Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, to introduce a common-sense budget process bill, the Budget Enforcement Act of 2002. In the 1990s, we took fiscally responsible actions that led to balancing the budget in 1999 and 2000 without using Social Security. But last year, the government returned to the bad habit of using the Social Security surplus to fund other government activities. We need to put an end to that practice. The Government will not have these Social Security surpluses to use forever. 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 that it holds, and the non-Social Security government will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social Security surpluses. The bottom line is that starting in 2016, the government will have to show restraint in the non-Social Security budget so that we can pay the Social Security benefits that Americans have earned. That's why we cannot continue to enact either tax cuts or spending measures that push the government further into deficit. Before we enter into new obligations, we need to make sure that we have the resources to meet our Nation's commitment to our seniors under Social Security. We need to return to the priority of protecting the Social Security Trust Funds. We should, as President Bush said in a March 2001 radio address, ``keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus.'' And to get the Government out of the business of using Social Security surpluses to fund other government spending, we need to strengthen our budget process. That is what the bill that Senator Gregg and I are proposing would do. The history of budget process changes teaches that realistic budget enforcement mechanisms work. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, enacted with bipartisan support, with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, deserves much credit for helping to keep the Government on that path to reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit. A central feature of the 1990 act was the creation of caps on appropriated spending. In recent years, Congress has blown through those caps, when those caps were at unrealistic levels, and when the Government was running surpluses. But in most years of their history, appropriations caps helped to constrain the politically understandable appetite to spend without limit. Congress has repeatedly endorsed the idea of spending caps. Congress renewed and extended the caps in the budget process laws of 1993 and 1997. And 6 of the last 8 budget resolutions have set enforceable spending caps. If budget numbers are to have any meaning, if they are not to be just wishes and prayers, then we need to have enforcement. Our bill would reinstate and extend the caps on discretionary spending, and would do so at a realistic baseline. It would simply set those levels at those in the budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee on March 22. And our bill maintains, without change, the separate subcaps created in the Violent Crime Act of 1994 and the Transportation Equity Act of 1998. Like the 1990 budget law that it extends, our bill would apply budget enforcement to entitlements and taxes. It would extend the pay-as-you- go enforcement mechanism. All parts of the budget would thus be treated fairly. Our bill would also improve the points of order that enforce the caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement. It would allow Senators to raise a point of order against specific provisions that cause the caps or pay-as-you- go discipline to be violated. This part of the bill will work very much like the important Byrd Rule that governs the reconciliation process, which is of course named after the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Under our bill, if a piece of legislation violates the caps or pay- as-you-go discipline, any Senator could raise a point of order and force a vote on any individual provision that contributes to the budget violation. If the point of order is not waived, then the provision would be stricken from the legislation. The bill would also shut back-door ways around the caps and pay-as- you-go enforcement, by requiring 60 votes to change the caps, alter the balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct scorekeeping. Our bill would limit the exceptions to the point of order against emergency designations in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, so that all emergencies would be treated alike. Our bill would thus treat emergencies as they were treated in the text of that budget resolution when the Senate passed it on April 7, 2000, rather than in the watered- down form it had when it came back from conference with the House of Representatives. And finally, our bill would extend for 5 years the requirement for 60 votes to waive existing points of order that enforce the Congressional Budget Act. The 60-vote requirement that gives these points of order teeth expires on September 30 this year under current law. This is sensible budget process reform, in keeping with the best, most effective budget process enforcement that we have enacted in the past. It would make a significant contribution toward ending the practice of using the Social Security surplus to fund other government activities. And that is something that we simply must do, for our seniors, and for those in coming generations who will otherwise be stuck with the bill. I urge my colleagues to join us to cosponsor our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, to introduce a common-sense budget process bill, the Budget Enforcement Act of 2002. In the 1990s, we took fiscally responsible actions that led to balancing the budget in 1999 and 2000 without using Social Security. But last year, the government returned to the bad habit of using the Social Security surplus to fund other government activities. We need to put an end to that practice. The Government will not have these Social Security surpluses to use forever. 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 that it holds, and the non-Social Security government will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social Security surpluses. The bottom line is that starting in 2016, the government will have to show restraint in the non-Social Security budget so that we can pay the Social Security benefits that Americans have earned. That's why we cannot continue to enact either tax cuts or spending measures that push the government further into deficit. Before we enter into new obligations, we need to make sure that we have the resources to meet our Nation's commitment to our seniors under Social Security. We need to return to the priority of protecting the Social Security Trust Funds. We should, as President Bush said in a March 2001 radio address, ``keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus.'' And to get the Government out of the business of using Social Security surpluses to fund other government spending, we need to strengthen our budget process. That is what the bill that Senator Gregg and I are proposing would do. The history of budget process changes teaches that realistic budget enforcement mechanisms work. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, enacted with bipartisan support, with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, deserves much credit for helping to keep the Government on that path to reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit. A central feature of the 1990 act was the creation of caps on appropriated spending. In recent years, Congress has blown through those caps, when those caps were at unrealistic levels, and when the Government was running surpluses. But in most years of their history, appropriations caps helped to constrain the politically understandable appetite to spend without limit. Congress has repeatedly endorsed the idea of spending caps. Congress renewed and extended the caps in the budget process laws of 1993 and 1997. And 6 of the last 8 budget resolutions have set enforceable spending caps. If budget numbers are to have any meaning, if they are not to be just wishes and prayers, then we need to have enforcement. Our bill would reinstate and extend the caps on discretionary spending, and would do so at a realistic baseline. It would simply set those levels at those in the budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee on March 22. And our bill maintains, without change, the separate subcaps created in the Violent Crime Act of 1994 and the Transportation Equity Act of 1998. Like the 1990 budget law that it extends, our bill would apply budget enforcement to entitlements and taxes. It would extend the pay-as-you- go enforcement mechanism. All parts of the budget would thus be treated fairly. Our bill would also improve the points of order that enforce the caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement. It would allow Senators to raise a point of order against specific provisions that cause the caps or pay-as-you- go discipline to be violated. This part of the bill will work very much like the important Byrd Rule that governs the reconciliation process, which is of course named after the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Under our bill, if a piece of legislation violates the caps or pay- as-you-go discipline, any Senator could raise a point of order and force a vote on any individual provision that contributes to the budget violation. If the point of order is not waived, then the provision would be stricken from the legislation. The bill would also shut back-door ways around the caps and pay-as- you-go enforcement, by requiring 60 votes to change the caps, alter the balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct scorekeeping. Our bill would limit the exceptions to the point of order against emergency designations in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, so that all emergencies would be treated alike. Our bill would thus treat emergencies as they were treated in the text of that budget resolution when the Senate passed it on April 7, 2000, rather than in the watered- down form it had when it came back from conference with the House of Representatives. And finally, our bill would extend for 5 years the requirement for 60 votes to waive existing points of order that enforce the Congressional Budget Act. The 60-vote requirement that gives these points of order teeth expires on September 30 this year under current law. This is sensible budget process reform, in keeping with the best, most effective budget process enforcement that we have enacted in the past. It would make a significant contribution toward ending the practice of using the Social Security surplus to fund other government activities. And that is something that we simply must do, for our seniors, and for those in coming generations who will otherwise be stuck with the bill. I urge my colleagues to join us to cosponsor our legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor today's amendment expressing solidarity with Israel. Like many Americans, I have a very personal connection to the Israeli people and to the State of Israel. And it is with a heavy heart that I join my colleagues today in mourning the innocent lives lost in the recent terrorist violence in Israel. The U.S.-Israeli relationship is one of the strongest and most important of all of our bilateral relationships. Within that context, it is my sincere hope that this amendment will send a clear signal by expressing the overwhelming sense of the Senate that America is now and always will be firmly committed to a future in which the state of Israel can live in security and peace with all of its neighbors. It is my greatest hope that our ongoing commitment to these principles, and through them to peace in the region, will demonstrate our country's respect for the dignity and future of the Israeli people, while establishing the basis for a political settlement to the conflict. I also want to state clearly, and for the record, that I supported President Bush's decision last month to send Secretary Powell to the Middle East to help bring the current crisis to a close and to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Intense U.S. engagement remains an essential ingredient in the resolution of the crisis, although nothing will be accomplished without the added leadership and foresight of the Israeli and Palestinian people. I also believe that the President was right to call on both the Palestinians and the Arab states in the region to take responsibility for ending terror and the culture of hatred that threatens peace in the region. And he has also been justified in calling on Israel to take a number of concrete and compassionate steps to ease the pressure on Palestinian civilians. In the end, only through continued efforts at the highest level will the United States be in a position to assist our strongest ally in the region and give the Israeli people an opportunity to seize a secure future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to offer some comments on the proposed trade legislation before us, and in particular on the so- called Trade Promotion Authority provisions in that package, also known as fast-track. As a number of my colleagues have noted, the issue of whether or not to enact fast-track procedures is not a question of whether one favors or opposes free or fair trade, but rather what role Congress plays in trade agreements. The fast-track proposal we are considering, and its predecessors, are quite recent inventions. Prior to the Tokyo round of the GATT, there was no fast-track mechanism. In fact, of the hundreds and hundreds of trade agreements our Nation has negotiated and entered into, only five have used the fast-track procedures. This by itself should dispose of the argument that fast-track is necessary for us to negotiate trade agreements at all. Really, what we are saying here is that fast-track has been the exception, not the rule, with regard to trade negotiations. The previous Administration negotiated and implemented over 200 trade agreements without fast-track. What were some of those agreements? Madam President, I don't think I really need to tell you, but they included: The Market Access Agreement with Argentina for Textiles and Clothing, the Market Access Agreement with Australia for Textiles and Clothing, the Agreement on Bilateral Trade Relations with Belarus, the Market Access Agreement with Brazil for Textiles and Clothing, an Agreement concerning Intellectual Property Rights with Bulgaria, an Agreement Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Cambodia on Trade Relations and Intellectual Property Rights Protection, the Agreement on Salmon and Herring with Canada, the Agreement on Ultra- high Temperature Milk with Canada, the Agreement on Trade in Softwood Lumber with Canada, the Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection with Ecuador, a Memorandum of Understanding on Trade in Bananas with Costa Rica, several agreements with the European Union, an Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection with India, several dozen agreements with Japan, several dozen agreements with Korea, and many, many more agreements with dozens of other countries. Just last year, this body passed legislation implementing the U.S.-- Jordan Free Trade Agreement, also negotiated and implemented without fast-track procedures. We passed not only bilateral agreements, but multilateral agreements such as: the Information Technology Agreement, which involved over 40 countries, the Financial Services Agreement, and, the Basic Telecommunications Agreement. President Clinton did not need fast track to negotiate those agreements, and President Bush does not need it to negotiate additional agreements. While the ability to negotiate and enter into international agreements are inherently part of the President's constitutional powers, the Constitution grants exclusive authority to Congress ``to regulate Commerce with foreign nations.'' Congress has sole constitutional authority over setting tariff levels and making or changing Federal law. Those who support fast-track constantly make the argument that if you want free trade, you have to enact fast-track. They equate fast-track with free trade. The reason is obvious. The arguments for free trade are powerful. Indeed, I agree with those arguments. We as a nation are better off in a world with freer trade than we are without it. But the underlying premise, that we need fast-track to achieve free and fair trade, is absolutely false. I have referred to the hundreds of trade agreements negotiated without fast-track procedures. That is evidence enough. But let me also argue that not only is fast-track not necessary for free trade, it may actually undermine it. One of the greatest defects of the NAFTA and GATT agreements was the perception that those agreements picked ``winners and losers.'' I believe strongly that those perceptions are based on reality, that some industries were huge winners in those agreements, while other industries were effectively written off. Wisconsin had more than its share of those industries that were written off, and at the top of that list, at the very top was the dairy farmer. There is no doubt in my mind that other industries were given a higher priority than our dairy farmers, and the results of those agreements underscore that feeling. Under the GATT, the European Union is allowed to export 20 times the amount of dairy products under subsidy than the U.S. is allowed to export. Not only did we formally provide the EU this significant advantage in that agreement with respect to dairy, but apparently the EU is not even complying with those incredibly generous limitations. The industries given lower priority do not end with dairy, and while our more populous cities--Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay--experienced serious job loss as a result of the NAFTA agreement--over 1000 jobs lost in Racine, and over 2600 jobs lost in Milwaukee--the fallout from the ``winners and losers'' approach extended to many smaller communities. Even if we only use the extremely conservative statistics collected by the Department of Labor--statistics which many argue grossly understate actual job loss--smaller communities all over Wisconsin have been the victim of this ``winners and losers'' approach to trade agreements. NAFTA's legacy of lost jobs includes places such as: Baraboo, with 95 lost jobs; DeForest, with 40 lost jobs; Elkhorn, with 50 lost jobs; Hawkins, with 443 lost jobs; Marinette, with 32 lost jobs; Mauston, with 48 lost jobs; Merrill, with 84 lost jobs; Montello, with 25 lost jobs; Oconto Falls, with 437 lost jobs; Peshtigo, with 221 lost jobs; Platteville, with 576 lost jobs; Reedsburg, with 25 lost jobs; Spencer, with 23 lost jobs; and, Waupaca, with 132 lost jobs. To trade negotiators whose focus was on advancing the prospects of those industries they pre-determined to be ``winners,'' the losses experienced elsewhere apparently were unfortunate but acceptable. But for the communities I mentioned, those losses were real--real workers with real families to support. The fast-track procedures under which GATT and NAFTA were negotiated and implemented invite this kind of polarization at the negotiating table. And it is this kind of economic disparity produced by these trade agreements--the picking of winners and losers--that undermines broad public support for pursuing free trade agreements. Free trade ought to benefit all sectors of the economy. Without fast-track procedures, our negotiators will know their work product will undergo rigorous Congressional scrutiny. And they will know that it will be much more difficult to enact a trade agreement that disproportionately benefits some while disadvantaging others. It is this kind of trade agreement--one that benefits the entire economy--that will enhance the cause of free trade. Fast-track also encourages another disturbing trend in trade agreements, namely advancing the short-term interests of multinational corporations over those of the average worker and consumer. The increasing globalization of the economy confronts us every day. Few can doubt the enormous power that multinational corporations wield in trade agreements, from the negotiating table itself to the closed-door bargaining that will go on before the implementing legislation is sent to Congress. Fast-track procedures make it all the easier for those interests to advance an agreement that may include provisions that conflict with the interests of our Nation. With opposition to the entire agreement the only alternative left to Congress, and with the considerable weight of the multinational corporate interests behind any proposal, it is likely that Congress will swallow even a deeply flawed agreement. What does that do for the public support necessary for free trade? It severely undermines it, Mr. President, and puts future trade agreements that can enhance our economy at risk. Let me turn to another provision in the current fast-track proposal. It may surprise some to know that even provisions that have nothing to do with the underlying trade agreement cannot be amended or even stricken from the bill. Some may find this hard to believe, but in fact we have seen such provisions included in fast-track protected trade legislation. Many of us will recall the GATT implementing measure which included some controversial provisions intended to offset the costs of the trade agreement. Among those provisions was a change in the actuarial standards of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and a provision many viewed as a sweetheart deal for certain media giants that gave preferential treatment with respect to FCC licenses. Neither of those provisions had anything to do with the underlying trade agreement. Both certainly deserved more scrutiny than they received under the constraints of fast-track procedures. Whatever justification there may be for providing special procedures for trade agreements, procedures which supporters argue are necessary to attract our trading partners to the table, there is no such justification for shielding unrelated provisions from thorough Congressional scrutiny and review. Let me stress those funding provisions were not part of the trade agreement itself. Our trading partners do not get a say in how we offset the cost of a trade agreement, and one might ask, if our trading partners have no say in the offset provisions, why are those provisions included under fast-track procedures? The fast-track proposal before us today has that same flaw. Under its procedures, the most unjustified funding mechanism attached to trade implementing legislation under fast-track will remain unscathed. To correct that problem, I plan to offer an amendment that allows any tax increase included in a fast-track protected bill to be fully debated and amended. There is no reason Congress cannot fully debate, modify, or strike any tax increase. But beyond the problem of fast-track protected tax increases, there may be no limit at all on extraneous matters in fast-track bills. I am not confident that as it is currently drafted the fast-track authority provided in this bill protects Congress from this potential abuse. If that is true, if extraneous matters are not prohibited from fast- track protected trade bills, then there is nothing to prevent a President from including language to ban all abortions. If extraneous matters are not prohibited, then there is nothing to prevent a President from including language requiring all guns to be registered. In short, if extraneous matters are not prohibited, then there is nothing to prevent a President from including provisions, completely unrelated to trade, that would otherwise not pass this body. I plan to offer an amendment to protect against such an abuse. It would provide that a point of order could be raised against extraneous matters included in a fast-track protected trade bill, and would require that they be dropped. Let me reiterate that many of us who support free and fair trade find nothing inconsistent with that support and insisting that Congress be a full partner in approving agreements. Indeed, as the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, has noted, support for fast-track procedures reveals a lack of confidence in the ability of our negotiators to craft a sound agreement, or a lack of confidence in the ability of Congress to weigh regional and sectoral interests against the national interest, or may simply be a desire by the Executive Branch to avoid the hard work necessary to convince Congress to support the agreements that it negotiates. I can think of no better insurance policy for a sound trade agreement than the prospect of a thorough Congressional review, complete with the ability to amend that agreement. Not only would the threat of possible congressional modification spur our negotiators to produce the best product possible, that potential for congressional intervention could serve as an effective club in the hands of our negotiators when they are bargaining with our trading partners. With hundreds of trade agreements negotiated and implemented without fast-track, the refrain we hear again and again, that we need to enact fast-track in order to negotiate trade agreements, is off key. We do not need fast-track to negotiate trade agreements. As I have argued today, in several important ways, fast-track invites bad trade agreements. It produces agreements that pick winners and losers instead of advancing all sectors of the economy together. It produces agreements designed to respond to the short-term interests of multinational corporations instead of fostering long-term sustainable economic growth. It protects the completely unrelated funding provisions in trade implementing legislation, and as such invites enormous abuse. And it may provide a mechanism to enact controversial legislation, unrelated to trade, that would otherwise fail to pass. I think fast-track is bad for free trade. We don't need it, and we shouldn't enact it. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and in doing so, voting for--voting for--free and fair trade.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senate has put trade on the fast track, but there are a number of other priorities that the Senate would do better to put on the fast track. The Senate has put trade on the fast track, but what about a long- overdue increase in the minimum wage? The Senate should put the minimum wage on the fast track. The Senate has put trade on the fast track, but what about updating Medicare to provide coverage for prescription drugs? The Senate should put prescription drug coverage on the fast track. The Senate has put trade on the fast track, but what about protecting people of color against racial profiling? The Senate should put racial profiling on the fast track. Madam President, the Senate has put trade on the fast track, but another thing that should be on the fast track for Senate consideration is ensuring the health of Social Security. As we debate the Senate's priorities, let me take a few minutes to address this other matter that requires the Senate's attention: the state of Social Security and Medicare and the well-being of the millions of Americans whom those important programs serve. Madam President, since the election, the topic of Social Security, as you well know, has all but fallen off the legislative agenda, and that is unfortunate, for at stake is little less than whether our elderly live in comfort or in poverty. Before Social Security, most elderly Americans lived in poverty. Before Medicare, more than a third of the elderly still lived in poverty--35 percent in 1959. Roughly 10 percent do now. Social Security and Medicare have been essential to this achievement. Nearly two-thirds of elderly Americans rely on Social Security for most of their income. Social Security has been one of the most successful Government undertakings in history. On March 26, the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds issued their annual reports on the financial condition of these two important programs. These reports give us another reason to turn attention to Social Security and Medicare and to our efforts to protect them. The Social Security trustees' report indicates that to maintain solvency for 75 years, we need to take actions equivalent to raising payroll tax receipts by 1.87 percent of payroll or making equivalent cuts in benefits. That is essentially equal to the long-term actuarial deficit in last year's report--1.86 percent. Another way of looking at these numbers is as a share of the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product. The Social Security trustees' report indicates that the long-term shortfall amounts to seventy-two one-hundredths of a percent of the size of the American economy that the trustees project over the next 75 years. The Social Security trustees project that the assets of the Social Security trust funds will keep the program solvent through 2041, and that is actually 3 years later than last year's report. When Social Security exhausts its assets in 2041, annual Social Security tax revenues will be sufficient to cover about three-quarters of annual expenditures. So the trustees' report thus sounds a warning: We can fix Social Security for 75 years if we make changes now equal to less than 2 percent in payroll taxes or 13 percent of benefits. But if we wait until 2041, we will need payroll tax increases of more than 5 percent or benefit cuts of more than a quarter. The Medicare trustees' report indicates that to maintain solvency for 75 years, we need to take actions equivalent to raising payroll tax receipts by 2.02 percent of payroll or making equivalent cuts in benefits. That is up slightly from last year's report, which showed a long-term actuarial deficit of 1.97 percent. The Medicare trustees project that the assets of the Medicare trust funds will keep the program solvent through 2030, and that is 1 year later than last year's report. The trustees' report raises a somewhat higher hurdle to keep the Medicare program solvent over the long run than Social Security. To fix Medicare for 75 years, we need to make changes now equal to about 2 percent in payroll taxes or 38 percent of benefits. But, once again, if we wait until after the baby boom generation begins to retire in numbers, we will need much larger payroll tax increases or benefit cuts. These reports underscore the importance of working to ensure the life of these important programs earlier rather than later. As President Kennedy said: [T]he time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. Regrettably, during the sunnier times of last year, the Government took steps that undermined the soundness of the Government's fiscal structure. Rather than repair the roof, the Government actually widened the hole. The question of Social Security and Medicare solvency is, in large part, as with all budgetary questions, a question of resources. Last year, the government dissipated many of the very resources that we could have used and that we should have used to shore up Social Security and Medicare. A recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated the long-term cost of last year's tax cuts, assuming that Congress extends them, as many on the other side of the aisle advocate. According to that analysis, the long-run cost of last year's tax cut will equal 1.68 percent of the economy that the Social Security trustees project over the next 75 years. Compare that, for a minute, to the amount that we need to keep Social Security healthy over the same time period, which amounts to seventy- two one-hundredths of a percent of the size of the economy that the trustees project over the next 75 years. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis shows, therefore, that ``the long-term size of the tax cut is more than double the entire long-term Social Security shortfall.'' The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study goes on: [I]f the tax cut were scaled back so that three-fifths of it took effect while the funds from the other two-fifths of the tax cut were used instead to strengthen Social Security, the entire long-term deficit in Social Security could be eliminated. That is an incredible fact. If we had just shown some restraint on this tax cut--still giving a very substantial tax cut--we could have eliminated the entire long-term deficit in Social Security. Like all budgetary questions, the question of Social Security solvency is, in large part, a question of priorities. I believe that we need to return to the priority of protecting the Social Security trust funds. This has not been a partisan issue. This is an issue upon which we have had a broad consensus. We should return to that consensus position. We should do what, in remarks in February of 2001, President Bush called ``prudent fiscal policy;'' we should, in his words ``set aside all payroll taxes that are designed for Social Security to be spent only on Social Security.'' We should preserve Social Security surpluses to reduce the debt. And that debt reduction will better prepare us for the challenges of Social Security and Medicare in the future. As then-Budget Committee chairman, Senator Pete Domenici explained in April 2000, when we were running surpluses: [T]here is less interest being paid because the Social Security trust fund money is not being spent; it is being saved, which means that we have that much less IOUs to the public . . . . Chairman Domenici continued: 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 . . . . In sum, we should, as President Bush said in a March 2001 radio address: keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus. Returning to a budget where the Government no longer uses Social Security trust fund surpluses to fund other Government spending will require a change in policy. While the fiscally responsible actions we took in the 1990s led to balancing the budget without using Social Security in 1999 and 2000, the Government returned, last year, to using the Social Security surplus to fund other Government activities. According to the Congressional Budget Office's ``Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals,'' over the next 10 years, the President's budget would use $1.8 trillion of the Social Security surplus to fund other Government spending. In the Congressional Budget Office's analysis, the Government would not return to a balanced budget without using Social Security during the decade for which they make projections. But the Government will not have Social Security surpluses to use forever. Starting in 2016, Social Security will start redeeming the bonds that it holds, and the non-Social Security budget will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social Security surpluses. The bottom line is that starting in 2016, the Government will have to show restraint in the non-Social Security budget so that we can pay the Social Security benefits that people have earned. That's why it doesn't make sense to enact either tax cuts or spending measures that would spend the non-Social Security surplus before we've addressed Social Security for the long run. Before we enter into new obligations, we need to make sure that we have the resources to meet the commitments we already have. To get the Government out of the business of using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government spending, we need to strengthen our budget process. At a minimum, we need to extend the caps on discretionary spending and the pay-as-you-go discipline that we began in 1990, and which expire in September of this year. The Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and I will offer an amendment to extend the spending caps during consideration of the budget resolution, and perhaps on other legislation, as well. But we need to do more. We need to improve the budget process so that it includes incentives to balance the budget without using Social Security. I am working with the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, on proposals to do that, and I expect that sometime this year we will offer an amendment to improve our budget process. We must address the long-term challenges posed by the needs of Social Security and Medicare. As an essential first step, we must revise the budget process to protect the Social Security Trust Fund. We must put our economic house in order, and I look forward to working with my Colleagues to do so. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Mexico to introduce the TRIO Education Access Act of 2002, which will improve access to higher education by ensuring that these programs are available to all those in need. While many students in my State benefit immensely from the TRIO programs, misguided regulations are preventing Wisconsin's two year colleges from receiving funds to begin more than one TRIO program for the entire State. Many students today dream of going to college, but the things that can put college out of reach for some students don't always get the attention that they deserve. Students who face these additional barriers to higher education need a helping hand, and thanks to the TRIO Program, more students are getting the help they need. The TRIO Program was so named because there were originally three programs, all of which had roots dating back to Lyndon Johnson's administration in the 1960s. Today TRIO consists of eight programs that offer vital advice and academic support to middle and high school students hoping to get into college, and it continues to offer that support to students after they enter college and begin working toward their diploma. Many Federal education programs have come and gone, but the TRIO programs have not only survived, they've thrived and expanded to aid more than 10 million Americans. In my home State of Wisconsin, many students at the University of Wisconsin's two-year colleges could reap tremendous benefits from the services the TRIO programs have to offer. But today, because of the way that TRIO grants are structured, UW's 13 two-year colleges can only be considered for TRIO grants collectively, instead of applying for grants to serve each campus. The Department of Education has ruled that the unique structure of the University of Wisconsin's two-year system, a centrally run system with 13 branch campuses, does not meet the criteria of having ``independent'' campuses. This decision deeply concerns me, as the Federal Government is simply penalizing UWs' two-year colleges simply because of their administrative structure. As a result of the Department of Education's decision, only one TRIO Program, the Student Support Services Program, is available to these two-year colleges. UW--Waukesha is home to a thriving Student Support Services Program, which offers students counseling and vital academic support and skills development. But UW's two-year colleges deserve to have access to all the TRIO Programs available to four-year institutions, such as Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Educational Opportunity Centers. In different ways, each of these programs has helped students break through difficult economic or physical circumstances to successfully enter and graduate from college. Students in the Upward Bound program are four times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO. Students in the TRIO Student Support Services program are more than twice as likely to remain in college than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in the program. By discriminating against the unique structure of the University of Wisconsin's two year colleges, the Department of Education hurts the very population the TRIO Programs aim to serve. That's why it's so important that the rules at the Department of Education be changed, so that Wisconsin's two-year colleges have the opportunity to apply individually for the TRIO grants they see fit. By clarifying the ``Different Campus'' and ``Different Population of Participants'' in the TRIO regulations, this legislation makes UW's two-year colleges eligible for all the programs TRIO has to offer. No definition or regulation should get in the way of qualified Wisconsin students gaining access to TRIO programs and the chance to earn a college degree. I have heard from many Wisconsinites who have shared their personal stories about how TRIO had made a difference in their lives. TRIO offers hope to millions of students across the country who dream of a college education, and students at the University of Wisconsin's two- year colleges should be no exception. Waukesha can be proud of the TRIO program that has served so many students at UW-Waukesha. Now it's time to give UW-Waukesha, and other two-year colleges around my State, an opportunity to open more TRIO programs, and open the doors of higher education to more Wisconsin students. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Daily Cardinal newspaper on its 110th year of independent publication. As a proud UW alumnus, I can attest to the Cardinal's tradition of public service and exceptional journalism. Since 1892, student journalists at The Cardinal have gained valuable reporting experience while covering some of the country's most important news, from the declaration of war in 1941 to the events of September 11. The Cardinal's achievements have been recognized by the Los Angeles Times and Associated Collegiate Press and the Society of Professional Journalists, who named The Cardinal's Election 2000 coverage the Nation's best. Their excellence is further evidenced by the accomplishments of outstanding alumni like CNN correspondent Jeff Greenfield and ESPN chief of correspondents Andy Katz. The Daily Cardinal is a source of pride for UW-Madison students past and present, and the State of Wisconsin. I commend The Cardinal for its accomplishments and look forward to celebrating its future success.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Mexico to introduce the TRIO Education Access Act of 2002, which will improve access to higher education by ensuring that these programs are available to all those in need. While many students in my State benefit immensely from the TRIO programs, misguided regulations are preventing Wisconsin's two year colleges from receiving funds to begin more than one TRIO program for the entire State. Many students today dream of going to college, but the things that can put college out of reach for some students don't always get the attention that they deserve. Students who face these additional barriers to higher education need a helping hand, and thanks to the TRIO Program, more students are getting the help they need. The TRIO Program was so named because there were originally three programs, all of which had roots dating back to Lyndon Johnson's administration in the 1960s. Today TRIO consists of eight programs that offer vital advice and academic support to middle and high school students hoping to get into college, and it continues to offer that support to students after they enter college and begin working toward their diploma. Many Federal education programs have come and gone, but the TRIO programs have not only survived, they've thrived and expanded to aid more than 10 million Americans. In my home State of Wisconsin, many students at the University of Wisconsin's two-year colleges could reap tremendous benefits from the services the TRIO programs have to offer. But today, because of the way that TRIO grants are structured, UW's 13 two-year colleges can only be considered for TRIO grants collectively, instead of applying for grants to serve each campus. The Department of Education has ruled that the unique structure of the University of Wisconsin's two-year system, a centrally run system with 13 branch campuses, does not meet the criteria of having ``independent'' campuses. This decision deeply concerns me, as the Federal Government is simply penalizing UWs' two-year colleges simply because of their administrative structure. As a result of the Department of Education's decision, only one TRIO Program, the Student Support Services Program, is available to these two-year colleges. UW--Waukesha is home to a thriving Student Support Services Program, which offers students counseling and vital academic support and skills development. But UW's two-year colleges deserve to have access to all the TRIO Programs available to four-year institutions, such as Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Educational Opportunity Centers. In different ways, each of these programs has helped students break through difficult economic or physical circumstances to successfully enter and graduate from college. Students in the Upward Bound program are four times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO. Students in the TRIO Student Support Services program are more than twice as likely to remain in college than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in the program. By discriminating against the unique structure of the University of Wisconsin's two year colleges, the Department of Education hurts the very population the TRIO Programs aim to serve. That's why it's so important that the rules at the Department of Education be changed, so that Wisconsin's two-year colleges have the opportunity to apply individually for the TRIO grants they see fit. By clarifying the ``Different Campus'' and ``Different Population of Participants'' in the TRIO regulations, this legislation makes UW's two-year colleges eligible for all the programs TRIO has to offer. No definition or regulation should get in the way of qualified Wisconsin students gaining access to TRIO programs and the chance to earn a college degree. I have heard from many Wisconsinites who have shared their personal stories about how TRIO had made a difference in their lives. TRIO offers hope to millions of students across the country who dream of a college education, and students at the University of Wisconsin's two- year colleges should be no exception. Waukesha can be proud of the TRIO program that has served so many students at UW-Waukesha. Now it's time to give UW-Waukesha, and other two-year colleges around my State, an opportunity to open more TRIO programs, and open the doors of higher education to more Wisconsin students. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper. This amendment would add a new section to the conclusion of the fuel economy provisions previously adopted by the Senate, which I supported, and which were offered by my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin. The new section would require the Secretary of Transportation to issue, within 15 months, regulations to reduce the amount of oil consumed in passenger cars and light trucks in 2015 by 1,000,000 barrels per day compared to consumption without such regulations in place. I understand and support the desire to reduce the use of oil in the transportation sector. Proponents of this amendment have argued that this amendment is flexible and would allow the Department of Transportation to take other actions, not necessarily through adjustments in the fuel economy program, to achieve oil savings. In floor debate on this amendment, however, proponents have failed to clearly identify any other means of achieving oil savings other than fuel economy standards. I think there is broad consensus that new fuel economy standards would be the principle tool to achieve oil savings. I have supported a new rulemaking on fuel economy with my vote in support of the Levin amendment. But the Senate has also passed an amendment on this bill, sponsored by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller, which I opposed. The Miller amendment weakens current law and exempt pickup trucks from any future increases in fuel economy standards. I feel that a new rulemaking on fuel economy should examine the possibility of fuel economy improvements in all motor vehicles, rather than exempt certain types of vehicles. I considered the Carper amendment in light of the amendments we have already passes. Had the Carper amendment been included as part of the original Levin amendment, I might have felt differently on this matter. But now that the Senate has already passed the Levin amendment and the Miller amendment, supporting the Carper amendment is no longer a sound policy decision. To include an oil savings requirement, while excluding a whole category of vehicles from making fuel economy improvements, would be a poor policy decision and inconsistent. Certain vehicles should not have to achieve greater fuel efficiency because we chose to exempt a particular category of vehicles. Fuel efficiency is a critically important issue for our country, and for Wisconsin. I am committed to achieving significant improvements in automobile and light truck fuel efficiency. I look forward to having many of those efficient vehicles built in Wisconsin. I will look forward to a bill in conference that strongly encourages the Department of Transportation to make those improvements.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I supported the amendment offered by the junior Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. I did so even though I support the underlying policy that amendment sought to strike from the bill, namely the alternative fuels vehicle tax credit. I regret, though, that this provision, along with many other tax provisions in the bill, were included without adequate offsetting savings. The result is a measure that will make our budget deficits even larger. We must return to the fiscally responsible budgeting that was so beneficial to the economy, and which brought our budget, however briefly, to balance, and even a slight surplus. If Congress does not pay for additional tax cuts, we will only make matters worse.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Florida. As we all know, our budget position has changed dramatically over the past year, and we are now facing projected deficits for years to come. If we are to climb out of the deficit hole, we absolutely must commit to a path of fiscal responsibility. That means a lot of things. First and foremost, it means paying for the spending and tax cut bills we pass. As it stands, we have not paid for this legislation. The tax package alone digs our deficit hole another $14 billion deeper. As we approach the retirement of the largest generation in history, the baby boomers, we face enormous fiscal challenges. Obviously, Social Security needs strengthening, Medicare must be modernized, and our long-term care system is in desperate need of reform. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and put us back on the path to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator may be aware that citizens' groups have petitioned the BLM to review several million additional acres for wilderness designation, but these lands are largely not protected from oil and gas development. The BLM's ``Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures'' manual requires the BLM review wilderness recommendations received from the public, and to make a determination as to whether there is a reasonable probability that the area in question may have wilderness characteristics. If the BLM determines that the area may have wilderness characteristics, and if actions are proposed that could degrade the wilderness values, the BLM ``should, as soon as practicable, initiate a new land use plan or plan amendment to address the wilderness values.'' Does the chairman agree that section 602 does not alter this policy, that the BLM must review wilderness proposals it receives from the public?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the chairman. Protecting Leases on the Outer Continental Shelf

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, energy policy is an important issue for America, and my Wisconsin constituents take it very seriously. The bill before us seeks to address the balance of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the tradeoffs between the need for energy and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and the need for additional domestic efforts to improve our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the importance of energy policy, an energy bill is a very serious matter, and I do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. Mr. President, in my view, this bill does not achieve the correct balance on several important issues, and I will oppose this bill. Though the bill as amended will revitalize the Federal Government's responsibility to regulate fuel economy, it weakens current law and exempts pickup trucks from any future increases in fuel economy standards. The amendment by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, on fuel economy which I supported requires the Department of Transportation to develop new fuel economy standards in 15 months for light trucks and 24 months for passenger cars. Taking pickup trucks off the table undermines a serious effort to re-think our fuel economy policy in a rulemaking context, and it is a direction I oppose. In addition, Mr. President, as introduced, this bill contained a renewable energy portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to generate or purchase 10 percent of the electricity that they sell from renewable sources by 2020. I supported an amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, to increase this percentage to 20 percent, but on the floor the Senate adopted amendments to water it down to 8 percent. Moreover, with the exemptions for some utilities added to the bill, the real effect will be about 4-5 percent new generation from renewable sources by 2010. We can and should do more to use renewable sources of energy, and this bill should have set a serious target. In addition, this bill repeals the pro-consumer Public Utility Holding Company Act, the Federal Government's most important mechanism to protect electricity consumers. The Senate failed to adopt the amendment by my colleague from Washington, Mrs. Cantwell, to strengthen consumer protections which I helped write and co-sponsored. The bill should have given the Federal Government more oversight over utility mergers and should have prevented utilities from passing on the costs of bad investments to consumers and from using affiliate companies from undercutting small businesses. Also the electricity provisions of the bill do not re-regulate trading of energy derivatives. This would have been addressed by an amendment offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which I supported, which would have fostered a more stable market with transparent transactions and helped to prevent another Enron. Finally, I am also concerned that we added $14 billion in tax breaks without paying for them on this bill. Our budget position has deteriorated significantly over the last year, in large part because of the massive tax cut that Congress enacted. We now face years of projected budget deficits. The only way we will climb out of this deficit hole is to return to some sense of fiscal responsibility, and first and foremost that means making sure that the bills we pass are offset. Without offsetting the cost of the tax package, we are digging our deficit hole even deeper and adding to the massive debt already facing our children and grandchildren. The American people deserved better with this bill, and I cannot vote in favor of it. This measure will need to improve in Conference to get my vote, and I look forward to an improved bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment 3234 offered by my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. I support and have been actively involved in the drafting of this amendment, which includes provisions from the sponsors of amendment 3097, Mr. Wellstone and Mr. Dayton, on mergers as well as provisions from the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. These amendments would improve on the bill by making clear the actions that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, must take in determining that proposed mergers in the electric power sector advance the public interest in order to secure Federal regulatory approval. Those of us who have worked on this package are deeply concerned about the effects of deregulation of the electric power sector. The underlying bill says that FERC would have to determine that mergers be ``consistent with'' the public interest, a more typical standard used by other agencies reviewing other mergers, like the Federal Trade Commission. My concern is that electricity is not just like other commodities. Electricity is essential to public well-being. When this bill is enacted and the Public Utility Holding Company Act is repealed, a strong incentive will exist for large utilities with the financial resources and the potential to exercise market power to get larger. Already, the electric utility industry is undergoing rapid consolidation. As my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, noted earlier in the debate on this bill, in the last past 3 years alone, there have been more than 30 major utility mergers and acquisitions, including several in my own home State and with utilities in Minnesota that serve Wisconsin. Many merchant generating companies have seen their stock prices plunge and credit ratings downgraded, and these companies are now prime buy-out targets. I acknowledge that utility mergers are not inherently bad and should not be prevented. Such mergers can produce efficiencies, economies of scale and cost savings for electrical consumers. A merger can, however, also reduce competition, increase costs, and frustrate effective regulatory oversight. In Wisconsin, we have been concerned about efforts to aggressively push electricity deregulation, because we are served in my state by a diverse number of local utilities: municipal utilities, electric cooperatives and investor-owned utilities. This diversity of electrical suppliers, about which my colleagues from Minnesota have eloquently spoken, are absolutely critical parts of our small rural communities. In many cases, Wisconsin's rural coops and rural municipal utilities are the only entities interested in serving the electrical needs of the rural parts of my State. If we deregulate, we shouldn't create an environment that leaves these communities behind. Federal electricity merger review policy should distinguish between those mergers that promote the public interest and protect our local sources of electrical power and those that don't. In proposing to amend the Federal Power Act to change FERC's merger review standard we are seeking to require merger applicants to show that the merger, which eliminates a competitor in a marketplace, provides affirmative benefits to the public that are not achievable without merger. Thus, the utility seeking the merger approval would need to show that the merger provides tangible public benefits by increasing competition or lowering prices through increased efficiency. The amendment would improve on the language in the underlying energy bill in several ways. First, the language requires that proposed mergers promote the public interest in order to secure Federal regulatory approval. Second, the amendment spells out specific standards for assessing the impact on the public interest, including effects on competition, operational and economic efficiency, and regulatory oversight. Finally, this amendment prevents utilities from skirting Federal review by using partnerships or other corporate forms to avoid classification as a ``merger.'' I want to address concerns that some of my colleagues may have about the scope of this amendment. This amendment does not impose new regulatory requirements on proposed utility mergers. Rather, the standards contained in the amendment mirror those contained in the Public Utility Holding Company Act, or PUHCA, which the bill before us would repeal. While the standards are comparable, the amendment provides greater flexibility than exists under PUHCA. PUHCA requires that utilities be physically integrated in order to merge; the amendment waives that requirement. PUHCA also prevents the merger of multi-State electric and gas utilities; the amendment waives that requirement while providing for FERC review of such mergers. I also want to speak in favor of language that my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and I developed on transactions between utility company affiliates. This amendment protects consumers from assuming the costs and risks of utility diversification into non-utility businesses and prevents utilities from subsidizing affiliate ventures and competing unfairly with independent businesses. The language that the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and I worked to include in this package does three things. First, it extends to electricity suppliers the requirements we placed upon telecommunications companies when we repealed PUHCA in the telecommunications sector in 1996 in the Telecommunications Act. Second, it requires utilities to disclose all transactions with affiliates, including those that are off the books or with overseas affiliates. Finally, it establishes safeguards regarding the purchase of goods and services between the utility and their affiliates. These provisions are needed, because we are already experiencing concerns about utilities expanding into electricity related services and out competing small businesses in my State. Small contractors can't compete against big utilities in areas like energy efficiency upgrades to private homes, when big utilities can use existing assets like personnel, equipment, and vehicles to perform those services. When PUHCA is repealed, utilities will be able to expand into other business areas, and we should make certain that we protect small businesses. This amendment is good public policy, and it will strengthen the Senate's position in conference with the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues concerned about ensuring a diversity of energy supply and fairness in a deregulated system to support this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, today marks the 87th anniversary of when the Ottoman Empire began a policy to isolate, exile and even eliminate the Armenian population. Today, we pause to remember and honor the victims of the Armenian genocide. Between 1915 and 1923 one-and-a-half-million Armenians were systematically murdered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire and hundreds of thousands more were forced to leave their homes. It has been nearly a century since this period of violence and annihilation began, and this anniversary serves as a reminder that this tragedy will not be forgotten. It must not be forgotten. Each year I commemorate this date on the Senate floor both to honor those who lost their lives and to remind the American people that the capacity for violence and hate is still prevalent in our world today. Recent history in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda tells us that systematic brutality and the attempts to extinguish a population because of their ethnicity are still all too real. And recent news reports detailing the re-emergence of anti-Semitism worldwide are an admonishment to us all that even lessons as searing and tragic as those taught by the Holocaust can be forgotten if we do not remain vigilant in our efforts to remember them. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I had the unique opportunity to visit the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR, in Arusha, Tanzania, earlier this year. There I saw firsthand the tremendous progress being made and groundbreaking legal precedents being set with regards to genocide being seen by the international community as a crime against humanity. The court for Rwanda and the court for the former Yugoslavia send a clear message to the world that such horrific acts cannot and will not go unpunished. Since I became a member of the U.S. Senate, I have strived to make the protection of basic human rights and accountability for such atrocities worldwide a cornerstone in American foreign policy. Today, we remember the Armenian men, women and children who lost their lives during that tragic time period in world history, as well as the other countless number of past and present victims of violence.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, to strike the ethanol mandate from the fuels title and to address comments that have been made in opposition to the fuels title contained in the Senate energy bill currently before us. I want to share my perspective on the fuels title as a Midwestern Senator who has had a cautious record on extending Federal subsidies for ethanol production. But I also come to the floor as a Senator who represents a State that is part of the only market for reformulated gasoline--or RFG--that sells entirely ethanol blends, the Chicago-Milwaukee market, and as a Senator who supports the Clean Air Act. We need to make certain that there are adequate supplies of ethanol so that when State bans on MTBE go into effect the short supplies of ethanol for Chicago and Milwaukee aren't stretched even further. It is appropriate that we ramp up that production over time, as the fuels title would do. Despite the speculation by opponents of this title about policy reasons for using ethanol in reformulated gasoline, we use solely ethanol blended RFG in Wisconsin because of consumer preference due to public health concerns. Unlike other jurisdictions that continue today to use reformulated gas containing the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, the citizens of the six non-attainment counties in Southeastern Wisconsin switched within the first month of the RFG program to ethanol blends. This consumer demand was overwhelming. The EPA Regional Office in Chicago and my office received thousands of calls from individuals in Southeastern Wisconsin during the first week of February 1995, when the reformulated gasoline program was first implemented nationwide. Phone calls to my offices were coming in at rates of dozens per hour, and several hundred constituents contacted me to share their experiences. Most callers said that reformulated gasoline containing MTBE was making them ill. The rest of the country now shares Wisconsin's concerns about MTBE's effect on health and the environment, and several States have acted to ban MTBE. These State bans on MTBE are having and will continue to have serious consequences for fuel markets, especially if the oxygenate requirements remain in place which they will unless this title passes. As ethanol is the second most used oxygenate, it is likely that it would be used to replace MTBE. But, quite simply, as even the proponents of this amendment acknowledge, there is not currently enough U.S. ethanol production capacity to meet the potential demand to replace the 3.8 billion gallons of MTBE used annually in reformulated fuel. The mandate in the energy bill seeks to create and guarantee a nationwide supply of ethanol to meet this new demand. The fuel provisions in the energy bill require a uniform phase-down of the use of MTBE as an additive to produce reformulated gas, remove the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gas, and put in place a nationwide renewable fuels standard--or RFS--that will phase-in gradually over a number of years. These provisions provide for a more orderly and cost-effective solution to the MTBE issue than State-by- State action. Because individual States are banning or are considering banning the use of MTBE, without the action in this title, the existing Federal oxygenate requirement for RFG will increase the cost of complying with these bans and lead to an inefficient pattern of fuel- type by State. In his floor statements, my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, read at length the cost increases that ethanol RFG use would have on several States. My constituents are well aware of the 5-cent estimate of cost increase due to the use of reformulated fuel containing ethanol cited by the Senator from New York and have already paid for that increase and much more. And what has caused that price increase is, quite simply, limited supply. Before the start of the second phase of the reformulated gas program in 2000, when the reformulated fuels were required to be cleaner, estimates of the increased cost to produce the blend stock for ethanol- blended RFG ranged from 2 to 4 cents per gallon, to as much as 5 to 8 cents per gallon. In summer 2000, RFG prices in Chicago and Milwaukee were considerably higher than RFG prices in other areas, ranging from 11 to 26 cents higher, in part due to the higher production cost of producing ethanol RFG just for this market. To decrease the potential for price spikes, on March 15, 2001, EPA changed its enforcement guidelines to allow for the blending of cleaner burning reformulated gasoline containing ethanol during the summer months. Nevertheless, we are continuing to see gas prices again increase in Wisconsin as the time for having summer reformulated fuels at the pump grows closer. We in Wisconsin see States that are banning MTBE as reaching for our small and limited supply of ethanol RFG. Congress must act to make certain that our supplies increase. Despite all indications that the energy bill fuels title will produce sufficient ethanol supplies to meet the needs of a State's banning MTBE and will not increase prices, the bill includes additional safeguards. Prior to 2004, the Department of Energy is to conduct a study to determine whether the bill is likely to significantly harm consumers in 2004. If the Department determines this to be the case, then the Environmental Protection Agency must reduce the volume of the renewable fuels mandate for 2004. Also, upon petition of a State or by EPA's own determination, and in consultation with DOE and USDA, EPA may waive the renewable fuels standard, in whole or in part, if it determines the standard would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United States, or if there is an inadequate domestic supply or distribution capacity to meet the requirement. In addition to the ethanol mandate, there are other provisions in the fuels title that would improve fungibility of RFG nationwide, by standardizing volatile organic compound--or VOC--reduction requirements. In practice, when combined with the energy bill's renewable fuels mandate, this would enable the part of Wisconsin that uses Federal RFG to draw on supplies of Federal RFG from other areas, such as St. Louis and Detroit, if necessary. The ability to rely on other sources of RFG is especially important when sudden supply shortages arise due to unexpected events, such as refinery fires or pipeline breakdowns, which we in Wisconsin have also experienced. The fuels language in the energy bill would help address this problem by bringing other areas that use Federal RFG in line with Wisconsin's blend by standardizing VOC reduction requirements nationwide. With State bans on the books and a continuation of the Federal RFG oxygen requirement, we face a serious ethanol shortfall. Consumers want and deserve affordable gasoline and clean air. We cannot let this bill go by and not do everything we can to achieve this goal. I urge my colleagues, even those who have concerns about ethanol, to think seriously about how we meet our obligations under the Clean Air Act without these provisions and to rethink efforts to strip this language from the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendments offered by my colleagues from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski and Mr. Stevens. I oppose these amendments for several reasons, and I rise to share my concerns with my colleagues. Energy security is an important issue for America, and one which my Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. The bill before us initiates a national debate about the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, about the tradeoffs between the need for energy and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and about the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency and the wisest use of our energy resources. The President joined that debate with the release of his national energy strategy earlier this Congress. The questions raised are serious, and differences in policy and approach are legitimate. I join with the other Senators today who are raising concerns about these amendments. Delegating authority to the President to opening the refuge to oil drilling does little to address serious energy issues that have been raised in the last few months. Though proponents of drilling in the refuge will say that it can be done by only opening up drilling on 2,000 acres of the refuge, that is simply not the case. The President will decide whether the entire 1\1/ 2\ million acres of the Coastal Plain of the refuge will be open for oil and gas leasing and exploration. Exploration and production wells can be drilled anywhere on the coastal plain. I infer that when proponents say that only 2,000 acres will be drilled, they are referring to the language in the amendment which states, and I am paraphrasing, ``the Secretary shall . . . ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage covered by production and support facilities, including airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the Coastal Plain.'' That limitation is not a clear cap on overall development. It does not cover seismic or other exploration activities, which have had significant effects on the Arctic environment to the west of the Coastal Plain. Seismic activities are conducted with convoys of bulldozers and ``thumper trucks'' over extensive areas of the tundra. Exploratory oil drilling involves large rigs and aircraft. The language does not cover the many miles of pipelines snaking above the tundra, just the locations where the vertical posts that support the pipelines literally touch the ground. In addition, this ``limitation'' does not require that the two thousand acres of production and support facilities be in one contiguous area. As with the oil fields to the west of the arctic refuge, development could and would be spread out over a very large area. Indeed, according to the United States Geological Survey, oil under the Coastal Plain is not concentrated in one large reservoir but is spread in numerous small deposits. To produce oil from this vast area, supporting infrastructure would stretch across the Coastal Plain. And even if this cap were a real development cap, what would this mean? Two thousand acres is a sizable development area. The development would be even more troubling as it is located in areas that are actually adjacent to the 8 million acres of wilderness that Congress has already designated in the arctic refuge which share a boundary with the Coastal Plain. The delegation of authority to open the refuge is controversial, and make no mistake, it will generate lengthy debate. I have also heard concerns from the constituents in my state who have paid dearly for large and significant jumps in gasoline prices. Invoking the ability to drill in response to a national emergency does not add to gasoline supplies today, nor does it do anything to address the immediate need of the Federal Government to respond to fluctuations in gas prices and help expand refining capacity. In some instances, there were reports of prices between $3 to as high as $8 per gallon in Wisconsin on September 11 and 12, 2001. The Department of Energy immediately assured me that energy supplies were adequate following the terrorist attacks, and these increases are being investigated as possible price gouging by the Department of Energy and the State of Wisconsin. With adequate energy resources, constituents need assurances that these unjustified jumps can be monitored and controlled. And I, along with many other Senators, have constituents who are concerned about the environmental effects of this amendment, and what it says about our stewardship of lands of wilderness quality. I also oppose opening the refuge for what it will do to the Energy bill as a whole. This measure contains important provisions that we need to enact into law. In light of the tragic events of September 11, a key element of any new energy security policy should be to secure our existing energy system--from production to distribution--from the threat of future terrorist attack. Americans deserve to know that the Senate has protected the existing North Slope oil rigs and pipelines from attack. Americans deserve to know that the Senate has considered measures to reduce the vulnerability of above ground electric transmission and distribution by providing needed investments in siting of below ground direct current cables, in researching better transmission technologies, and in protecting transformers and switching stations. Americans want us to review thoroughly the security of our Nation's domestic nuclear powerplant safety regimes to ensure that they continue to operate well. Finally, Americans living downstream from hydroelectric dams want to know that they are safe from terrorist initiated dam breaching. We must assure them that this existing infrastructure is secure. These were issues that the House did not address on August 2, 2001, when it passed its bill, because the terrorist attacks of September 11, were obviously unthinkable at that time. These are issues that drilling in the refuge does not address. But we are a changed country in response to September 11, and these are very real issues today, issues that must be addressed. In addition, there have been significant technological changes in the last few months that can help us reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. On September 19, 2001, a model year 2002 General Motors Yukon that can run on either a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent conventional gasoline or conventional gasoline alone rolled off the line in my hometown of Janesville, WI. The 2002 model year Tahoes, Suburbans and Denalis with 5.3 liter engines will be able to run on either fuel. But while my constituents could buy a vehicle that can run on a higher percentage of ethanol fuel, there isn't a place open today to buy that fuel in Wisconsin. We could go a long way under this bill to reducing dependence on foreign oil by using domestic energy crops and biomass more wisely, and we should pass this bill to reflect our new technological capacity. I also oppose this amendment because there is a lingering veil of concern that special corporate interests would benefit over our citizens by this amendment. Oil companies receive a good deal of financial assistance in the form of tax breaks from the Federal Government to encourage development of domestic oil supplies. I have spoken out, for example, against the percentage depletion allowance in the mining of hardrock minerals, and its use in the oil sector dwarfs the hardrock tax break. This longstanding tax break allows those in the oil business to, in effect, write off all of their losses. The ostensible reason for the depletion allowance is to encourage exploration of oil drilling sites, which, presumably, no one would do without such a tax break. The oil industry argues that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing. But this tax break goes well beyond the costs of deducting capital equipment. For example, a garment manufacturer can only deduct the original cost of a sewing machine, whereas an oil well can produce tax deductions as long as it keeps producing oil. So this deduction can amount to many times the cost of the original drilling and exploration. The depletion allowance is currently set at 15 percent of gross income. The current cost to the U.S. Treasury for the depletion allowance exceeds $1 billion a year. This deduction can, in some cases, amount to 100 percent of the company's net income, which means that all profitability comes from Government tax subsidies. But just in case there is anyone in the oil industry not enjoying sufficient profitability, Congress has come up with a number of other cushions against the risks of capitalism. Big Oil can immediately deduct 70 percent of the costs of setting up an operation of the so- called intangible drilling cost deduction. Other industries have to deduct such costs over the life of the operation, so this amounts to another interest-free loan from the Treasury. It also amounts to a double deduction, since the depletion allowance is supposed to compensate the poor oil producer for the costs of risking a dry well. Repealing this deduction would save more than $2.5 billion over the next 5 years. Another tax subsidy encourages oil companies to go after oil reserves that are more difficult than usual to extract, such as those that have already been mostly depleted, or that contain especially viscous crude. This, of course, is more expensive than normal oil drilling. Thus the ``enhanced oil recovery'' credit helps to subsidize those extra costs. The net effect of this is that we taxpayers are paying for domestic oil that costs almost twice as much as foreign supplies. The combined effect of the depletion allowance, the intangible drilling cost deduction, the enhanced oil recovery credit, and other subsidies can sometimes exceed 100 percent of the value of the energy produced by the subsidized oil. This makes no economic sense at all. I make these points because the taxpayers already give the oil sector a great deal of assistance, and now we are being asked to give up additional public lands as well. Before we allow the President to open more public lands, I think we should be mindful of the help these industries are already getting. I also am concerned about the effect of a decision to open the refuge to oil drilling on resources that we have already designated for special protection. The 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains 8 million acres of wilderness that Congress has already designated. The amendment proposes to essentially trade wilderness designation for other areas in the refuge, 1.5 million acres in the southern portion of the refuge for the 1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain. The existing wilderness areas in the refuge, however, are immediately adjacent to the Coastal Plain. I am concerned that the President would permit drilling on the Coastal Plain of the refuge before Congress considers whether or not the Coastal Plain should be designated as wilderness. Establishment of drilling on the Coastal Plain would be allowing a use that is generally considered to be incompatible with areas designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. We have had very little discussion about the effect of drilling in the refuge on the wilderness areas that we have already designated. I want colleagues to be aware that the drilling question threatens not only our ability to make future wilderness designations in the Coastal Plain but also could endanger areas that we have already designated as wilderness in the public trust. Colleagues should keep in mind that the criteria established in this amendment that the President must certify in his determination to open of the Coastal Plain as a source of oil do not include any new developments or changes in the geological information or economics that affect potential development of Arctic resources. The United States Geological Survey has already reconsidered those factors in its 1998 reassessment of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain's oil potential. Rather, the current discussion, in my view, is prompted by the rhetoric and opportunistic efforts of those interests that have long advocated drilling in the Arctic Refuge, to exploit the current response with regard to terrorism. If drilling may impair our ability to make a decision about the present and future wilderness qualities of the refuge, if the refuge does not contain as much oil as we thought, and if opening the Coastal Plain to drilling may do little to affect our current domestic prices, why, then, are we considering doing this? The facts don't point toward drilling in the refuge: the refuge may not contain as much oil as we think, and opening the Coastal Plain to drilling may have only a minor effect on our current domestic prices. I raise these issues because I have grave concerns about the arguments that oil drilling and environmental protection are compatible. I traveled, a while ago, through the Niger Delta region of Nigeria by boat, where I observed firsthand the environmental devastation caused by the oil industry. The terrible stillness of an environment that should be teeming with life made a very powerful impression on me. These are the same multinational companies that have access to the same kinds of technologies, and though they are operating in a vastly different regulatory regime, I was profoundly struck by the environmental legacy of oil development in another ecologically rich coastal area. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment. I appreciate the fundamental concern that we need to develop a new energy strategy for this country. I do disagree strongly, however, with drilling in this location, which I feel is deserving of wilderness designation. I think this bill achieves its objectives without damaging the refuge, and I encourage colleagues to oppose these amendments. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to talk about another significant milestone in our Nation's debate on the death penalty. Last week, our Nation witnessed the 100th innocent person to be freed from death row in the modern death penalty era--that is, since the Supreme Court found the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972. Number 100 is Ray Krone. Krone spent 10 years in the Arizona prisons for a murder he did not commit. Yesterday, our Nation reached another milestone. The Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment released its report on the Illinois death penalty system. This report details problems with the administration of the death penalty in Illinois and makes dozens of recommendations for reform. This is actually the first comprehensive analysis of a death penalty system undertaken by a Federal or State government in the modern death penalty era. Governor George Ryan of Illinois first made history 2 years ago when he was the first Governor in the Nation to step forward and place a moratorium on executions. He recognized that the death penalty system is plagued with errors and the risk of executing the innocent. Governor Ryan, who had supported the death penalty as a State legislator, realized that the death penalty system was so broken that justice could no longer be assured. Since reinstatement of capital punishment in Illinois in 1977, Illinois had put 12 people to death. But during this same period, 13 people were exonerated and removed from death row. What led to this alarming ratio of 13 exonerations to 12 executions? It was a number of problems--from incompetent counsel, to convictions based on unreliable testimony of jailhouse informants, to mistaken eyewitness testimony, and, in some cases, police misconduct. As Governor Ryan said when he suspended executions: I cannot support a system, which . . . has proven to be so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the State's taking of innocent life. But we know that it is not just Illinois that has come so close to this ultimate nightmare. One hundred innocent people nationwide have been released from death row. Thirteen are in Illinois, but the remaining 87 innocent individuals were convicted and sent to death row by justice systems in States such as Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, and Texas. Governor Ryan did the right thing. Before signing off on another execution warrant, he wanted to be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or women would face a lethal injection. But as he suspended executions, he also created an independent commission to review the death penalty in Illinois. This 14-member, blue ribbon commission includes our former colleague, and dear friend Senator Paul Simon; Judge Frank McGarr; Thomas Sullivan, a former U.S. Attorney; and Bill Martin, a former Cook County prosecutor. Judge William Webster, who has served our Nation with distinction as the former Director of the CIA and the FBI, was a special advisor to the commission. Two years after its creation, I am pleased to report that the Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment has completed its work. Both death penalty supporters and opponents came together to review the problems in Illinois and have made numerous recommendations for reform. The people of Illinois will not determine how to respond to the commission's recommendations. I want to commend Governor Ryan for his leadership and the members of the commission for their dedication throughout this long process. Their work is a credit to Illinois and is a model for the Nation. While Illinois is the only State that has suspended executions, it is not the only State whose death penalty system is fraught with error. In fact, according to a Columbia University study, the overall rate of serious error in the Illinois death penalty system is 2 percent lower than the national average, which is 68 percent. In other words, from 1973 to 1995, over two-thirds of death penalty convictions nationwide were reversed on appeal based on serious, reversible error. That is not just every once in a while. The experts found that almost 7 out of 10 death penalty verdicts will be reversed on appeal, and not for technical reasons, but for substantive, serious reasons. In the vast majority of these cases reversed on appeal, defendants were found to deserve a sentence less than death when the errors were cured on retrial. And 7 percent were found to be innocent of the crime altogether. These data show that the same kinds of grave errors that Governor Ryan saw in Illinois exist in death penalty systems across the United States. Incompetent counsel, flimsy or unreliable evidence, and sometimes even prosecutorial or police misconduct--all of these have led to convicting the innocent or, at a minimum, unfair proceedings. We also know that whether you live or die sometimes depends on the color of your skin or where you live. For example, according to a study that reviewed capital prosecutions in Philadelphia from 1983 to 1993, Black defendants were nearly four times as likely to receive a death sentence than non-Black defendants who had committed similar murders. These errors and bias in the system are simply wrong and unjust. Fortunately, it is not just Governor Ryan and I who are saying there is something terribly amiss. A growing chorus of Americans have come forward to say the death penalty system is fraught with error. One of those Americans is Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Last summer, Justice O'Connor expressed her concern about the risk of executing the innocent. She said: Unfortunately, as the rate of executions has increased, problems in the way [in] which the death penalty has been administered have become more apparent. She also said: Perhaps most alarming among these is the fact that if statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed. Madam President, I call on Congress to heed Justice O'Connor's warning and follow the example of the State of Illinois. My bill--a bill that I am working with the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine on--is the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, and it applies the Illinois model to the rest of the Nation. My bill would suspend Federal executions and urge the States to do the same, while a National Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the death penalty systems at the State and Federal levels. The national commission would study whether the administration of the death penalty is consistent with constitutional principles of fairness, justice, equality, and due process. So, Madam President, I again commend Governor Ryan and the people of Illinois for their leadership. I recently had the chance to speak to a gathering of pro-moratorium supporters in Illinois, the ``Land of Lincoln.'' I told them that I believe they are carrying the mantle of Lincoln. They have given their full devotion to Lincoln's call for freedom and justice throughout the land. In fact, some might say that the struggle for fairness in our Nation's criminal justice system today is, in some ways, an unfinished chapter of the struggle for freedom from slavery earlier in our Nation's history. Madam President, we should follow the lead of our fellow Americans in the ``Land of Lincoln.'' Let us continue their effort with a nationwide moratorium and a reexamination of the administration of the death penalty. To continue the status quo and risk the execution of another innocent person is truly unjust and just unconscionable. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. At this point, I yield the floor because I am pleased to see my colleague and tremendous ally in this issue, Senator Corzine.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this Monday, Mr. Ray Krone walked out of an Arizona state prison a free man. In doing so, he became the 100th innocent person to be released from death row in the modern death penalty--era that is, since the Supreme Court found the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972. At about 5 pm on Monday, Krone ``traded his orange prison jumpsuit for blue jeans and a T-shirt,'' then walked away from a prison in Yuma, AZ, according to the Arizona Republic. Krone had spent the last 10 years of his life in prison for a crime it is now almost certain he did not commit. In 1992, Krone was sentenced to death for the gruesome sexual assault and murder of Kim Acona, a cocktail waitress at a Phoenix lounge. After his conviction was overturned on a technicality, Krone received a re- trial but was convicted again in 1996 and, this time, sentenced to life in prison. The key to his release was DNA testing that pointed not to Krone, but to Kenneth Phillips. It just so happens that Phillips is serving time in another Arizona prison for an unrelated sex crime. Prosecutors are now deciding whether to charge Phillips. ``There's tears in my eyes,'' Krone said upon his release. ``Your heart's beating. You can't hardly talk.'' At a press conference announcing that the prosecutor and Phoenix Police Chief would seek Krone's release, the prosecutor said, ``[Krone] deserves an apology from us, that's for sure.'' He continued, ``A mistake was made here. . . . what do you say to him? An injustice was done and we will try to do better. And we're sorry.'' But, there is more that the American people can say to Krone. We can do more than just talk or apologize. An apology is the first step. But we can also act. We can act to ensure that not another innocent person faces execution. We can do so by conducting a thorough review of the death penalty system. And while this review is taking place, we can and should suspend executions. Congress has the opportunity to do just that. We can act by passing my bill, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. Together we can say enough is enough. Together we can say that one mistake too many has been made. Together we can say let us pause and have an independent, top-to-bottom review of the administration of the ultimate punishment our society can exact, the death penalty. This review should include the death penalty systems of Arizona and all states that authorize the use of the death penalty, as well as the use of the death penalty by our Federal Government. An innocent man, who at one time faced certain death at the hands of his government, today walks free. If we can call that luck, how many others in Mr. Krone's shoes have not been and will not be so lucky? How many innocent Americans today sit in their prison cells wrongly accused, counting down the days until there are no more? There have now been 100 exonerations and 766 executions since the early 1970s. In other words, for every seven to eight death row inmates executed by the States or Federal government, one has been found innocent and released from death row. Now, this does not bode well for the fairness and effectiveness of a government program. Some have said that exonerations are proof that the system is working. But how can they be proof that the system is working when, in at least some cases, it is not the lawyers or judges, but newspaper reporters and college students--people clearly outside the justice system--who have done the work of uncovering evidence of innocence? That is not proof the system is working. Quite the opposite. When the justice system must rely on outside actors, it is further, disturbing evidence that the system is broken. I also fear that 100 exonerations is probably a conservative estimate. How many innocent people were not freed before being executed? How many mistakes did we miss? How many times were we too late to correct mistakes? I don't think anyone really has an answer to these questions. And that is precisely why we should have a pause and review. Before sending yet another person to the execution chamber, we should be sure that the system is fair, just and error-free. The risk of errors is troubling to an increasing number of Americans. From Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to Republican Illinois Governor George Ryan, to even Reverend Pat Robertson, a growing number of Americans are expressing grave concerns about the fairness of the administration of the death penalty. And it is not just a question of access to modern DNA testing. A number of factors have resulted in unfair or even wrongful convictions. Incompetent counsel. Too many times, sleeping lawyers, drunk lawyers, or lawyers who are later suspended or disbarred are the lawyers representing people facing the death penalty. Sometimes there is prosecutorial or police misconduct--like failing to share evidence that might be helpful to the defendant's case or coerced confessions. These problems also plague the administration of the death penalty. We have also seen that testimony from jailhouse informants produce a high risk of unreliable convictions. Now, Governor Ryan took a very important first step in 2000 when he had the courage to recognize these flaws, declared a moratorium on executions, and created a blue ribbon panel to review the fairness of the Illinois death penalty system. The results of the Illinois commission are set for release any day now. If we are prepared to admit, as Illinois has, that there may be flaws with the death penalty system, it is then really unconscionable that we should continue with executions without a thorough, nationwide review. Ray Krone's exoneration provides us all with another opportunity to take a moment and ask ourselves ``what if?'' What if we hadn't caught this mistake? What if an innocent man ate his final meal, took his last breath, said goodbye to his family and was put to death, alone, silenced by a failing system? The most important of these ``what ifs,'' however, is this: What if we don't ask ourselves these questions? What if we could have saved a life and we didn't? What if we acknowledged that the system is unfair, and yet we didn't do anything about it at all? One risk, one error, one mistake, is one too many. But 100 mistakes, proven mistakes, qualifies as a crisis. And a crisis calls for action. My distinguished colleague and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, has introduced the Innocence Protection Act. This bill would reduce the risk of executing the innocent by allowing for post- conviction DNA testing and establishing certain minimum competency standards for defense counsel. And I support this bill and hope the Senate acts on it without delay. But I submit that Congress can and must do more. For, if we recognize that the system is broken, that innocent people have been freed based on DNA testing, then it is only logical and right that we suspend executions while these reforms can be implemented and while all steps are taken to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the death penalty system. My bill would do just that. The National Death Penalty Moratorium Act would create a National Commission on the Death Penalty to review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the State and Federal levels. The bill would also suspend executions of Federal inmates and urges the States to do the same, while the commission does its work. I am pleased that Senators Levin, Wellstone, Corzine and Durbin have joined me as cosponsors of this important legislation. The expansion of the death penalty and increase in death penalty prosecutions during the last two decades have had literally life-or- death consequences. The people of Illinois have learned a serious lesson that the administration of the death penalty is plagued with errors. And as the events in Arizona just showed us, the people of Illinois are certainly not alone. But Illinois and Arizona account for only 19 of the 100 exonerations nationwide. The remaining 81 mistakes have occurred in other death penalty States. These 100 mistakes tell us, loudly and clearly, that it is past time for our Nation to have a thoughtful debate on capital punishment. A commission, and pause in executions while the Commission does its work, is the only right and just response. And, so, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor the life of a dear friend of mine, Lawrence Longley. Larry passed away at the end of last month after a long battle with cancer. Larry was a professor at Lawrence University in Appleton, WI, for 37 years. He taught in the University's government program and quickly gained the respect and admiration of his colleagues, the administration, and his students. In addition to his work at Lawrence, he served as a visiting scholar at Northwestern University and as a guest lecturer in politics at Imperial College in London. Additionally, he taught in the Washington Semester Program of American University. A strong influence in the political process and government, Larry's writings were widely published and read by students and scholars alike. He was the author or co-author of more than 100 books, including ``The People's President'' and ``The Electoral College Primer 2000.'' Larry was a strong critic of the electoral college. The fictional opening chapter his ``The Electoral College Primer 2000,'' written in 1999, told the story of a Presidential election crisis not unlike the real one that transpired during the 2000 elections. His sphere of influence was not limited to academia. Larry was an active member of the Democratic Party. He was part of the Democratic National Committee and served on the Executive Committee in 1996-1997. He was among the 538 electors in the Electoral College in 1988 and 1992. At the local and State levels, Larry headed many area campaigns for nationally elected officials. His expertise on the electoral college and its process made him an invaluable consultant to this body's Judiciary Committee throughout the 1970s and 1990s. Often called to testify before U.S. Senate hearings, his research and findings on the electoral college contributed a great deal to public debates on this important issue. His legacy will be long remembered in the halls surrounding this chamber as well as across the country. Larry was a true friend and one of my best supporters. He was an intelligent observer of and an active and loyal participant in our democracy. He will be remembered for his honesty, his diligence, and his kindness. We will dearly miss him.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, our victory Thursday on campaign finance reform was a tremendous victory for the American people, and it wouldn't have been possible without the tremendous support of grassroots organizations whose members and staff worked tirelessly to help us pass this bill. I mentioned a few of those organizations on the floor yesterday, but I wanted to take this opportunity today to single out four other groups who made invaluable contributions to our effort as part of the Americans For Reform coalition. The Sierra Club, AARP, the League of Women Voters, and NETWORK, the Catholic social justice lobby, deserve special recognition for the work they did on this legislation. I would also like to thank John Weaver and Lanny Wiles for their assistance during this effort. In particular, I am grateful to the people of Wisconsin whose support for this issue has been strong and steadfast.