Senator Sarbanes for his efforts to produce this measure. That it is needed is a sad commentary on the state of corporate finance, but it is also a reminder that free markets do not work well without a set of rules and regulations in which the marketplace can be confident. It is also a reminder that if government is to farm out the task of regulating corporate finance, then those entities that are designated to patrol corporate activities must also have the confidence of the marketplace. The Enron and WorldCom disasters were notable but not isolated. Observers have noted the increase in corporate financial restatements in recent years. In testimony on this point, Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution reports that the number of American corporations whose earnings have been restated had been modestly rising throughout the 1990s, but then took a big jump in 1998 and hit a peak of over 200 in 1999. Many reasons have been offered for this development. Some point to the tying of executive compensation to stock performance. Others have noted the potential conflict of interest that arises when a firm provides both auditing and consulting services to the same firm. Both explanations have some merit. And I will add to both of those reasons the enactment of a so-called securities reform measure in December of 1995, a law that made it more difficult for stockholders to hold corporations and accounting firms accountable for bad behavior. One newspaper has characterized that law as expanding ``a climate that invites the kinds of securities and accounting abuses that investors and employees suffered in Enron's colossal collapse.'' In reviewing the history of that bill, the Washington Post reported that ``accountants at what were then the Big Six firms lobbied aggressively for the measure, spending millions of dollars.'' The Post story also adds a foreboding note that ``leaders of Arthur Andersen were so pleased with their efforts they encased the text of the new law in a paperweight and handed it out as a souvenir.'' The reforms we consider today are extremely modest, and I look forward to supporting amendments that will further strengthen this bill, including Senator Leahy's amendment that will strengthen enforcement and sanctions for securities fraud. That amendment passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this year. It creates new criminal laws for altering or shredding documents and provides tough new penalties specifically for securities fraud. It prevents wrongdoers from avoiding those monetary damages by filing for bankruptcy. It provides specific whistleblower protections for employees who provide information to Federal regulators or criminal investigator about corporate wrongdoing. And it increases the statutes of limitation in securities fraud cases, responding to clear evidence that the shorter time limits put in place by the 1995 securities reform law have allowed wrongdoers to escape liability. These are necessary steps, and I applaud the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for bringing this amendment forward on this bill. We should also consider other steps, if not on this bill then as part of another vehicle, to close down abusive tax shelters that encourage the kind of creative bookkeeping used by Enron, and to address the double standard of allowing certain forms of executive compensation to be deducted from taxes, while remaining hidden from investors. All of these steps face opposition by interests who are more concerned with their own profits and survival than with the public interest. Unfortunately, these interests have held great sway over the Congress over the last decade, using soft money contributions and lobbying might to smother reform proposals before they could receive a fair hearing and action by the Congress. It is very unfortunate that the measures we are considering today were not enacted years ago. If they had been in place, thousands of employees might not have lost their jobs and millions of investors might not have lost their life savings. Let us not forget that the central players in the scandals of the past year are not rogue companies operating at the fringe of American economic life. No, they are some of the biggest companies in the country, and they have been central players in a corrupt campaign finance system that this Congress finally started to address by passing the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan bill a few months ago. We have all heard of how Enron curried favor in Government. It gave a total of nearly $3.7 million in soft money to the political parties from the 1992 election cycle through June 3 of this year according to Democracy 21. Arthur Anderson made about $645,000 in soft money contributions during that period. Global Crossing gave just over $3 million to the parties in soft money from the 1998 election cycle to the present. And WorldCom, whose failure has brought us to the point where we will actually pass these long needed reforms, has given over $4 million in soft money, dating back to the 1992 cycle. Just in this cycle, with all its problems, WorldCom has already made $400,000 in soft money contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These are enormous sums. They show, frankly, that our political parties are among those who were unjustly enriched by these companies who cheated their shareholders and employees. I understand that some contributions have been returned, but just as in the case of the employees who lost their jobs or the investors who lost their life savings, the damage has been done. The contributions had their intended effect when they were given. As I mentioned before, and as we all know, Congress passed and the President signed a bill to ban soft money earlier this year. So these enormous soft money contributions should be a thing of the past starting in the next election cycle. Members of Congress will no longer be allowed to call up the CEOs of Enron, or Arthur Anderson, or Global Crossing or WorldCom, or any other corporation, and ask for enormous contributions for the political parties and then have to come back to this floor and vote on legislation that might affect their activities. At least that is what we intended. But in just the last few weeks, the Federal Election Commission has undermined the law that we passed after so many years of effort. The new regulations on our soft money ban that are about to be promulgated open enormous new loopholes in the law before it even goes into effect. If we want to remove the stain of soft money from the legislation we pass in this Congress, we cannot allow that to happen. The sponsors of campaign finance reform intend to invoke the Congressional Review Act to overturn these regulations. That will send the FEC back to the drawing board to do the job of implementing the law right. Doing this is part and parcel of addressing the corporate scandals that have led to our work on the floor today on this important bill. Unless we defend the soft money ban, the influence of unscrupulous corporations on the Congress will continue, and we will find ourselves again in the situation of trying to explain to America why we didn't act to prevent further corporate and accounting scandals or other scandals before they happened. According to Consumers Union, just over half of all U.S. households are investing in the stock market, many through their retirement savings. If the public is to have confidence in the financial markets, they must have a complete and honest accounting of the financial health of the firms in which they invest. This bill is a good starting place, and I look forward to supporting it. And I look forward to maintaining public confidence in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 by overturning the FEC's loophole-ridden regulations before they take effect.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to share my views on the Yucca Mountain resolution. Specifically, I want to review the issues that I have considered in examining this legislation that have led me to vote against the motion to proceed to this measure. In short, while I believe that Yucca Mountain ultimately may be the appropriate place to permanently store our country's nuclear waste, the Senate is considering proceeding to this resolution today without having addressed two key concerns: the Congress has not ensured that the Yucca Mountain site is of sufficient size to house our country's nuclear waste and the Congress does not yet know the Administration's plans for ensuring that the transportation of waste to that site is safe and secure. In addition, considering this premature resolution does nothing to get the waste to Yucca Mountain more quickly because the Federal Government must complete a number of remaining regulatory steps and build the site. Let me first express my grave concern about the process by which this resolution has been brought to the floor. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, amended in 1987, establishes a process for the Federal Government to designate a site for a permanent repository for civilian nuclear waste. In February 2002, this process culminated in a Presidential recommendation for a repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. On April 8, 2002, the State of Nevada exercised its authority under the law to disapprove the site. As a result of this State disapproval, the site may be approved only if a joint resolution of repository siting approval, which we are now considering, becomes law. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also establishes an expedited procedure for congressional consideration of the Yucca resolution. The purpose of an expedited procedure is to facilitate the ability of Congress to dispose of the matter specified in a timely and definitive way. To this end, it establishes a means for Congress to take up, and complete action on, the resolution of approval or disapproval within a limited period of time. I am concerned that we are taking this action today and we are still several years away from a final siting decision on Yucca. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still several years away from issuing a construction license for Yucca, there is no transportation plan, and the transportation containers to be used for waste shipments to a permanent storage site have also not been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thus, while Yucca may be the right site, this is the wrong time to have Congress ``approve'' the site while so many regulatory questions are yet unanswered. I have always felt that we should be certain that Yucca is the final site before we proceed with final Congressional approval. For those of us who represent states that are grappling with nuclear waste storage questions, the short time frame mandated in law for the consideration of this resolution has made it extremely difficult to analyze its full effects on behalf of our constituents. The issues raised by this resolution are serious policy issues. The Bush Administration knows the resolution approval process is designated by law and has statutorily defined deadlines for Congressional consideration. The Administration should not have jumped the gun and set the clock in motion while there is still a possibility that Yucca might not receive final siting approval in the regulatory process. During my time in the Senate, I have consistently said that I would prefer that once nuclear waste leaves the State, it leaves permanently. Wisconsinites want nuclear waste removed from our State and stored in a permanent geologic repository out of State so that it has no chance of coming back to Wisconsin. I opposed nuclear waste legislation in the last Congress that sought to build large scale interim storage facilities before the permanent storage site was ready and would have jeopardized consideration of the permanent site. This resolution commits the Federal Government, at least for the near term, to build one such large scale permanent site. I have heard concerns, however, from some constituents that this resolution to build at Yucca makes Wisconsin more likely to be the next permanent geologic storage site. I am concerned that Yucca, as currently authorized, will not be of sufficient size to take all of Wisconsin's waste. In previous Congresses, though I did not ultimately support interim storage legislation for other reasons, I supported provisions in interim storage bills to expand the size and capacity of the Yucca site. At best, when Yucca is opened, it will leave nearly a quarter of the waste currently in Wisconsin still sitting at our plants. Moreover, if our nuclear plants in Southeast Wisconsin re-fuel in the next few years, the Yucca site is not currently expected to take any new waste. Yucca's size is an important issue for Wisconsin because Congress is required under law to approve the study and construction of a second waste site, if one is needed. This resolution does nothing to change that provision of law, and it remains unclear whether the Department of Energy would look again at Wisconsin or the other sites considered in the 1970s and 1980s. If it needed more storage capacity, the Department of Energy could ask Congress to expand Yucca's size or recommend another alternative geologic site. As a Wisconsin Senator, I have serious concerns regarding the construction of a geologic storage site in Wisconsin. In the past I have opposed legislation opening up the possibility of a second site, and would express those concerns strongly in any discussion of a second permanent location. One of my main concerns has always been the safety and security of shipping nuclear materials from their current locations to a permanent geologic storage site outside of the State. Obviously, there is a risk that, during the transportation, accidents may occur. While many have suggested that waste has been shipped safely across the country during the history of nuclear power in this country, there has never been a coordinated efforts to ship waste to a centralized storage location. The opening of Yucca Mountain would initiate an unprecedented shipping program. I am concerned that the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca Mountain now includes barge transport on the Great Lakes and extensive truck transport on highways as potential transportation routes in addition to rail transport. This resolution does not enhance our transportation safety, and our current transportation regulatory program must be strengthened. In fact, I believe that additional legislation may be needed to address a number of transportation issues. I still feel that the Senate must act in the near term to ensure that state and local governments have the financial and equipment resources they need to respond to accidents and protect public safety. Congress must insist on a comprehensive safety program for nuclear waste transportation. We must require the waste containment casks to be tested to ensure they could withstand intense fires, high-speed collisions and other threats that may occur during transport. It is also essential that states be consulted on the selection of transportation routes and are given longer advance notification of waste shipments. Other measures that need to be addressed include banning both open water and inland waterway shipments of nuclear waste, requiring dedicated means of shipping, and establishing a minimum number of armed escorts to accompany each nuclear waste convoy. In conclusion, I cannot support this proceeding to this legislation which purports to provide an interim fix to the country's nuclear waste problem. I realize that this action is not the final say on Yucca Mountain and that we have many more steps to go before Yucca is built. But this site cannot serve its national purpose if we cannot get the waste there safely or if it is too small to hold the waste. We should have addressed these important considerations before proceeding to this resolution.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. I regret that the Senate has missed another opportunity to reorient the thinking--and spending--of the Pentagon. I strongly support our men and women in uniform in the ongoing fight against global terrorism and in their other missions, both at home and abroad. I commend the members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families for the sacrifices they have made to protect our security and freedom. More than 85,000 National Guard and Reserve forces have been called to active duty since September 11, including personnel from a number of units in Wisconsin. All members of our military and their families--active duty, National Guard, and Reserves--deserve our sincere thanks for their commitment to protect this country and to undertake the fight against terrorism in the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11. Each year that I have been a Member of this body, I have expressed my concern about the priorities of the Pentagon and about the process by which we consider the Department of Defense authorization and appropriations bills. I am troubled that the Department of Defense does not receive the same scrutiny as other parts of our Federal budget. This time of unprecedented national crisis underscores the need for the Congress and the administration to take a hard look at the Pentagon's budget to ensure that scarce taxpayer dollars are targeted to those programs that are necessary to defend our country in the post-cold war world and to ensure that our Armed Forces have the resources they need for the battles ahead. There can be no doubt that Congress should provide the resources necessary to fight and win the battle against terrorism. There should also be no doubt that this ongoing campaign should not be used as an excuse to continue to drastically increase an already bloated defense budget. When adjusted for inflation, the spending authorized by this bill, as it was reported to the Senate by the Armed Services Committee, represents the largest increase in defense spending since 1966. Just how big is this increase? The whopping $393.4 billion authorized by this bill is $152.2 billion more than combined defense budgets of the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Libya, Sudan, and Cuba. The $46 billion increase over fiscal year 2002 alone is more than the Defense budgets of any one of these 19 countries. The country with the second-largest defense budget, the United Kingdom, spent just $34.8 billion in 2001. This bill authorizes a defense budget that is more than 11 times greater than that of our closest ally. A strong national defense is crucial to the peace and stability of our Nation. But a strong economy is also essential to national security. We must not focus on one to the detriment of the other. Many of the expensive weapons systems that are authorized in this bill have little or nothing to do with the fight against terrorism, which is often cited as the reason for the $46 billion increase in defense spending contained in this bill. I am concerned that if we continue down this path, defense spending will spiral further out of control, perhaps putting other areas of our economy at risk. I am pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to cut funding for the Army's Crusader mobile artillery program. I support the Secretary of Defense's decision to cancel this outdated program. Last month, I introduced legislation that would terminate the Crusader program, saving taxpayers an estimated $10 billion over the life of the program. I commend the Secretary of Defense for his efforts to transform our military to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond, and agree that cold war-era dinosaurs such as the Crusader should be terminated. I regret that so little progress has been made to transform the military for these new challenges. The hard-fought battle to terminate the Crusader program--a program that was canceled by the Secretary of Defense--stands as an example of how difficult it is to change the mind-set of the Pentagon and the Congress. The beleaguered Crusader is the poster child for an obsolete, cold war-era program, yet there are those in the Congress and at the Pentagon who are digging in their heels and trying desperately to save it. The termination of a weapon system such as the Crusader is an example of the hard decisions that this body will have to make as we face the realities of the federal budget and as we seek to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment they will need to fight the battles of the future. I am pleased that this bill authorizes an increase in full-time manning for the Army National Guard. As we continue to call upon the Guard and Reserves for active-duty missions that are longer in duration, the role of the full-time Army National Guard personnel who support these missions becomes increasingly important. The Army National Guard relies heavily on Active Guard/Reserves and Military Technicians to perform a wide variety of essential day-to-day operations, ranging from equipment maintenance to leadership and staff roles. According to Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, Director of the Army National Guard, ``Increased full time support is an absolute necessity for Army National Guard units as the Army places greater reliance on the Army National Guard to provide trained and ready soldiers in support of Homeland Security efforts, as well as forces for theater Commander in Chiefs in support of the National Military Strategy. These full time personnel are the vital link for the traditional part time Army National Guard commanders working to achieve expected readiness goals. Units that are under-strength in full time support personnel have difficulty maintaining pace with current elevated Operational Tempo. Consequently, many units fail to attain and maintain readiness levels.'' This bill authorizes 724 additional Active Guard/Reserve positions and 487 additional military technicians, which, according to the National Guard Bureau, are the minimum essential requirements for full- time manning for the Army National Guard. These increases match those contained in an amendment that I offered to the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution that was adopted unanimously during the Budget Committee's mark-up earlier this year. I am troubled that the Senate added to the bill the $814.3 million that the Armed Services Committee cut from the President's request for national missile defense by the unfortunate adoption of an amendment offered by the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Warner. The amendment would allow the President to spend this money on missile defense or on defense activities to combat terrorism at home and abroad. This bill, as reported to the Senate, includes $6.8 billion for the still unproven missile defense system. While I did not originally oppose legislation authorizing development of a missile defense system, I remain skeptical about the need for such a system. Congress should maintain tight cost controls over this system, as the Armed Services Committee attempted to do by cutting $814.3 million for a number of questionable aspects of the Administration's request. I am still concerned that the $6.8 billion in the bill is far too much for this program, but these cuts were a step in the right direction. I am also concerned that the proposed offset for the additional funding in the Warner amendment comes from ``amounts that the Secretary determines unnecessary by reason of a revision of assumptions regarding inflation that are applied as a result of the midsession review of the budget conducted by the Office of Management and Budget during the spring and early summer of 2002.'' This flimsy accounting gimmick should not be cited as an offset. In reality, there is no offset for this spending increase. I am pleased that the Senate adopted a language offered by the chairman of the committee, Mr. Levin, that directs that priority for allocating any funds made available to the Department by a lower rate of inflation be given to ``activities for protecting the American people at home and abroad by combating terrorism at home and abroad.'' Clearly, the proposed missile defense system does not fit this definition. But I am troubled by the underlying Warner amendment because I oppose giving the President the option to spend additional funding on missile defense. I am pleased that the committee included in the bill language that will help to improve congressional oversight of the missile defense program by, one, requiring that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation conduct an annual operational assessment of the program and that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council review the cost schedule and performance criteria for the program, and, two, requiring that the Secretary conduct a review of the major elements of the missile defense program and report to Congress cost and schedule information similar to that required for other major defense programs. Turning to another issue, I continue to be concerned about the Marine Corps' troubled V-22 Osprey program. I met recently with Colonel Dan Schultz, the Marines' V-22 Program Manager, and others to discuss the status of this program and to express my concerns about the Osprey. I appreciate Colonel Schultz' commitment to ensuring that the Osprey is a safe and effective aircraft and his thoughtful approach to the new flight testing program, which began on May 29. The safety of our men and women in uniform should continue to be top priority as we consider the Osprey's future. I am troubled that the Osprey nearly made it to a Milestone III production decision in late 2000 with extensive problems in its hydraulics system and flight control software. While I appreciate the hard work that the Marines and the contractors have done to correct these problems, I remain concerned that there is no clear answer for why these deadly problems, which combined to cause the December 2000 crash that killed four Marines, weren't discovered much earlier. I am also troubled by the lack of concrete information about how to avoid the dangerous vortex ring state, which occurs when the Osprey descends too rapidly. I remain concerned about the effect that the vortex ring state could have on the ability of the Osprey to perform in combat, especially if a pilot has to make a fast exit from a hostile situation. I will monitor closely planned extensive testing that the Marine Corps has planned to study this phenomenon and ways to help pilots avoid it. The ongoing flight tests should provide a definitive assessment of the aircraft's capabilities. If the Osprey is not up to the job, then the Defense Department should be prepared to consider other alternatives that will meet the needs of the Marine Corps in a safe and cost-effective manner. I will work to ensure that Congress maintains strict oversight of the testing program. In addition, I will oppose any attempt to increase procurement of the Osprey beyond the minimum sustaining rate until the Marine Corps has demonstrated that the Osprey is safe and effective and meets or exceeds all of its performance criteria. I am still not convinced that the Osprey will work, and whether it can be made to work in a cost- effective manner. In sum, as I have said time and time again, there are millions upon millions of dollars in this bill that are being spent on outdated or questionable or unwanted programs. This money would be better spent on programs that truly improve our readiness and modernize our Armed Forces. This money also would be better spent on efforts to improve the morale of our forces, such as ensuring that all of our men and women in uniform have a decent standard of living or providing better housing for our Armed Forces and their families. For those reasons, I will oppose this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries. This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices. A few weeks ago, I began discussing with my colleagues a number of concerns that I have been hearing from Wisconsinites. Anti-competitive practices are hurting local radio station owners, local businesses, consumers, and artists. During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, and local radio stations. Passage of this act was an unfortunate example of the influence of soft money in the political process. As my colleagues will recall, I have consistently said that this act was bought and paid for by soft money. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers. We have enacted legislation to rid the system of this loophole in campaign finance law, but we must also repair the damage that it allowed. In just five years since its passage, the effects of the Telecommunications Act have been far worse than we imagined. While I opposed this act because of its anti-consumer bias, I did not predict that the elimination of the national radio ownership caps and relaxation of local ownership caps would have triggered such a tremendous wave of consolidation and harmed such as diverse range of interests. This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits on radio stations, it eliminated them all together. It also dramatically altered the local radio station ownership limits through the implementation of a tiered ownership system that allowed a company to own more radio stations in the larger markets. When the 1996 Telecommunications Act became law there were approximately 5,100 owners of radio stations. Today, there are only about 3,800 owners, a decrease of about 25 percent. Concentration at the local levels are unprecedented. At the same time that ownership of radio stations has become increasingly concentrated, some large radio station ownership groups have also bought promotion services and advertising. I have been hearing from people at home in Wisconsin, from Radio station owners, artists, broadcasters, and concert promoters who are being pushed out by anti-competitive practices, practices that result from an increasingly concentrated market. I am very concerned that these levels of concentration are pushing independent radio station owners and concert promoters out of business. And I am concerned that a few companies are leveraging their cross- ownership of radio, concert promotion, and venues in an anti- competitive manner. My legislation addresses these concerns by prohibiting any entity that owns radio stations, concert promotion services, or venues from leveraging their cross-ownership in anti-competitive manner. Under this proposal, the FCC would revoke the license of any radio station that uses its cross owner ship of promotion services or venues to prevent access to the airwaves, venues, or in other anti-competitive ways. For example, if an owner of a radio station and promotion service hindered access to the airwaves of a rival promoter, then the owner would be subject to penalties. My legislation will also ensure that any future consolidation does not result in these anti-competitive practices. It will strengthen the FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to scrutinize the mergers of large radio station ownership groups to consider the effect of national and local concentration on independent radio stations, concert promoters and consumers. At the same time, it will also curb future local consolidation by preventing any upward revision of the limitation of multiple ownership of radio stations in local markets. It will also close a loophole that currently allows large radio ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' through a third party. In these arrangements, large radio owners control a station through a third party, but the stations are not accounted for in their local ownership cap. Finally, my legislation will also address many of the problems created by the consolidation in the radio industry, such as the new forms of payola. This legislation will require the FCC to modernize the Federal payola prohibition to prevent these large radio station ownership groups from leveraging their power to extract money or other consideration from artists, such as forcing them to play concerts for free. Radio is a public medium and we must ensure that it serves the public good. The concentration of ownership, in the radio and concert industry, has caused great harm to people and businesses that have been involved in and concerned about the industry for generations. It also harms the flow of creativity and ideas that artists seek to contribute to our society. This concentration does a disservice to our society at every level of the industry, and it must be addressed. I urge my colleagues to join me to cosponsor this legislation to help to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting independent radio stations and concert promoters on a level playing field in the marketplace. This will help promote competition, local input, and diversity, and promote consumer choices.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries. This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices. A few weeks ago, I began discussing with my colleagues a number of concerns that I have been hearing from Wisconsinites. Anti-competitive practices are hurting local radio station owners, local businesses, consumers, and artists. During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, and local radio stations. Passage of this act was an unfortunate example of the influence of soft money in the political process. As my colleagues will recall, I have consistently said that this act was bought and paid for by soft money. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers. We have enacted legislation to rid the system of this loophole in campaign finance law, but we must also repair the damage that it allowed. In just five years since its passage, the effects of the Telecommunications Act have been far worse than we imagined. While I opposed this act because of its anti-consumer bias, I did not predict that the elimination of the national radio ownership caps and relaxation of local ownership caps would have triggered such a tremendous wave of consolidation and harmed such as diverse range of interests. This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits on radio stations, it eliminated them all together. It also dramatically altered the local radio station ownership limits through the implementation of a tiered ownership system that allowed a company to own more radio stations in the larger markets. When the 1996 Telecommunications Act became law there were approximately 5,100 owners of radio stations. Today, there are only about 3,800 owners, a decrease of about 25 percent. Concentration at the local levels are unprecedented. At the same time that ownership of radio stations has become increasingly concentrated, some large radio station ownership groups have also bought promotion services and advertising. I have been hearing from people at home in Wisconsin, from Radio station owners, artists, broadcasters, and concert promoters who are being pushed out by anti-competitive practices, practices that result from an increasingly concentrated market. I am very concerned that these levels of concentration are pushing independent radio station owners and concert promoters out of business. And I am concerned that a few companies are leveraging their cross- ownership of radio, concert promotion, and venues in an anti- competitive manner. My legislation addresses these concerns by prohibiting any entity that owns radio stations, concert promotion services, or venues from leveraging their cross-ownership in anti-competitive manner. Under this proposal, the FCC would revoke the license of any radio station that uses its cross owner ship of promotion services or venues to prevent access to the airwaves, venues, or in other anti-competitive ways. For example, if an owner of a radio station and promotion service hindered access to the airwaves of a rival promoter, then the owner would be subject to penalties. My legislation will also ensure that any future consolidation does not result in these anti-competitive practices. It will strengthen the FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to scrutinize the mergers of large radio station ownership groups to consider the effect of national and local concentration on independent radio stations, concert promoters and consumers. At the same time, it will also curb future local consolidation by preventing any upward revision of the limitation of multiple ownership of radio stations in local markets. It will also close a loophole that currently allows large radio ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' through a third party. In these arrangements, large radio owners control a station through a third party, but the stations are not accounted for in their local ownership cap. Finally, my legislation will also address many of the problems created by the consolidation in the radio industry, such as the new forms of payola. This legislation will require the FCC to modernize the Federal payola prohibition to prevent these large radio station ownership groups from leveraging their power to extract money or other consideration from artists, such as forcing them to play concerts for free. Radio is a public medium and we must ensure that it serves the public good. The concentration of ownership, in the radio and concert industry, has caused great harm to people and businesses that have been involved in and concerned about the industry for generations. It also harms the flow of creativity and ideas that artists seek to contribute to our society. This concentration does a disservice to our society at every level of the industry, and it must be addressed. I urge my colleagues to join me to cosponsor this legislation to help to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting independent radio stations and concert promoters on a level playing field in the marketplace. This will help promote competition, local input, and diversity, and promote consumer choices.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, of which I am an original cosponsor. I have long been concerned about the costs and benefits associated with the process by which the Federal Government contracts out work. In particular, I am concerned about the lack of data on whether these contracts actually achieve real savings for the taxpayers, and about the effects of outsourcing on the pay and benefits of Federal workers. I do not automatically oppose contracting out. Such a process is often appropriate. I am concerned, however, that the Department of Defense is currently able to circumvent the public-private competition process for contracting out work that is employed by other Federal agencies. Contracting out affects the jobs of thousands of dedicated Government employees each year. These men and women deserve the chance to compete for this work, as the Senator from Massachusetts was pointing out. They deserve the right to compete for their jobs, and they have a right to do it on a level playing field. The Kennedy amendment would help to provide a level playing field by ensuring that true public-private competition actually occurs. This amendment does not prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting out. It does not stipulate which categories of jobs may or may not be subject to public-private competitions. In fact, a number of job categories are exempted. This amendment is broadly worded to give DOD flexibility on which and how many positions to subject to competitions. The amendment also includes a national security waiver. Some have argued that this amendment would spell the end of contracting out by the Department of Defense. Again, that is not true. This amendment simply requires DOD to comply with four broad goals aimed at bringing a measure of fairness and equity to the contracting out process. First, the amendment would ensure that public-private competition actually occurs before work currently performed by Federal employees is contracted out. The DOD would be able to use any cost-based process to carry out this competition, including the Circular A-76 process. This process would give DOD employees the opportunity to present their best bid and to compete on a level playing field with bids from contractors. The goal of contracting out is to get the highest quality work at the best price for the taxpayers. We should not continue to shut the civilian DOD workforce out of this process. Second, this amendment would help to ensure that Federal civilian employees are given the opportunity to compete for a fraction of what is called ``new work'' to be performed at DOD. This provision would be phased in over several years. Third, this amendment would require DOD to use ``contracting in'' as well as ``contracting out'' to make sure that Federal taxpayers are getting the best deal. It only makes sense to periodically compete work that has been awarded to contractors to ensure that the Federal taxpayers are continuing to get their money's worth. Work being performed by contractors should be subject to the same scrutiny as work being performed by Government employees. In the interest of fairness, the amendment requires that DOD opens to competition similar numbers of contractor and civilian employee jobs. Finally, the amendment would require DOD to establish an inventory to track the cost and size of its contractor workforce. This inventory would be compiled using the same procedures that the Department of the Army recently adopted to track its own contractor workforce. I share the concerns of some of my constituents, who have told me that they believe that contracting out simply shifts jobs from the Federal Government to the private sector without any real savings. I also share their concern that part of any savings that is achieved may actually come from reduced salaries and benefits that are paid to contractor employees. It is important that DOD and Congress have an accurate picture of the true size and cost of the contractor workforce. In sum, this amendment does not prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting out. It would ensure basic public-private competition that will allow DOD employees to compete with contractor bids on a more level playing field. It will also help to ensure that the DOD contracting process is achieving the best result for taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to express my support for the Colombian people following the Presidential election in Colombia on May 26. I was pleased to cosponsor a resolution last week welcoming the successful completion of democratic elections in Colombia. It is a tribute to the Colombian people that despite significant threats and violence, both international and national election observers found the elections to be free and fair. I am also pleased that the President-elect of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe Velez, has been in Washington this week to discuss U.S. support for counternarcotics operations. The United States has already invested heavily in a unified effort to reduce the flow of drugs from Colombia, while simultaneously promoting human rights and economic development throughout the country. It is essential that we build on that investment during the new administration of President-elect Uribe. Indeed, I am pleased that President-elect Uribe has said that he looks forward to the day when Colombia is not sending a single kilogram of cocaine to the United States. To make that a reality, we must ensure that coca growers in the poor regions of Colombia have access to alternative economic opportunities, and that they take advantage of those opportunities to get out of the coca business for good. We must also promote human rights and the rule of law in Colombia; otherwise, the cycle of violence and narco-trafficking that is draining the livelihood of the country will ultimately lead to total state collapse, and to even more narco-trafficking and perhaps support for terrorism in the ruins of such a failed state. With the visit to Washington this week of a new President-elect, this is an opportune time to reflect on some of the new directions in our bilateral relationship with Colombia. In particular, this provides an appropriate opportunity to step back and evaluate the effectiveness to date of our various policy objectives in Colombia. We must consider, for example, whether our initiatives have been effective in reducing the levels of violence in the country, in seeking accountability for grave human rights violations, and in cutting off the narco-traffickers who provide both financing and incentives for insurgent forces. We must also ask whether our policy in Colombia provides an effective balance of military assistance and well-managed development support. And we have an obligation to the people of Colombia to consider the human and environmental effects of our ongoing fumigation campaign. In reflecting on the situation in Colombia today, one thing remains absolutely clear: The status quo in Colombia cannot be justified. The prolonged civil war, which is fueled by lucrative narco-trafficking, has created a volatile society, with untold suffering and a seemingly endless cycle of grave human rights abuses. The narco-traffickers have prospered, the guerrillas, and increasingly the paramilitaries, have offered the narco-traffickers hired protection, and they, too, are prospering from this deadly relationship. It is the people of Colombia, the average farmers and the honest citizens, who must pay the price of the war. That price can be counted in the number of lives lost or displaced in Colombia. But we must also count the lives lost to drugs and violence on our own streets in the United States. Such vast costs are wholly unacceptable. So, where do we go from here? First and foremost, we must continue to scrutinize the relationship between the Colombian military and the paramilitary forces in the country. The Colombian military has been taking steps to sever its ties with the paramilitaries, but I am worried that those steps have not translated into meaningful progress on the ground. As the United States considers supporting the counter-insurgency operations of the Colombian military, we must guarantee that Colombia takes seriously its obligation to seek out and prosecute the paramilitaries. And we must remember that by most accounts, the paramilitaries today are more responsible than any other terrorist group for the massive war crimes committed in the country. We must also ensure that the Colombian government commits its resources to a more robust investment in its own institutions. We must never substitute our own assets or personnel for an appropriate level of investment by Colombia in its own future. This must include domestic support to institutions of justice, and for the protection of civilians, as well as responsible military support to defend the civilian population from rebel and paramilitary attacks. Finally, we must do more to ensure that communities that have already been so hard-hit by the conflict have access to development opportunities to rebuild their lives. Alternative development must be a cornerstone of any effective counter-narcotics campaign. Without alternative development, displaced communities will have only one rational economic option: to turn to the lucrative but illegal cultivation of the coca that drug lords are so eager to buy and protect. Quite simply, we must give battered rural communities a viable economic alternative to coca or poppy cultivation if we are ever to bring the wars in Colombia to an end. To date, our investment in such development has been insufficient. And perhaps as a result, we have also made little progress in stemming the flow of drugs. Without more of a social investment in alternative development, I fear that the coca fumigation program that is being supported by the United States will merely shift drug cultivation into even more remote and ecologically sensitive areas of the country. So I rise today to congratulate the people of Colombia on their successful Presidential election in May. That democratic institutions continue to function in the midst of such violence and intimidation is an impressive tribute to the Colombian people. But as the United States moves to support our new colleagues in the incoming government in Colombia, we must continually ask ourselves whether our intervention is achieving our policy goals, and whether it is making a difference to the lives of average Colombians. Carefully crafted U.S. support for Colombia can make a difference. Indeed, it must make a difference. But we must monitor the effects of that support very closely, because neither the U.S. taxpayer nor the vast communities in Colombia that have already been devastated by the war can afford to see such a significant U.S. investment in Colombia fail. We cannot and must not abandon Colombia. But at the same time, we cannot delude ourselves about the efficacy of our policy thus far. Critics of U.S. policy in Colombia, and in many cases I have been among them, raise valid questions about the commitment of the military to the rule of law and to protecting civilians. They raise important questions about the consequences of fumigation and the economic prospects for farmers who agree not to plant coca. It is our responsibility to weigh these points and to answer these questions, and where necessary, to adjust our policy so that we get it right. For Americans and for Colombians, the stakes are too high to do otherwise.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the pending amendment and the second degree to it, as modified, are an effort to control spending and protect the Social Security trust fund. That is what it is--pure and simple--to control spending and, by doing so, also protect the Social Security trust fund. That is obviously not a new idea. What we are doing here is trying to extend a process that has worked, and worked pretty well, for most of the years since 1990. We are trying to give 2 more years of life to the process that helped us do something that a lot of people didn't think could happen--balance the budget without using Social Security in both 1999 and 2000. What we are trying to do is make sure there is some constraint on the size of the Government. I remind my colleagues, if we do not pass this amendment, if we do not extend the budget process, then the vast majority of budget process constraints will simply expire on September 30. Our failure to act will mean an almost complete absence of responsible budget limitations. Again, what our amendment does is not something new. It just tries to keep in place these limitations that made the good fiscal management of this Government possible during the 1990s. As we saw this deadline coming, this problem that will occur on September 30 with the loss of the rules and constraints, what I have tried to do, with others, is work very hard to come to where we are today. Our amendment is not my idea alone, by any means. It is the result of a collaborative effort extending over several months. Starting in March, my staff has been working with the staff of Senators from about a dozen Senate offices, half Republican and half Democratic. I followed up in a number of meetings with Senators from other sides of the aisle, trying to build consensus. What we tried to do is get the strongest budget process we could. My colleagues will recall that we tried to extend the caps for 5 years in an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that Senator Gregg and I offered on behalf of Senators Chafee, Kerry, Voinovich, McCain, and Cantwell. Half the Senate, a bipartisan group of Senators, actually voted for that amendment, but we were not able to generate the support necessary to get the 60 votes and have the amendment actually adopted. The amendment before us today is an effort to get the most done that we can. For the first 2 years, it provides almost exactly the same cap levels that were in the amendment of myself and Senator Gregg to the supplemental appropriations bill. It is my judgment, and the judgment of the bipartisan group of Senators with whom I worked to draft this amendment, that this is as strong a budget process that the Senate will actually be able to pass this year. So that is what I am asking of my colleagues--to do at least this much. Let's at least get this done. Let's at least preserve this much constraint and this kind of responsibility, even though many of us would prefer more. One of the reasons is because in the next decade the baby boom generation will begin to retire in large numbers. Starting in 2016, Social Security will start redeeming the bonds it holds and the non- Social Security Government will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social Security surpluses. Starting in 2016, the Government will have to show restraint in the non-Social Security budget so we can pay the Social Security benefits that Americans have already earned or will have already earned by that time. If we keep adding to the Federal debt, we will simply add to the burden to be borne by the taxpayers of the coming decade and decades thereafter. That is all we are really doing. It has been said in many political speeches, but it is true--we are just leaving them the bill. We are not doing our job. We are not showing responsibility, if that is how we leave things. Of course, September 11 changed our priorities in many ways, including how our Government spends money. But September 11 does not change the oncoming requirements of Social Security. As an economist has said: ``Demographics is destiny.'' We can either prepare for that destiny or we can fail to prepare for it. To get the Government out of the business of using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government spending, we have to strengthen our budget process. That is what this amendment does. That is why we urge our colleagues to support it. We have sought to advance a goal that has a long and bipartisan history, and I would like to just recite a little of that history. In his January 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton called on the Government to ``save Social Security first.'' That is also what President George W. Bush said in a March 2001 radio address. In his words, we need to ``keep the promise of Social Security and keep the Government from raiding the Social Security surplus.'' That is what President Bush said. It is what the Republican leader, Senator Lott, said on the Senate floor in June 1999 when he said: Social Security taxes should be used for Social Security and only for Social Security--not for any other brilliant idea we may have. It is what Senator Domenici said in April of 2000 when he said: I suggest that the most significant fiscal policy change made to this point--to the benefit of Americans of the future . . . is that all of the Social Security surplus stays in the Social Security fund. . . . Yes, we should stop using Social Security surpluses to fund the rest of Government because it is the moral thing to do; for every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar our children must pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits. I do not think our children's generation will forgive us if we fail in our fiscal responsibility today. History will not forgive us if we fail to act. We must balance the budget, we must stop accumulating debts for future generations to pay, and we have to stop robbing our children of their own choices. We have got to make our own choices. We are doing that today. Let's not take away from these kids their right to make their own choices in their time because we have locked up all the money and we cannot pay the Social Security benefits. The amendment before us today, I am pretty sure, is the best, last hope to do this this year. I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam President, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has issued a paper that concludes as follows: These proposals, No. 1, are likely to be workable because they extend enforcement tools that have worked in the past; No. 2, are evenhanded because they treat spending increases and tax cuts in the same fashion, without favoring one or the other; and, No. 3, set targets that appear realistic and thus are more likely not to be blown away by subsequent congressional action. This analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy is their view of this amendment. It is a positive analysis. I ask unanimous consent the full text of this analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico 20 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield that remaining time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, be added as a cosponsor of the pending amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains on our side?