Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Uncle Sam Wants You!: Recruitment in the Federal Government.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Treasury Department has committed to provide almost $250 billion in financial assistance to banks and financial institutions as part of TARP, which has become more commonly known as the bank bailout. Based on 2007 figures, 40 percent of all small farm loans come from banks and financial institutions that received more than $1 billion each under TARP. Those loans represent a third of the monetary value of commercial farm credit in these types of loans. So it is clear that a sizable portion of farm loans have been provided by entities that received significant TARP funding. The Treasury Department's Making Home Affordable program that was detailed on March 4 requires TARP recipients that provide home loans to take steps to avoid unnecessary foreclosures. The idea behind the program is that institutions that benefit from taxpayer funds should, in turn, be required to help home owners as much as possible, by making foreclosure the last resort when loan modification is not a viable alternative. This plan does not apply to farm loans, even though most family farmers and ranchers reside on their farms, and their homes are commonly listed as security on their farm loans. So a foreclosure on a farm loan is also commonly a foreclosure on a home. Like many other businesses, farmers and ranchers are struggling due to the ongoing economic troubles. The prices they receive have dropped by as much as 50 percent since last year. At the same time, input prices for many farmers remain relatively high. This squeeze from both sides has impacted dairy farmers in Wisconsin and across the country especially hard but is a growing concern in other segments of agriculture as well. Even when national prices have held up, in some localized areas the closure of animal processing facilities has virtually eliminated the market for some farmers' production. These factors beyond their control have meant it is increasingly difficult for many farmers to keep up with their payments, including farm loans. Given that TARP has injected almost $250 billion to support the financial stability of lenders, it seems reasonable to expect them to offer restructuring as an alternative to foreclosure for farm loans-- just as they are required to do already for home loans and similar to the existing requirements for the farm credit system and direct Federal farm loans. While Senator Gillibrand and I believe our amendment to extend requirements to provide loan restructuring as an alternative to foreclosure for farm loans is a sensible approach, we are willing to review the issue further and work with Chairman Dodd on the issue. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to accept an alternative amendment we crafted to require a special report by the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel on farm loan restructuring. This report will analyze the current loan modification policies used by TARP recipients and examine the alternatives that could be used for a farm loan. Additionally, Chairman Dodd has agreed to work with Senator Gillibrand and me to pull together a meeting of USDA and Treasury officials to hear from farm groups and farmer advocates to explain the growing need and how the existing restructuring program works currently under USDA direct loans and the farm credit system.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I appreciate the chairman's support and assistance. I just want to note that this is an issue where instead of running from crisis to crisis, we have a chance to be a little proactive and get ahead of what could become a serious crisis in farm country if conditions do not improve. That is why there was such extensive support for my initial amendment from across the spectrum of agriculture- related organizations including the American Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America, Midwest Dairy Coalition, National Farmers Union, National Family Farm Coalition, National Milk Producers Federation, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Rural Advancement Foundation International--RAFI-USA--and almost 60 others. I will continue working to ensure that their concerns about farm loans are addressed. Amendment No. 1032, as Modified

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Armed Forces have come a long way in addressing the bureaucratic hurdles that have long plagued wounded service members transitioning out of the Services. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that wounded service members do not go without income, due to injuries sustained in the line of duty. Currently, many are going without compensation of any kind because they are never told about the patchwork of programs designed to care for them as they transition back to civilian life and into the VA. This has been an issue of particular concern for members of the Reserve Components. Therefore, Sen. Murkowski and I are introducing the Wounded Warrior Transition Assistance Act to help ensure that wounded reservists and members of the Guard are informed of the various programs to compensate them for their injuries before they separate from the military and to guarantee that there is no gap in income as they transition into the VA. This bill was inspired by a young soldier from Wisconsin who came to me for assistance when he returned from Iraq with serious wounds. He had been separated from the Army without going through the medical discharge process even though he had sustained a serious injury that impaired his ability to work. No one had informed him that he may have been entitled to medical retirement, temporary disability retirement, combat-related special compensation or incapacitation pay due to the extent of his injuries. After his separation, it took several months for the VA to review all of his claims and begin compensating him for his injuries during which time his family struggled to get by. Now, nearly a year since he first contacted me, the Army has recognized its mistake and plans to evaluate him for medical retirement or placement on the temporary disability retirement list. Unfortunately, this is a systemic issue. The Wisconsin National Guard has estimated that, in Wisconsin alone, there have been a dozen cases of wounded service members who were eligible for military compensation for their injuries who never received it and were instead sent home with nothing only to have to wait for the VA to process their claims. This has compromised their ability to focus on their recovery. Members of my staff have been told by several officials within the Defense Department that they continue to see members of the Reserve Components given disparate and unequal treatment with regard to the medical discharge process. This legislation is urgently needed to ensure that wounded service members receive counseling about these issues before discharge so that they can make an educated decision about their treatment. Congress must act to convey the importance of this issue and to set a floor for how the Department will handle wounded members of the Reserve Components. This bill would prohibit the discharge of wounded members of the Reserve Components until they have been evaluated for their eligibility for the various programs to assist wounded service members. The service member may elect to separate from the Armed Services after consulting with a JAG attorney. For those undergoing evaluation, the bill would ensure that they are returned to their home, if medically feasible, during the process. The Services currently have community-based wounded transition units established for this purpose. If someone was prematurely discharged and cannot work due to his or her injury, the bill would require the relevant Service to return him or her to active duty, if the service member chooses to do so. It would also ensure that the Reserve Components have access to Defense Health Program funds. These measures will help ensure that future service members will not face the gap in income that created such a hardship for my constituent and his family. It is the least we can do. In addition, this bill would ensure that wounded service members have trained advocates to help them navigate the entire medical discharge process. The fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act required the Defense Department to, among other things, provide service members with legal counsel during the physical disability evaluation process. In September 2008, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that only 5 of 35 Army treatment facilities had legal personnel dedicated to providing assistance during the disability evaluations process. In addition, GAO has reported that there are still insufficient JAG attorneys to provide comprehensive legal support early in the evaluation process. According to Army staff, if attorneys counseled service members earlier in the discharge process, starting with the medical evaluation board process, service members could have a better understanding of what steps to take to ensure that they receive any compensation to which they may be entitled. Early outreach could also help to make the disability evaluation process proceed faster and more efficiently. This bill would require the Armed Services to hire sufficient personnel to provide comprehensive legal support early in the evaluation process. At the same time, we should do everything possible to take advantage of veteran service officers who offer this counseling free of charge and at no cost to the federal government. Federal law requires commanders to make space available on base for chartered veteran service organizations that provide counseling to wounded service members. Therefore, I was extremely troubled to learn last year that several veteran service organizations that provide assistance to wounded service members, free of charge, including the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the National Veterans Legal Services Project, were all having trouble accessing U.S. bases for the purpose of providing counseling to wounded service members. This bill would reiterate that the Armed Services are required by law to provide the space needed for wounded service members to receive counseling from trained advocates, especially during this time of war when so many are returning with serious wounds. Furthermore, it requires the Services to broadly disseminate information on the existence of the Wounded Warrior Resource Center, which, among other things, provides legal referrals. This bill should not be costly. The Army has requested about 20 additional attorneys. The vast majority of the wounded service members will be medically discharged with retirement pay or other compensation and will not be in need of the assistance provided by this bill. Furthermore, the requirement that the Services retain wounded service members until they have been evaluated will sunset after five years, at which time it is my hope that the rate of deployments and subsequent injuries will be vastly lower. Nonetheless, I have provided an ample offset to cover the costs of the bill. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Defense Department recovered over $600 million in overpayments to contractors over the last 4 years. The Department identified but did not recover an additional $273 million. The funds needed to provide for these wounded service members during the evaluation process would come from the recoupment of these overpayments. The National Guard Bureau has informed me that this legislation would go a long way to closing one of the remaining gaps in care for those transitioning from the Armed Forces to the VA. I am pleased that the legislation has been endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the U.S. and the enlisted National Guard Association of the U.S.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert M. La Follette Sr. This weekend, people around my home State of Wisconsin, the U.S. and the world will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Progressive Magazine, which was founded by Bob La Follette and his wife Belle Case La Follette. The Progressive has been a powerful force for change and a leading advocate for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, clean Government, and many other priorities since its inception 100 years ago. Throughout his life, La Follette was known for his diligent service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the U.S. His dogged, full-steam-ahead approach to his life's work earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.'' Robert Marion La Follette, Sr., was born on June 14, 1855, in Primrose, a small town southwest of Madison in Dane County. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1879 and, after being admitted to the State bar, began his long career in public service as Dane County district attorney. La Follette was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1884, and he served three terms as a member of that body, where he was a member of the Ways and Means Committee. After losing his campaign for reelection in 1890, La Follette returned to Wisconsin and continued to serve the people of my State as a judge. Upon his exit from Washington DC, a reporter wrote, La Follette ``is popular at home, popular with his colleagues, and popular in the House. He is so good a fellow that even his enemies like him.'' He was elected the 20th Governor of Wisconsin in 1900. He served in that office until 1906, when he stepped down in order to serve the people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate, where he remained until his death in 1925. A founder of the national progressive movement, La Follette championed progressive causes as governor of Wisconsin and in the U.S. Congress. As governor, he advanced an agenda that included the country's first workers compensation system, direct election of U.S. Senators, and railroad rate and tax reforms. Collectively, these reforms would become known as the ``Wisconsin Idea.'' As governor, La Follette also supported cooperation between the State and the University of Wisconsin. His terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate were spent fighting for women's rights, working to limit the power of monopolies, and opposing pork barrel legislation. La Follette also advocated electoral reforms, and he brought his support for the direct election of U.S. Senators to this body. His efforts were brought to fruition with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Fighting Bob also worked tirelessly to hold the Government accountable, and was a key figure in exposing the Teapot Dome Scandal. La Follette earned the respect of such notable Americans as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Harriet Tubman Upton for making civil rights one of his trademark issues. At a speech before the 1886 graduating class of Howard University, La Follette said, ``We are one people, one by truth, one almost by blood. Our lives run side by side, our ashes rest in the same soil. [Seize] the waiting world of opportunity. Separatism is snobbish stupidity, it is supreme folly, to talk of non-contact, or exclusion!'' La Follette ran for President three times, twice as a Republican and once on the Progressive ticket. In 1924, as the Progressive candidate for president, La Follette garnered approximately 17 percent of the popular vote and carried the State of Wisconsin. La Follette's years of public service were not without controversy. In 1917, he filibustered a bill to allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships in response to a series of German submarine attacks. His filibuster was successful in blocking passage of this bill in the closing hours of the 64th Congress. Soon after, La Follette was one of only 6 Senators who voted against U.S. entry into World War I. Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 6, 1917. If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing through this chamber as he said: ``Mr. President, our government, above all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters pertaining to their government, in war not less than in peace, for in this government, the people are the rulers in war no less than in peace.'' Of the expulsion petition filed against him, La Follette said: I am aware, Mr. President, that in pursuance of this general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation, requests from various individuals and certain organizations have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this body, and that such requests have been referred to and considered by one of the Committees of the Senate. If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold the same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of the mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the breadth of a hair from the course I mark out for myself, guided by such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and directed by a solemn conviction of right and duty. This powerful speech led to a Senate investigation of whether La Follette's conduct constituted treason. In 1919, following the end of World War I, the Senate dropped its investigation and reimbursed La Follette for the legal fees he incurred as a result of the expulsion petition and corresponding investigation. This incident is indicative of Fighting Bob's commitment to his ideals and of his tenacious spirit. La Follette died on June 18, 1925, in Washington, DC, while serving Wisconsin in this body. His daughter noted, ``His passing was mysteriously peaceful for one who had stood so long on the battle line.'' Mourners visited the Wisconsin Capitol to view his body, and paid respects in a crowd nearing 50,000 people. La Follette's son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate after his father's death and served in this body for more than 20 years, following the progressive path blazed by his father. La Follette has been honored a number of times for his unwavering commitment to his ideals and for his service to the people of Wisconsin and of the United States. During the 109th Congress, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that named the post office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La Follette's honor. I commend Congresswomen Baldwin for her efforts to pass that bill and I am pleased she is introducing House companion measures of the legislation I am introducing today in the Senate. The Library of Congress recognized La Follette in 1985 by naming the Congressional Research Service reading room in the Madison Building in honor of both Fighting Bob and his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., for their shared commitment to the development of a legislative research service to support the U.S. Congress. In his autobiography, Fighting Bob noted that, as governor of Wisconsin, he ``made it a . . . policy to bring all the reserves of knowledge and inspiration of the university more fully to the service of the people. . . . Many of the university staff are now in state service, and a bureau of investigation and research established as a legislative reference library . . . has proved of the greatest assistance to the legislature in furnishing the latest and best thought of the advanced students of government in this and other countries.'' He went on to call this service ``a model which the federal government and ultimately every state in the union will follow.'' Thus, the legislative reference service that La Follette created in Madison served as the basis for his work to create the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress. The La Follette Reading Room was dedicated on March 5, 1985, the 100th anniversary of Fighting Bob being sworn in for his first term as a Member of Congress. Across the magnificent Capitol in National Statuary Hall, Fighting Bob is forever immortalized in white marble, still proudly representing the state of Wisconsin. His statue resides in the Old House Chamber, now known as National Statuary Hall, among those of other notable figures who have made their marks in American history. One of the few seated statues is that of Fighting Bob. Though he is sitting, he is shown with one foot forward, and one hand on the arm of his chair, as if he is about to leap to his feet and begin a robust speech. When then-Senator John F. Kennedy's 5-member Special Committee on the Senate Reception Room chose La Follette as one of the ``Five Outstanding Senators'' whose portraits would hang outside of this chamber in the Senate reception room, he was described as being a ``ceaseless battler for the underprivileged'' and a ``courageous independent.'' Today, his painting still hangs just outside this chamber, where it bears witness to the proceedings of this body--and, perhaps, challenges his successors here to continue fighting for the social and government reforms he championed. To honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., during the week of the anniversary of the Progressive Magazine, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. I am introducing a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to commemorate Fighting Bob's life and legacy. The second bill that I am introducing today would authorize the President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The minting of a commemorative coin and the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal would be fitting tributes to the memory of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and to his deeply held beliefs and long record of service to his State and to his country. I hope that my colleagues will support these proposals. Let us never forget Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s character, his integrity, his deep commitment to Progressive causes, and his unwillingness to waver from doing what he thought was right. The Senate has known no greater champion of the common man and woman, no greater enemy of corruption and cronyism, than ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, and it is an honor to speak in the same chamber, and serve the same great State, as he did.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Armed Forces have come a long way in addressing the bureaucratic hurdles that have long plagued wounded service members transitioning out of the Services. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that wounded service members do not go without income, due to injuries sustained in the line of duty. Currently, many are going without compensation of any kind because they are never told about the patchwork of programs designed to care for them as they transition back to civilian life and into the VA. This has been an issue of particular concern for members of the Reserve Components. Therefore, Sen. Murkowski and I are introducing the Wounded Warrior Transition Assistance Act to help ensure that wounded reservists and members of the Guard are informed of the various programs to compensate them for their injuries before they separate from the military and to guarantee that there is no gap in income as they transition into the VA. This bill was inspired by a young soldier from Wisconsin who came to me for assistance when he returned from Iraq with serious wounds. He had been separated from the Army without going through the medical discharge process even though he had sustained a serious injury that impaired his ability to work. No one had informed him that he may have been entitled to medical retirement, temporary disability retirement, combat-related special compensation or incapacitation pay due to the extent of his injuries. After his separation, it took several months for the VA to review all of his claims and begin compensating him for his injuries during which time his family struggled to get by. Now, nearly a year since he first contacted me, the Army has recognized its mistake and plans to evaluate him for medical retirement or placement on the temporary disability retirement list. Unfortunately, this is a systemic issue. The Wisconsin National Guard has estimated that, in Wisconsin alone, there have been a dozen cases of wounded service members who were eligible for military compensation for their injuries who never received it and were instead sent home with nothing only to have to wait for the VA to process their claims. This has compromised their ability to focus on their recovery. Members of my staff have been told by several officials within the Defense Department that they continue to see members of the Reserve Components given disparate and unequal treatment with regard to the medical discharge process. This legislation is urgently needed to ensure that wounded service members receive counseling about these issues before discharge so that they can make an educated decision about their treatment. Congress must act to convey the importance of this issue and to set a floor for how the Department will handle wounded members of the Reserve Components. This bill would prohibit the discharge of wounded members of the Reserve Components until they have been evaluated for their eligibility for the various programs to assist wounded service members. The service member may elect to separate from the Armed Services after consulting with a JAG attorney. For those undergoing evaluation, the bill would ensure that they are returned to their home, if medically feasible, during the process. The Services currently have community-based wounded transition units established for this purpose. If someone was prematurely discharged and cannot work due to his or her injury, the bill would require the relevant Service to return him or her to active duty, if the service member chooses to do so. It would also ensure that the Reserve Components have access to Defense Health Program funds. These measures will help ensure that future service members will not face the gap in income that created such a hardship for my constituent and his family. It is the least we can do. In addition, this bill would ensure that wounded service members have trained advocates to help them navigate the entire medical discharge process. The fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act required the Defense Department to, among other things, provide service members with legal counsel during the physical disability evaluation process. In September 2008, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that only 5 of 35 Army treatment facilities had legal personnel dedicated to providing assistance during the disability evaluations process. In addition, GAO has reported that there are still insufficient JAG attorneys to provide comprehensive legal support early in the evaluation process. According to Army staff, if attorneys counseled service members earlier in the discharge process, starting with the medical evaluation board process, service members could have a better understanding of what steps to take to ensure that they receive any compensation to which they may be entitled. Early outreach could also help to make the disability evaluation process proceed faster and more efficiently. This bill would require the Armed Services to hire sufficient personnel to provide comprehensive legal support early in the evaluation process. At the same time, we should do everything possible to take advantage of veteran service officers who offer this counseling free of charge and at no cost to the federal government. Federal law requires commanders to make space available on base for chartered veteran service organizations that provide counseling to wounded service members. Therefore, I was extremely troubled to learn last year that several veteran service organizations that provide assistance to wounded service members, free of charge, including the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the National Veterans Legal Services Project, were all having trouble accessing U.S. bases for the purpose of providing counseling to wounded service members. This bill would reiterate that the Armed Services are required by law to provide the space needed for wounded service members to receive counseling from trained advocates, especially during this time of war when so many are returning with serious wounds. Furthermore, it requires the Services to broadly disseminate information on the existence of the Wounded Warrior Resource Center, which, among other things, provides legal referrals. This bill should not be costly. The Army has requested about 20 additional attorneys. The vast majority of the wounded service members will be medically discharged with retirement pay or other compensation and will not be in need of the assistance provided by this bill. Furthermore, the requirement that the Services retain wounded service members until they have been evaluated will sunset after five years, at which time it is my hope that the rate of deployments and subsequent injuries will be vastly lower. Nonetheless, I have provided an ample offset to cover the costs of the bill. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Defense Department recovered over $600 million in overpayments to contractors over the last 4 years. The Department identified but did not recover an additional $273 million. The funds needed to provide for these wounded service members during the evaluation process would come from the recoupment of these overpayments. The National Guard Bureau has informed me that this legislation would go a long way to closing one of the remaining gaps in care for those transitioning from the Armed Forces to the VA. I am pleased that the legislation has been endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the U.S. and the enlisted National Guard Association of the U.S.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert M. La Follette Sr. This weekend, people around my home State of Wisconsin, the U.S. and the world will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Progressive Magazine, which was founded by Bob La Follette and his wife Belle Case La Follette. The Progressive has been a powerful force for change and a leading advocate for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, clean Government, and many other priorities since its inception 100 years ago. Throughout his life, La Follette was known for his diligent service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the U.S. His dogged, full-steam-ahead approach to his life's work earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.'' Robert Marion La Follette, Sr., was born on June 14, 1855, in Primrose, a small town southwest of Madison in Dane County. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1879 and, after being admitted to the State bar, began his long career in public service as Dane County district attorney. La Follette was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1884, and he served three terms as a member of that body, where he was a member of the Ways and Means Committee. After losing his campaign for reelection in 1890, La Follette returned to Wisconsin and continued to serve the people of my State as a judge. Upon his exit from Washington DC, a reporter wrote, La Follette ``is popular at home, popular with his colleagues, and popular in the House. He is so good a fellow that even his enemies like him.'' He was elected the 20th Governor of Wisconsin in 1900. He served in that office until 1906, when he stepped down in order to serve the people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate, where he remained until his death in 1925. A founder of the national progressive movement, La Follette championed progressive causes as governor of Wisconsin and in the U.S. Congress. As governor, he advanced an agenda that included the country's first workers compensation system, direct election of U.S. Senators, and railroad rate and tax reforms. Collectively, these reforms would become known as the ``Wisconsin Idea.'' As governor, La Follette also supported cooperation between the State and the University of Wisconsin. His terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate were spent fighting for women's rights, working to limit the power of monopolies, and opposing pork barrel legislation. La Follette also advocated electoral reforms, and he brought his support for the direct election of U.S. Senators to this body. His efforts were brought to fruition with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Fighting Bob also worked tirelessly to hold the Government accountable, and was a key figure in exposing the Teapot Dome Scandal. La Follette earned the respect of such notable Americans as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Harriet Tubman Upton for making civil rights one of his trademark issues. At a speech before the 1886 graduating class of Howard University, La Follette said, ``We are one people, one by truth, one almost by blood. Our lives run side by side, our ashes rest in the same soil. [Seize] the waiting world of opportunity. Separatism is snobbish stupidity, it is supreme folly, to talk of non-contact, or exclusion!'' La Follette ran for President three times, twice as a Republican and once on the Progressive ticket. In 1924, as the Progressive candidate for president, La Follette garnered approximately 17 percent of the popular vote and carried the State of Wisconsin. La Follette's years of public service were not without controversy. In 1917, he filibustered a bill to allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships in response to a series of German submarine attacks. His filibuster was successful in blocking passage of this bill in the closing hours of the 64th Congress. Soon after, La Follette was one of only 6 Senators who voted against U.S. entry into World War I. Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 6, 1917. If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing through this chamber as he said: ``Mr. President, our government, above all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters pertaining to their government, in war not less than in peace, for in this government, the people are the rulers in war no less than in peace.'' Of the expulsion petition filed against him, La Follette said: I am aware, Mr. President, that in pursuance of this general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation, requests from various individuals and certain organizations have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this body, and that such requests have been referred to and considered by one of the Committees of the Senate. If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold the same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of the mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the breadth of a hair from the course I mark out for myself, guided by such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and directed by a solemn conviction of right and duty. This powerful speech led to a Senate investigation of whether La Follette's conduct constituted treason. In 1919, following the end of World War I, the Senate dropped its investigation and reimbursed La Follette for the legal fees he incurred as a result of the expulsion petition and corresponding investigation. This incident is indicative of Fighting Bob's commitment to his ideals and of his tenacious spirit. La Follette died on June 18, 1925, in Washington, DC, while serving Wisconsin in this body. His daughter noted, ``His passing was mysteriously peaceful for one who had stood so long on the battle line.'' Mourners visited the Wisconsin Capitol to view his body, and paid respects in a crowd nearing 50,000 people. La Follette's son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate after his father's death and served in this body for more than 20 years, following the progressive path blazed by his father. La Follette has been honored a number of times for his unwavering commitment to his ideals and for his service to the people of Wisconsin and of the United States. During the 109th Congress, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that named the post office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La Follette's honor. I commend Congresswomen Baldwin for her efforts to pass that bill and I am pleased she is introducing House companion measures of the legislation I am introducing today in the Senate. The Library of Congress recognized La Follette in 1985 by naming the Congressional Research Service reading room in the Madison Building in honor of both Fighting Bob and his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., for their shared commitment to the development of a legislative research service to support the U.S. Congress. In his autobiography, Fighting Bob noted that, as governor of Wisconsin, he ``made it a . . . policy to bring all the reserves of knowledge and inspiration of the university more fully to the service of the people. . . . Many of the university staff are now in state service, and a bureau of investigation and research established as a legislative reference library . . . has proved of the greatest assistance to the legislature in furnishing the latest and best thought of the advanced students of government in this and other countries.'' He went on to call this service ``a model which the federal government and ultimately every state in the union will follow.'' Thus, the legislative reference service that La Follette created in Madison served as the basis for his work to create the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress. The La Follette Reading Room was dedicated on March 5, 1985, the 100th anniversary of Fighting Bob being sworn in for his first term as a Member of Congress. Across the magnificent Capitol in National Statuary Hall, Fighting Bob is forever immortalized in white marble, still proudly representing the state of Wisconsin. His statue resides in the Old House Chamber, now known as National Statuary Hall, among those of other notable figures who have made their marks in American history. One of the few seated statues is that of Fighting Bob. Though he is sitting, he is shown with one foot forward, and one hand on the arm of his chair, as if he is about to leap to his feet and begin a robust speech. When then-Senator John F. Kennedy's 5-member Special Committee on the Senate Reception Room chose La Follette as one of the ``Five Outstanding Senators'' whose portraits would hang outside of this chamber in the Senate reception room, he was described as being a ``ceaseless battler for the underprivileged'' and a ``courageous independent.'' Today, his painting still hangs just outside this chamber, where it bears witness to the proceedings of this body--and, perhaps, challenges his successors here to continue fighting for the social and government reforms he championed. To honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., during the week of the anniversary of the Progressive Magazine, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. I am introducing a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to commemorate Fighting Bob's life and legacy. The second bill that I am introducing today would authorize the President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The minting of a commemorative coin and the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal would be fitting tributes to the memory of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and to his deeply held beliefs and long record of service to his State and to his country. I hope that my colleagues will support these proposals. Let us never forget Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s character, his integrity, his deep commitment to Progressive causes, and his unwillingness to waver from doing what he thought was right. The Senate has known no greater champion of the common man and woman, no greater enemy of corruption and cronyism, than ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, and it is an honor to speak in the same chamber, and serve the same great State, as he did.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will support this conference report, but I do so with great reluctance. Given the irresponsible and even reckless budget policies of the previous administration, our highest budget priority must be to get back onto a fiscally responsible budget path. This budget resolution does that. It may not go as far as I would like with respect to reducing annual budget deficits, but it is a significant improvement over what we have experienced during the past 8 years. Moreover, the budget resolution sets this path under the most challenging of conditions. The Bush administration's legacy is one not only of fiscal recklessness, but also of economic recession, crisis in the financial markets, and a housing market in collapse. Even without the cost of cleaning up a set of international security policies that undermined our national security and cost trillions of dollars, this budget has been the most demanding a President has had to write since the Great Depression. And by and large it addresses our national priorities in a responsible manner. However, there are some features of this resolution with which I take exception, most notably the use of reconciliation as a tool to expedite health care reform. The arguments over the use of reconciliation are familiar to this body. Sadly, a tool intended to streamline the painful process of deficit reduction has been used to clear a path for major policy changes that have, at best, only a passing relationship to reducing the budget deficit. This is not the first budget resolution to abuse the special budget procedures to ease the enactment of significant and potentially controversial policy changes. Perhaps the grossest misuse of reconciliation was to pass sweeping changes to the Tax Code in 2001 and 2003 that far from reducing the deficit actually exploded annual budget deficits and government debt. Indeed, we are still living with the downstream effects of those fiscally reckless measures that have left us less able to meet either the current economic crisis or our long-term fiscal challenges. I had hoped that with a new President in the White House and Democrats in control of both Chambers we could restore a respect for the proper use of budget procedures. But while the budget we pass today is a huge improvement over those submitted by the previous administration, both with respect to honest budgeting and the fiscal path it embraces, its misuse of reconciliation to advance policy priorities is regrettable. I opposed using reconciliation when it was abused by the other party to enact fiscally reckless tax cuts and when it was attempted to be used to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. I opposed it earlier in this debate as a way to expedite climate change legislation, and I oppose it now as a vehicle to fast-track health care reform. Congressional leadership indicate they may not need to use reconciliation to enact health care reform, that it will be used only as a last option to ensure Congress acts on that vitally important issue. That may be, and I certainly hope this body will pass a health care reform measure under regular procedures. Health care reform is long overdue, and I look forward to the Senate finally acting on an issue that is so important to my constituents. But let's not kid ourselves. It is no more appropriate to use reconciliation as a hammer to push through health care reform under regular procedures than it is to use it directly to enact those reforms. Both are abuses. Both undermine its original intent. Both invite even greater abuses in the future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. Just as its name suggests, the Arbitration Fairness Act is designed to return fairness to the arbitration system. This bill is not an anti-arbitration bill. If anything, it is pro- arbitration. I firmly believe that this bill will strengthen the arbitration system by returning arbitration to a more equitable design that reflects the intent of the original arbitration legislation, the Federal Arbitration Act. President Calvin Coolidge signed the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, into law on February 12, 1925. Congress passed the FAA to make arbitration an enforceable alternative to the civil courts. Even as early as the 1920's, there were concerns about the efficiency of the civil court system and a desire to allow a speedier alternative. The intent of the FAA, as expressed in a 1923 hearing before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was ``to enable business men to settle their disputes expeditiously and economically.'' In a later hearing on the FAA, it was clarified that the legislation was not intended to apply to the employment contracts of those businesses. This distinction is important because it illustrates that, while arbitration was something that the FAA's original sponsors wanted to promote, they were also careful to make clear that they didn't intend for arbitration to become a weapon to be wielded by the powerful against those with less financial and negotiating power. Since the FAA's enactment, the use of arbitration has grown exponentially. Arbitration certainly has advantages. It can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I strongly support voluntary, alternative dispute resolution methods, and I believe we ought to encourage their use. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise arbitration can be used as a weapon by the stronger party against the weaker party. One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in civil cases in Federal court is contained in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Many States provide a similar right to a jury trial in civil matters filed in state court. I have been concerned for many years that mandatory arbitration clauses are slowly eroding the legal protections that should be available to all Americans. A large and growing number of corporations now require millions of consumers and employees to sign contracts that include mandatory arbitration clauses. Most of these individuals have little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of their contracts and so find themselves having to choose either to accept a mandatory arbitration clause or to forgo securing employment or needed goods and services. Incredibly, mandatory arbitration clauses have been used to prevent individuals from trying to vindicate their civil rights under statutes specifically passed by Congress to protect them. There is a range of ways in which mandatory arbitration can be particularly hostile to individuals attempting to assert their rights. For example, the administrative fees--both to gain access to the arbitration forum and to pay for the ongoing services of the arbitrator or arbitrators--can be so high as to act as a de facto bar for many individuals who have a claim that requires resolution. In addition, arbitration generally lacks discovery proceedings and other civil due process protections. Furthermore, there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators' decisions. Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is fairly narrow: if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud, or was biased, corrupt, or guilty of misconduct, or exceeded his or her powers. Because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it is a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it. Unfortunately, in a variety of contexts--employment agreements, credit card agreements, HMO contracts, securities broker contracts, and other consumer and franchise agreements--mandatory arbitration is fast becoming the rule, rather than the exception. The practice of forcing employees to use arbitration has been on the rise since the Supreme Court's Circuit City decision in 2001. Unless Congress acts, the protections it has provided through law for American workers, investors, and consumers, will slowly become irrelevant. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009, which I am happy to say has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Hank Johnson, reinstates the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes be made after the dispute has arisen. The bill does not prohibit arbitration. What it does do is prevent a party with greater bargaining power from forcing individuals into arbitration through a contractual provision. It will ensure that citizens once again have a true choice between arbitration and the traditional civil court system. I should note that the bill includes two notable changes from versions that have been introduced in previous Congresses. First, the bill creates a new Chapter 4 of Title 9, separating the new provisions concerning arbitration of consumer, employment, franchise, and civil rights disputes from the Federal Arbitration Act. This should give some comfort to those who are concerned that the bill might have an unintended effect on business to business arbitration. Second, the bill reverses the Supreme Court's April 2009 decision in 14 Park Plaza v. Pyett. In that case, the Court held that arbitration provisions included in collective bargaining agreements can have the effect of preventing employees from pursuing employment discrimination claims in court. Unions have never believed this was the case. The decision once again expands the reach of arbitration, making less effective statutes specifically intended by Congress to protect workers. Therefore, the bill provides that it generally does not apply to arbitration provisions contained in collective bargaining agreements, except that such provisions may not waive employees' rights to take constitutional or statutory claims to court. In our system of Government, Congress and state legislatures pass laws and the courts are available to citizens to make sure those laws are enforced. But the rule of law means little if the only forum available to those who believe they have been wronged is an alternative, unaccountable system where the law passed by the legislature does not necessarily apply. This legislation both protects Americans from exploitation and strengthens a valuable alternative method of dispute resolution. These are both worthy ends, and I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in working to pass this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. Just as its name suggests, the Arbitration Fairness Act is designed to return fairness to the arbitration system. This bill is not an anti-arbitration bill. If anything, it is pro- arbitration. I firmly believe that this bill will strengthen the arbitration system by returning arbitration to a more equitable design that reflects the intent of the original arbitration legislation, the Federal Arbitration Act. President Calvin Coolidge signed the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, into law on February 12, 1925. Congress passed the FAA to make arbitration an enforceable alternative to the civil courts. Even as early as the 1920's, there were concerns about the efficiency of the civil court system and a desire to allow a speedier alternative. The intent of the FAA, as expressed in a 1923 hearing before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was ``to enable business men to settle their disputes expeditiously and economically.'' In a later hearing on the FAA, it was clarified that the legislation was not intended to apply to the employment contracts of those businesses. This distinction is important because it illustrates that, while arbitration was something that the FAA's original sponsors wanted to promote, they were also careful to make clear that they didn't intend for arbitration to become a weapon to be wielded by the powerful against those with less financial and negotiating power. Since the FAA's enactment, the use of arbitration has grown exponentially. Arbitration certainly has advantages. It can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I strongly support voluntary, alternative dispute resolution methods, and I believe we ought to encourage their use. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise arbitration can be used as a weapon by the stronger party against the weaker party. One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in civil cases in Federal court is contained in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Many States provide a similar right to a jury trial in civil matters filed in state court. I have been concerned for many years that mandatory arbitration clauses are slowly eroding the legal protections that should be available to all Americans. A large and growing number of corporations now require millions of consumers and employees to sign contracts that include mandatory arbitration clauses. Most of these individuals have little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of their contracts and so find themselves having to choose either to accept a mandatory arbitration clause or to forgo securing employment or needed goods and services. Incredibly, mandatory arbitration clauses have been used to prevent individuals from trying to vindicate their civil rights under statutes specifically passed by Congress to protect them. There is a range of ways in which mandatory arbitration can be particularly hostile to individuals attempting to assert their rights. For example, the administrative fees--both to gain access to the arbitration forum and to pay for the ongoing services of the arbitrator or arbitrators--can be so high as to act as a de facto bar for many individuals who have a claim that requires resolution. In addition, arbitration generally lacks discovery proceedings and other civil due process protections. Furthermore, there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators' decisions. Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is fairly narrow: if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud, or was biased, corrupt, or guilty of misconduct, or exceeded his or her powers. Because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it is a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it. Unfortunately, in a variety of contexts--employment agreements, credit card agreements, HMO contracts, securities broker contracts, and other consumer and franchise agreements--mandatory arbitration is fast becoming the rule, rather than the exception. The practice of forcing employees to use arbitration has been on the rise since the Supreme Court's Circuit City decision in 2001. Unless Congress acts, the protections it has provided through law for American workers, investors, and consumers, will slowly become irrelevant. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009, which I am happy to say has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Hank Johnson, reinstates the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes be made after the dispute has arisen. The bill does not prohibit arbitration. What it does do is prevent a party with greater bargaining power from forcing individuals into arbitration through a contractual provision. It will ensure that citizens once again have a true choice between arbitration and the traditional civil court system. I should note that the bill includes two notable changes from versions that have been introduced in previous Congresses. First, the bill creates a new Chapter 4 of Title 9, separating the new provisions concerning arbitration of consumer, employment, franchise, and civil rights disputes from the Federal Arbitration Act. This should give some comfort to those who are concerned that the bill might have an unintended effect on business to business arbitration. Second, the bill reverses the Supreme Court's April 2009 decision in 14 Park Plaza v. Pyett. In that case, the Court held that arbitration provisions included in collective bargaining agreements can have the effect of preventing employees from pursuing employment discrimination claims in court. Unions have never believed this was the case. The decision once again expands the reach of arbitration, making less effective statutes specifically intended by Congress to protect workers. Therefore, the bill provides that it generally does not apply to arbitration provisions contained in collective bargaining agreements, except that such provisions may not waive employees' rights to take constitutional or statutory claims to court. In our system of Government, Congress and state legislatures pass laws and the courts are available to citizens to make sure those laws are enforced. But the rule of law means little if the only forum available to those who believe they have been wronged is an alternative, unaccountable system where the law passed by the legislature does not necessarily apply. This legislation both protects Americans from exploitation and strengthens a valuable alternative method of dispute resolution. These are both worthy ends, and I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in working to pass this important bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was glad earlier this week to join Senator Leahy in passing a resolution commending Captain Richard Phillips for his brave conduct, and those members of our armed services, particularly members of the Navy and Navy SEAL teams, who rescued Captain Phillips. I also commend the leadership of the President and the efforts of many U.S. Government departments and agencies in their response to this crisis. These many acts of bravery and leadership are deeply inspiring, and we should recognize them. However, while the episode involving the Maersk Alabama was resolved, we are likely to see more such episodes if we do not take comprehensive measures to address not only piracy on the waters but also conditions on land that enable it. We cannot ignore the fact that piracy off the coast of Somalia is an outgrowth of the state collapse, lawlessness, and humanitarian crisis that have plagued the country for over a decade. In recent congressional testimony, both Director of National Intelligence Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army LTG Michael Maples cited lawlessness and economic problems on land as the cause of the rise in piracy at sea. Until we address those conditions, we will be relying on stopgap measures, at best, to deter this piracy problem and we are unlikely to succeed in reversing the growing violent extremism in Somalia. For years I have been calling for the development of a comprehensive, interagency strategy to help establish stability, the rule of law, and functional, inclusive governance in Somalia. This is the only sure and sustainable solution to address the problem of piracy--and the instability in Somalia--over the long term. Moreover, I am convinced that we have a unique window of opportunity for progress as a result of the Ethiopian troop withdrawal earlier this year and the establishment of a new unity Government relocated back to Mogadishu. This Government has the potential to unite Somalia if it demonstrates a genuine commitment to inclusion and begins to make a real difference in people's lives--in terms of security and basic services, such as protection, trash collection and job creation. Helping the Government to find tangible solutions to expand effective and inclusive governance must be a central part of our overall strategy to stabilize Somalia and address the threats of piracy and terrorism. To that end, I continue to urge the Obama administration, as it develops its response to piracy, to make it a priority to engage at a high level with the new Somali Government. I have written to President Obama, asking him to personally call Somali President Sheik Sharif and indicate a clear commitment to work with his Government not just on maritime insecurity but also on establishing security and governance within the country. We have been engaging with President Sharif at the ambassadorial level for quite some time now, and I met the President in Djibouti in December. In addition, there needs to be a stronger and more sustained diplomatic push to engage with a wide range of actors within Somalia and stakeholders in the wider region--both in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East--if we are going to address the underlying problems that have contributed to piracy and rising extremism. The events with the Maersk Alabama earlier this month have finally brought increased attention to the problem of piracy in Somalia's waters. But it will be insufficient if our response only deals with the symptoms and not Somalia's central problems. I urge my colleagues and the different committees who will examine this issue over the coming weeks and months to take this seriously. For if we do not finally deal with Somalia's lawlessness and instability, we will continue to see them manifest themselves in activities--be they acts of piracy or terrorism--that threaten U.S. and international security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I remember a good friend, a great Wisconsin progressive, Midge Miller, who recently passed away at age 86. Midge was famous for many things, including her vital work on Eugene McCarthy's Presidential campaign, her efforts to help found the National Women's Political Caucus and the Madison Institute, and her service on the Democratic National Committee, in addition to her many years of service representing the west side of Madison in the Wisconsin State Assembly. Above all, though, Midge was known for who she was rather than the many things she accomplished. She was, very simply, a force of nature. Midge was a dynamo who was always striving to do more and to get those around her to do the same. That was why she was loved by so many and why she will be so greatly missed. I was proud to serve with Midge in the State legislature, where she was a legendary figure. She was a true reformer, a role model, and a treasured colleague. When I arrived in the State Senate as a young legislator, Midge was always complimentary and supportive, which meant a great deal to me. At the same time, in true Midge fashion, she never failed to give me either additional work or a reading assignment. It was that determination to keep working for change, and to make sure that the rest of us were working for change alongside her, that truly made Midge one of a kind. Midge was an outstanding representative for the people she served. In the State assembly, she used the skills she had honed from her work on the McCarthy campaign, advancing women's rights, and as a leader in the Democratic Party, to great effect. She was a terrific ally, a formidable opponent, and an unfailing advocate for the people she represented. And, in the end, she didn't just represent the west side of Madison, she represented all who care about economic and social justice, and the countless other causes she championed. As I make this tribute to Midge, I am particularly proud of the way she represented what is best about our State's progressive tradition. She was absolutely committed to making democracy work for everyday people, people who deserve a decent wage, safe working conditions and good health care, and who deserve to be treated equally, no matter their gender, their religion, or the color of their skin. Her values were the progressive values that have helped to strengthen our State, and the Nation, for more than a century. Like so many Wisconsinites, my thoughts are with Midge's wonderful family, as people across the State and across the country mourn her loss. We are so fortunate that Midge devoted her tremendous energy, devotion and skill to bettering all of our lives. I am grateful to have known Midge Miller, and I am honored to pay tribute to her today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote for the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, S. 386. This bill improves enforcement and recovery mechanisms for mortgage, securities, financial institution and other frauds. In the context of today's global financial crisis, it is a very important piece of legislation, and I commend its authors. The current economic downturn has many causes. But certainly fraud-- in mortgage lending and in the mortgage-backed securities and derivatives markets--played a significant role. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 does a number of things to help deter and uncover fraud, and compensate its victims. First, it authorizes significant new resources for the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other agencies to investigate and prosecute these kinds of cases. In addition, the bill extends Federal fraud laws to the mortgage lending business, just as they apply to federally insured banks. Similarly, it makes sure that Federal prohibitions against false statements apply to statements made to influence mortgage lending decisions. Very importantly, because the taxpayers have now put extraordinary sums of money into propping up the financial sector, the bill makes clear that fraudulent activities in connection with the TARP program and the economic stimulus package can be prosecuted. The bill also reverses an erroneous Supreme Court interpretation of the Federal money laundering statute that was making it impossible to prosecute so- called Ponzi schemes. These simple and effective clarifications and expansions of current law will help protect the American people from these very damaging frauds. I also strongly support Section 4 of the bill, which amends the False Claims Act--FCA. The FCA provisions clarify liability for making false or fraudulent claims to the federal government. A few concerns have been raised about this part of the legislation, which I would like to briefly address here. One criticism is aimed at the bill's rejection of an ``intent'' requirement under the FCA. The Supreme Court recently held in the Allison Engine case that such a requirement exists. The bill simply returns the law to its original intent. The judicially manufactured requirement that the person making a false claim intend that the government itself pay the claim was giving subcontractors a way to avoid liability for fraud, which is inconsistent with the purpose of the act. Another criticism alleges that the addition of a ``materiality'' requirement to the FCA is potentially broad and unclear. But ``material'' is defined in the bill in a way that is consistent with Supreme Court and other judicial precedents, so this claim is unconvincing. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 is an important accomplishment. Those who perpetrate financial fraud, which is so harmful not only to the victims of the fraud but to the economy as a whole, must be discovered and prosecuted. This bill makes it easier to do that, so I am pleased to support it. vote explanation

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators Brownback and Durbin as an original cosponsor of the Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009. The purpose of this bill is to bring greater attention and transparency to the way in which the trade in three minerals--columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, or wolframite--is intertwined with the ongoing violence, displacement and human rights abuses in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The metals derived from these three minerals are used widely in the electronic products that we use daily, from cell phones to laptops to digital cameras. By working to ensure the raw materials used in those products are not benefiting armed groups, we can have a positive impact on ending armed conflict and human rights abuses in the Congo. Specifically, this bill charges the State Department to support the work of the United Nations Group of Experts to further investigate and provide companies with guidance on the links between natural resources and the financing of armed groups. It also charges the State Department with developing a strategy to help break these linkages, while helping governments in the region to establish the necessary frameworks and institutions to monitor and regulate the cross-border trade of these minerals. Then, this bill requires U.S.-registered companies selling products containing those three minerals to disclose the country of origin of those minerals and, if they come from Congo or neighboring countries, to give further information, including the mine of origin. This requirement will compel companies to take responsibility for their suppliers and thus bring greater transparency to the trade in these minerals, which may enable more targeted actions down the road. Finally, this bill encourages USAID to expand programs seeking to improve the conditions and livelihood prospects for communities affected by this violence in Congo. We must not forget that the long- term goal is not to shut this trade down, but to support a conflict- free mining economy that benefits the Congolese people. The United Nations Group of Experts has reported over the years that various illegal armed groups in eastern Congo profit greatly from the region's vast natural resources. In February 2008, the Group of Experts stated, ``individuals and entities buying mineral output from areas of the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo with a strong rebel presence are violating the sanctions regime when they do not exercise due diligence to ensure their mineral purchases do not provide assistance to illegal armed groups.'' They defined due diligence as determining the precise identify of the deposits from which the minerals have been mined, establishing whether or not these deposits are controlled and/or taxed by illegal armed groups, and refusing to buy minerals known to originate--or suspected to originate--from deposits controlled/taxed by these armed groups. In December 2008, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1857, broadening existing sanctions relating to Congo to include individuals or entities supporting the illegal armed groups through the illicit trade of natural resources. The resolution also encouraged member countries to ensure that companies handling minerals from Congo exercise due diligence with their suppliers. The U.S. has invested financial resources and diplomacy over recent years in trying to bring peace and stability to eastern Congo, and there have been some successes. However, our efforts have ultimately been hindered by a failure to directly address the underlying causes of conflict. A study by the Government Accountability Office released in 2007 found that U.S. efforts in Congo are undermined by weak governance and mismanagement of natural resources. The plunder and unregulated trade of eastern Congo's rich mineral base continues to make war a profitable enterprise. This legislation attempts to finally confront and address that problem. It commits the United States government and those companies under our jurisdiction to shed light on the dynamics of eastern Congo's mineral economy and to take actions to reduce its exploitation by armed groups. This can be an important step--perhaps even a transitional one--as we work with our regional partners to help them establish and implement better frameworks for regulation and oversight. Some may say the bill goes too far, while others may argue that this bill does not go far enough; that it has loopholes and lacks sufficient ``teeth.'' This bill is not perfect. However, we must realize the conflict mineral problem is a complex one. This legislation is just a first step to bring greater transparency to that problem, which will then enable more comprehensive, robust and targeted measures down the road. At the same time, we must tread carefully because there are many communities in eastern Congo whose livelihoods are intertwined with the mining economy. All-out prohibitions or blanket sanctions could be counterproductive and negatively affect the very people we seek to help. I am confident that this bill is sensitive to that complex reality. It tasks the Government Accountability Office, within two years, with assessing any problems resulting from the implementation of this Act, determining any adverse impacts on local Congolese communities, and making recommendations for improving its effectiveness. It also urges USAID to expand its programs to work with these communities and improve their livelihood prospects. I also realize that some others may argue that this bill goes too far; that it imposes impractical or onerous requirements on companies who end-use these minerals. Similar arguments were made in the early days of the Kimberley Process. I appreciate that these three minerals often pass through extensive supply chains and processing stages before the relevant metals are used in technological products. Bringing transparency to those supply chains may not be easy, but it is something we can and should expect of industry when certain commodities are known to be fueling human rights violations. Industry itself has acknowledged this. In February 2009, the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition, which includes several major U.S. electronic companies, put out a statement saying that companies can and should uphold responsible practices in their operations and work with suppliers to meet social and environmental standards with respect to the raw materials used in the manufacture of their products. That was a bold statement and I want to work with companies to make it a reality with respect to Congo. I traveled in 2007 to eastern Congo and saw firsthand the grave suffering of people who have lived through a decade of conflict and humanitarian crisis. The numbers are staggering: an estimated 5.4 million deaths over the last decade--making it the deadliest conflict since the Second World War. In addition, millions of people are still displaced from their homes, living in squalid camps where children are subject to forced recruitment and women suffer unspeakable levels of sexual violence. In my travels to many parts of Africa over the years, the suffering of women and girls in eastern Congo particularly stands out. I met with women and girls there who had been gang raped, often leaving them with horrific physical and psychological damage. I met with women who had lost their husbands, their homes, and their livelihoods and yet against all odds they refused to give up--if only for the sake of their children. I believe this bill will make attaining peace for these women and their families a little easier and that is one of the reasons why I am supporting it. In 2006, under the leadership of then-Senator Obama and Senator Brownback, the U.S. Congress passed the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act. That bill committed the United States to work comprehensively toward peace, prosperity and good governance in the Congo. The Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009 seeks to move us a step closer toward those goals. I urge my colleagues to support it, and thank Senators Brownback and Durbin for their leadership on this important issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators Brownback and Durbin as an original cosponsor of the Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009. The purpose of this bill is to bring greater attention and transparency to the way in which the trade in three minerals--columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, or wolframite--is intertwined with the ongoing violence, displacement and human rights abuses in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The metals derived from these three minerals are used widely in the electronic products that we use daily, from cell phones to laptops to digital cameras. By working to ensure the raw materials used in those products are not benefiting armed groups, we can have a positive impact on ending armed conflict and human rights abuses in the Congo. Specifically, this bill charges the State Department to support the work of the United Nations Group of Experts to further investigate and provide companies with guidance on the links between natural resources and the financing of armed groups. It also charges the State Department with developing a strategy to help break these linkages, while helping governments in the region to establish the necessary frameworks and institutions to monitor and regulate the cross-border trade of these minerals. Then, this bill requires U.S.-registered companies selling products containing those three minerals to disclose the country of origin of those minerals and, if they come from Congo or neighboring countries, to give further information, including the mine of origin. This requirement will compel companies to take responsibility for their suppliers and thus bring greater transparency to the trade in these minerals, which may enable more targeted actions down the road. Finally, this bill encourages USAID to expand programs seeking to improve the conditions and livelihood prospects for communities affected by this violence in Congo. We must not forget that the long- term goal is not to shut this trade down, but to support a conflict- free mining economy that benefits the Congolese people. The United Nations Group of Experts has reported over the years that various illegal armed groups in eastern Congo profit greatly from the region's vast natural resources. In February 2008, the Group of Experts stated, ``individuals and entities buying mineral output from areas of the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo with a strong rebel presence are violating the sanctions regime when they do not exercise due diligence to ensure their mineral purchases do not provide assistance to illegal armed groups.'' They defined due diligence as determining the precise identify of the deposits from which the minerals have been mined, establishing whether or not these deposits are controlled and/or taxed by illegal armed groups, and refusing to buy minerals known to originate--or suspected to originate--from deposits controlled/taxed by these armed groups. In December 2008, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1857, broadening existing sanctions relating to Congo to include individuals or entities supporting the illegal armed groups through the illicit trade of natural resources. The resolution also encouraged member countries to ensure that companies handling minerals from Congo exercise due diligence with their suppliers. The U.S. has invested financial resources and diplomacy over recent years in trying to bring peace and stability to eastern Congo, and there have been some successes. However, our efforts have ultimately been hindered by a failure to directly address the underlying causes of conflict. A study by the Government Accountability Office released in 2007 found that U.S. efforts in Congo are undermined by weak governance and mismanagement of natural resources. The plunder and unregulated trade of eastern Congo's rich mineral base continues to make war a profitable enterprise. This legislation attempts to finally confront and address that problem. It commits the United States government and those companies under our jurisdiction to shed light on the dynamics of eastern Congo's mineral economy and to take actions to reduce its exploitation by armed groups. This can be an important step--perhaps even a transitional one--as we work with our regional partners to help them establish and implement better frameworks for regulation and oversight. Some may say the bill goes too far, while others may argue that this bill does not go far enough; that it has loopholes and lacks sufficient ``teeth.'' This bill is not perfect. However, we must realize the conflict mineral problem is a complex one. This legislation is just a first step to bring greater transparency to that problem, which will then enable more comprehensive, robust and targeted measures down the road. At the same time, we must tread carefully because there are many communities in eastern Congo whose livelihoods are intertwined with the mining economy. All-out prohibitions or blanket sanctions could be counterproductive and negatively affect the very people we seek to help. I am confident that this bill is sensitive to that complex reality. It tasks the Government Accountability Office, within two years, with assessing any problems resulting from the implementation of this Act, determining any adverse impacts on local Congolese communities, and making recommendations for improving its effectiveness. It also urges USAID to expand its programs to work with these communities and improve their livelihood prospects. I also realize that some others may argue that this bill goes too far; that it imposes impractical or onerous requirements on companies who end-use these minerals. Similar arguments were made in the early days of the Kimberley Process. I appreciate that these three minerals often pass through extensive supply chains and processing stages before the relevant metals are used in technological products. Bringing transparency to those supply chains may not be easy, but it is something we can and should expect of industry when certain commodities are known to be fueling human rights violations. Industry itself has acknowledged this. In February 2009, the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition, which includes several major U.S. electronic companies, put out a statement saying that companies can and should uphold responsible practices in their operations and work with suppliers to meet social and environmental standards with respect to the raw materials used in the manufacture of their products. That was a bold statement and I want to work with companies to make it a reality with respect to Congo. I traveled in 2007 to eastern Congo and saw firsthand the grave suffering of people who have lived through a decade of conflict and humanitarian crisis. The numbers are staggering: an estimated 5.4 million deaths over the last decade--making it the deadliest conflict since the Second World War. In addition, millions of people are still displaced from their homes, living in squalid camps where children are subject to forced recruitment and women suffer unspeakable levels of sexual violence. In my travels to many parts of Africa over the years, the suffering of women and girls in eastern Congo particularly stands out. I met with women and girls there who had been gang raped, often leaving them with horrific physical and psychological damage. I met with women who had lost their husbands, their homes, and their livelihoods and yet against all odds they refused to give up--if only for the sake of their children. I believe this bill will make attaining peace for these women and their families a little easier and that is one of the reasons why I am supporting it. In 2006, under the leadership of then-Senator Obama and Senator Brownback, the U.S. Congress passed the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act. That bill committed the United States to work comprehensively toward peace, prosperity and good governance in the Congo. The Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009 seeks to move us a step closer toward those goals. I urge my colleagues to support it, and thank Senators Brownback and Durbin for their leadership on this important issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this Saturday, I will join individuals and organizations around the world in marking World Malaria Day. This day is an opportunity to celebrate the progress that has been made by the international community in raising awareness of an invisible killer and the need to significantly reduce malaria deaths. Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable scaling up of efforts to prevent and treat this disease. In some places, such as the island of Zanzibar or the country of Rwanda, malaria prevalence has dropped significantly in just a few years. These success stories are a testament to the kind of positive difference we can make with robust and targeted health assistance. I am especially proud of the leadership of the United States in this regard, particularly through the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI). Since its launch in 2005, PMI has purchased almost 13 million artemisinin-based combination therapies, protected over 17 million people through spraying campaigns, and distributed over 6 million insecticide-treated bed nets. In addition, the United States has worked multilaterally with international partners to fight this disease, through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Global Fund has provided roughly 74 million malaria patients with artemisinin-based combination therapies and distributed almost 70 million bed nets. In addition to commemorating how far we have come, World Malaria Day is also an opportunity to recognize how far we still need to go. This disease is completely preventable and treatable, and yet more than 40 percent of the world's population is still at risk of contracting malaria and nearly 1 million people, the majority of them children, die from malaria each year. According to the World Health Organization, a child still dies every 30 seconds from malaria. Nearly 90 percent of those deaths occur in Africa. Moreover, malaria often coexists with HIV and neglected tropical diseases, and it causes great risks to efforts to promote child and maternal health. In light of those realities, we must recommit to sustained international, national, and local leadership to end malaria deaths. I am pleased that Congress last year committed over the next 5 years to combat malaria in the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria Act. We must now deliver on that commitment, including maintaining our support for multilateral efforts of the Global Fund. At the same time, we cannot afford to address malaria in isolation; our efforts must be part of a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable approach to global health. In particular, I believe we need to invest more in strengthening local health systems that can deliver effective, safe, high-quality interventions when and where they are needed and ensure access to reliable health information and effective disease surveillance. I commend the thousands of Americans and the many organizations that have taken up this cause and continue to work to fight malaria and save lives. On Saturday, we should join them in committing to work toward a malaria-free future. To that end and in support of the World Malaria Day, I have introduced a resolution with Senators Isakson, Bingaman, Durbin, Cardin, Wicker, Brownback, and Cantwell reaffirming U.S. leadership for efforts to combat malaria. I hope our colleagues will support this resolution and, more importantly, join us over the coming months and years in working toward this year's theme: ``counting malaria out.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, while Congress was in recess, Rwanda commemorated the 15-year anniversary of the genocide. Fifteen years ago, a deliberate, centrally planned, and organized campaign of mass murder and rape was set in motion, which displaced millions and eventually took the lives of over 800,000 people. People were killed simply because of their ethnicity or political beliefs or an unwillingness to participate in the violence. The unspeakable acts of terror that ensued over those months in 1994 shocked the world, and yet the international community, including the United States, failed to act. The promises of ``never again'' rang hollow. Fifteen years later, Rwandans have come a long way to repair their lives and rebuild their institutions. I am pleased that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Gacaca Courts continue to work to bring to justice those guilty of the most egregious crimes. Accountability is an essential step to promote healing for the survivors and to prevent a return to conflict in Rwanda. At the same time, I have been deeply moved that many survivors of this terror have been willing to forgive and live side by side with many of those who participated in it. Continuing to foster tolerance and openness, and ensure there is sufficient political space for dissent and discussion is critical to maintain future stability in Rwanda. As a Washington Post editorial recently noted, while the current Rwanda government has made impressive ``accomplishments in righting its country and improving basic services it continues to be intolerant of criticism.'' According to the State Department's reports and those of non-governmental organizations, there is a worrying pattern of repression in Rwanda against political opponents and civil society. Over the long run, suppression and intimidation can undermine security rather than protect it, forcing healthy debates into illicit channels, and casting doubt on the legitimacy of the prevailing order. If this pattern continues, it could intensify Rwanda's ethnic and social tensions, and ultimately lead to future conflicts. Rwanda has become a good friend and partner of the United States over the years, and our countries have worked together on many important joint initiatives. Most notably, they have become a leader on the African continent in responding to mass atrocities and contributing to peacekeeping operations. This is deeply inspiring given all that they have gone through, and we should continue to work with them to prevent future genocide and mass atrocity. However, we fail to be true friends to the people of Rwanda when we turn a blind eye to patterns of repression in their country, or fail to raise our voices in support of civil and political rights. As we remember those tragic events 15 years ago and commemorate those who perished, we should resolve to pay close attention to the present. The people of Rwanda deserve more than our regret; they deserve our support for their efforts to build a more just, more free and more secure future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly believe that the Senate needs to address the serious and pressing problem of climate change, and I look forward to that debate this Congress. I do not, however, believe it would be appropriate to use the fast-track procedure known as reconciliation to consider climate change legislation. Reconciliation is intended for legislation that reduces the deficit. I have strongly opposed past efforts to use reconciliation to address policy matters, such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It wasn't appropriate then; it isn't appropriate now.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to restore Clean Water Act protections for the same waters that were covered by the Act prior to two recent divisive U.S. Supreme Court decisions. I want to thank Senators Boxer, Cardin, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Reed, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me in introducing this important legislation. For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply and agricultural and industrial uses, and available for wildlife and fish habitat has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of Government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment. We must remain committed to the Clean Water Act of 1972, and to that end, Congress must enact legislation. Every day that Congress fails to act, more and more rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters that have long been protected by the Clean Water Act are being stripped of their Clean Water Act protections and being polluted or destroyed altogether. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 20,000 determinations have been made since the court decisions on whether specific water bodies are covered by the act. Congress should not delay action until protections are stripped from more water bodies throughout the country. The EPA estimates that the court decisions could ultimately impact over half the stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands in the lower 48 States. Lost protections for these waters means the drinking water sources for over 110 million Americans are in jeopardy of pollution. The Clean Water Restoration Act must be enacted to restore historical protections, using a surgical fix that reaffirms protections for the same categories of waters identified in the over three-decade-old EPA regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.'' This is a serious problem, demanding serious debate and action. If we do not act, we will be allowing the Clean Water Act to be rolled back. That would mean increased uncertainty, confusion, litigation, and permitting delays resulting from the court decisions and subsequent agency guidelines. It also would pose a very real threat to Clean Water Act protections for public water supplies, industrial and agriculture uses, fish and wildlife, and recreation. I am pleased to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the Senate, and to have support from a range of interested parties, including former EPA Administrators from both Republican and Democratic administrations; governors; attorneys general; State agencies; professional societies and associations; labor and business professionals and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting, fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations. In response to suggestions I received last Congress, I made several revisions to the bill to make Congressional intent very clear. My bill, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would continue to protect only those waters historically protected by the Clean Water Act prior to the Supreme Court decisions. This is the crux of my bill, Section 4. In 1972, Congress granted Clean Water Act protections to ``navigable waters'' and broadly defined those as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas'', in stark contrast to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, which had only provided protections for the commercially navigable waters. Since the 1970s, EPA and Corps regulations, 40 CFR 122.2 and 33 CFR 328.3, have properly established the scope of ``waters of the United States'' to be protected, including all intrastate and interstate rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My bill simply takes the longstanding, existing regulatory definition for ``waters of the United States'' and puts it into law, in lieu of defining ``navigable waters'' as ``waters of the United States,'' as the Act does now. This surgical fix is necessary because the Supreme Court used the word ``navigable'' to create a more narrow definition for ``waters of the United States'' than the definition used for over 30 years. The Court did not, however, limit protections more drastically to only ``navigable-in-fact'' and continuously flowing waters as some interests have called for. This might have been the law in 1899 when the Rivers and Harbors Act focused on commercial navigation, but it would be entirely inappropriate for the modern day clean water protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972. My bill also asserts appropriate constitutional authority to protect the Nation's waters. Despite claims to the contrary, Congress has broad constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws protecting our nation's water quality. To prevent future courts from narrowly applying Congress's constitutional authority, my bill includes the phrase ``activities affecting those waters.'' My bill also maintains existing exemptions for farming, silviculture, ranching, and other activities, and leaves unchanged the activities that require a permit. The bill only ensures that the same types of waters covered before the Supreme Court decisions continue to be protected and does not affect the activities that require permits. In short, if you have not needed a permit for the last thirty-five years for an activity, you will not need one when this bill is enacted. Importantly, in 1977, when the Act was modified, a significant compromise was reached to exempt farming, silviculture, and forestry activities from the Act. I stand by this understanding, and just to be sure, the Clean Water Restoration Act explicitly states that the Act's existing exemptions are maintained. As stated in the Act and left unchanged by my bill, agricultural activities are largely exempt from the Clean Water Act [the main permitting programs affecting agriculture address point-source discharge, Section 402, not non-point, and the dredging and filling of waters, Section 404. The following agricultural activities are exempt: normal farming activities (which casts a wide net for plowing, cultivating, harvesting, conservation practices, etc.), agriculture run-off/stormwater discharges, return flows from irrigation, maintenance and construction of farm roads, farm and stock ponds, and irrigation ditches, and maintenance of drainage ditches. There are additional EPA regulatory exemptions for prior converted cropland, and wastewater treatment systems, including treatment lagoons and ponds. Again, my bill does not affect these exemptions and the findings make Congressional intent very clear in this regard. In short, my bill will allow those waters always protected by the Clean Water Act to continue to receive basic protections. I appreciate the depth and breadth of support for reaffirming the Clean Water Act of 1972 and importantly, rejecting efforts to roll back the law.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness. I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of Southern Utah. I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah and view firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government. Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the appropriate benchmark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. Last Congress, a provision was air-dropped into a bill considered by the Senate--without having been considered by the House or the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that designated less than 45 percent of the wilderness quality lands included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act for Washington County, Utah. Furthermore, the public lands package omitted a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing omnibus parks legislation that contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.'' I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hiking and sightseeing to hunting. Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the U.S. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to restore Clean Water Act protections for the same waters that were covered by the Act prior to two recent divisive U.S. Supreme Court decisions. I want to thank Senators Boxer, Cardin, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Reed, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me in introducing this important legislation. For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply and agricultural and industrial uses, and available for wildlife and fish habitat has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of Government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment. We must remain committed to the Clean Water Act of 1972, and to that end, Congress must enact legislation. Every day that Congress fails to act, more and more rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters that have long been protected by the Clean Water Act are being stripped of their Clean Water Act protections and being polluted or destroyed altogether. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 20,000 determinations have been made since the court decisions on whether specific water bodies are covered by the act. Congress should not delay action until protections are stripped from more water bodies throughout the country. The EPA estimates that the court decisions could ultimately impact over half the stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands in the lower 48 States. Lost protections for these waters means the drinking water sources for over 110 million Americans are in jeopardy of pollution. The Clean Water Restoration Act must be enacted to restore historical protections, using a surgical fix that reaffirms protections for the same categories of waters identified in the over three-decade-old EPA regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.'' This is a serious problem, demanding serious debate and action. If we do not act, we will be allowing the Clean Water Act to be rolled back. That would mean increased uncertainty, confusion, litigation, and permitting delays resulting from the court decisions and subsequent agency guidelines. It also would pose a very real threat to Clean Water Act protections for public water supplies, industrial and agriculture uses, fish and wildlife, and recreation. I am pleased to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the Senate, and to have support from a range of interested parties, including former EPA Administrators from both Republican and Democratic administrations; governors; attorneys general; State agencies; professional societies and associations; labor and business professionals and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting, fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations. In response to suggestions I received last Congress, I made several revisions to the bill to make Congressional intent very clear. My bill, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would continue to protect only those waters historically protected by the Clean Water Act prior to the Supreme Court decisions. This is the crux of my bill, Section 4. In 1972, Congress granted Clean Water Act protections to ``navigable waters'' and broadly defined those as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas'', in stark contrast to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, which had only provided protections for the commercially navigable waters. Since the 1970s, EPA and Corps regulations, 40 CFR 122.2 and 33 CFR 328.3, have properly established the scope of ``waters of the United States'' to be protected, including all intrastate and interstate rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My bill simply takes the longstanding, existing regulatory definition for ``waters of the United States'' and puts it into law, in lieu of defining ``navigable waters'' as ``waters of the United States,'' as the Act does now. This surgical fix is necessary because the Supreme Court used the word ``navigable'' to create a more narrow definition for ``waters of the United States'' than the definition used for over 30 years. The Court did not, however, limit protections more drastically to only ``navigable-in-fact'' and continuously flowing waters as some interests have called for. This might have been the law in 1899 when the Rivers and Harbors Act focused on commercial navigation, but it would be entirely inappropriate for the modern day clean water protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972. My bill also asserts appropriate constitutional authority to protect the Nation's waters. Despite claims to the contrary, Congress has broad constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws protecting our nation's water quality. To prevent future courts from narrowly applying Congress's constitutional authority, my bill includes the phrase ``activities affecting those waters.'' My bill also maintains existing exemptions for farming, silviculture, ranching, and other activities, and leaves unchanged the activities that require a permit. The bill only ensures that the same types of waters covered before the Supreme Court decisions continue to be protected and does not affect the activities that require permits. In short, if you have not needed a permit for the last thirty-five years for an activity, you will not need one when this bill is enacted. Importantly, in 1977, when the Act was modified, a significant compromise was reached to exempt farming, silviculture, and forestry activities from the Act. I stand by this understanding, and just to be sure, the Clean Water Restoration Act explicitly states that the Act's existing exemptions are maintained. As stated in the Act and left unchanged by my bill, agricultural activities are largely exempt from the Clean Water Act [the main permitting programs affecting agriculture address point-source discharge, Section 402, not non-point, and the dredging and filling of waters, Section 404. The following agricultural activities are exempt: normal farming activities (which casts a wide net for plowing, cultivating, harvesting, conservation practices, etc.), agriculture run-off/stormwater discharges, return flows from irrigation, maintenance and construction of farm roads, farm and stock ponds, and irrigation ditches, and maintenance of drainage ditches. There are additional EPA regulatory exemptions for prior converted cropland, and wastewater treatment systems, including treatment lagoons and ponds. Again, my bill does not affect these exemptions and the findings make Congressional intent very clear in this regard. In short, my bill will allow those waters always protected by the Clean Water Act to continue to receive basic protections. I appreciate the depth and breadth of support for reaffirming the Clean Water Act of 1972 and importantly, rejecting efforts to roll back the law.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness. I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of Southern Utah. I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah and view firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government. Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the appropriate benchmark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. Last Congress, a provision was air-dropped into a bill considered by the Senate--without having been considered by the House or the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that designated less than 45 percent of the wilderness quality lands included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act for Washington County, Utah. Furthermore, the public lands package omitted a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing omnibus parks legislation that contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.'' I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hiking and sightseeing to hunting. Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the U.S. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to address the needs of the nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural America. These beneficiaries are systematically disadvantaged in the Medicare program. The beauty of Medicare is its equity, its universality, and its accessibility. But we have compromised these values by stratifying payments, by under-representing rural voices on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and by continuing to use obsolete payment data that hurts rural America. First, we must stop indexing physician payments for work based on geographic differences. Rural areas already have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining the Nation's top talent. Currently, even though 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries live in rural areas, only 10 percent of the nation's physicians serve them. Lower payments to doctors in these areas only perpetuate this dangerous shortage of medical expertise. We should not be discouraging medical school graduates from moving to underserved rural areas by continuing to offer sub-par pay--in fact, we should be providing incentives to encourage them to work in underserved areas. My legislation proposes a project to help rural facilities to host educators and clinical practitioners in clinical rotations. Lack of dollars to rural health facilities has also prevented communities from investing in vital information technology. The Institute of Medicine published a report in 2005 detailing the ways in which health IT could assist isolated communities. For example, since rural physicians tend to be generalists rather than specialists, virtual libraries within physician offices would provide both doctors and patients with a wider and deeper source of information at their fingertips. Rural residents can also be quite far from health facilities, so technology that allows emergency room physicians to communicate with EMS workers in an ambulance can help patients receive life-saving treatment before they physically reach the hospital. These kinds of technologies will improve both the quality and efficiency of care given in rural areas. My legislation offers funding for quality improvement demonstration projects, to allow isolated communities to invest in this otherwise out of reach technology. Lastly, this legislation will end the disproportionately low representation of rural interests on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. This lack of representation has resulted in policies that hurt rural communities. Those policies have hurt--and continue to hurt--the people of my State of Wisconsin, and they hurt my colleague Senator Collins' constituents as well. For every dollar that Medicare spends on the average beneficiary in the average state in this country, Medicare spends only 82 cents on a beneficiary in Wisconsin. In Maine, Medicare spends only 80 cents per dollar it spends on the average beneficiary. How is this the case, if beneficiaries in Wisconsin and in Maine pay the same payroll taxes as beneficiaries in other states? Because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and to much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are lower than those received in many other States. With the guidance and support of people across my State who are fighting for Medicare fairness, I am introducing this legislation to address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors and health care providers. My bill will decrease some of the inequitable payments that harm rural areas. It will provide rural areas the help they need to grow crucial health information technology infrastructure. It will offer the necessary incentives to help attract the Nation's top medical talent to underserved rural areas. It will mandate rural representation on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Rural seniors are already underserved in their communities; they should not be underrepresented in Washington as well. Rural Americans have worked hard and paid into the Medicare program all their lives. In return, they deserve full access to the same benefits as seniors throughout the country: their choice of highly skilled physicians, use of the latest technologies, and a strong voice representing their needs in Medicare policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to address the needs of the nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural America. These beneficiaries are systematically disadvantaged in the Medicare program. The beauty of Medicare is its equity, its universality, and its accessibility. But we have compromised these values by stratifying payments, by under-representing rural voices on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and by continuing to use obsolete payment data that hurts rural America. First, we must stop indexing physician payments for work based on geographic differences. Rural areas already have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining the Nation's top talent. Currently, even though 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries live in rural areas, only 10 percent of the nation's physicians serve them. Lower payments to doctors in these areas only perpetuate this dangerous shortage of medical expertise. We should not be discouraging medical school graduates from moving to underserved rural areas by continuing to offer sub-par pay--in fact, we should be providing incentives to encourage them to work in underserved areas. My legislation proposes a project to help rural facilities to host educators and clinical practitioners in clinical rotations. Lack of dollars to rural health facilities has also prevented communities from investing in vital information technology. The Institute of Medicine published a report in 2005 detailing the ways in which health IT could assist isolated communities. For example, since rural physicians tend to be generalists rather than specialists, virtual libraries within physician offices would provide both doctors and patients with a wider and deeper source of information at their fingertips. Rural residents can also be quite far from health facilities, so technology that allows emergency room physicians to communicate with EMS workers in an ambulance can help patients receive life-saving treatment before they physically reach the hospital. These kinds of technologies will improve both the quality and efficiency of care given in rural areas. My legislation offers funding for quality improvement demonstration projects, to allow isolated communities to invest in this otherwise out of reach technology. Lastly, this legislation will end the disproportionately low representation of rural interests on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. This lack of representation has resulted in policies that hurt rural communities. Those policies have hurt--and continue to hurt--the people of my State of Wisconsin, and they hurt my colleague Senator Collins' constituents as well. For every dollar that Medicare spends on the average beneficiary in the average state in this country, Medicare spends only 82 cents on a beneficiary in Wisconsin. In Maine, Medicare spends only 80 cents per dollar it spends on the average beneficiary. How is this the case, if beneficiaries in Wisconsin and in Maine pay the same payroll taxes as beneficiaries in other states? Because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and to much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are lower than those received in many other States. With the guidance and support of people across my State who are fighting for Medicare fairness, I am introducing this legislation to address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors and health care providers. My bill will decrease some of the inequitable payments that harm rural areas. It will provide rural areas the help they need to grow crucial health information technology infrastructure. It will offer the necessary incentives to help attract the Nation's top medical talent to underserved rural areas. It will mandate rural representation on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Rural seniors are already underserved in their communities; they should not be underrepresented in Washington as well. Rural Americans have worked hard and paid into the Medicare program all their lives. In return, they deserve full access to the same benefits as seniors throughout the country: their choice of highly skilled physicians, use of the latest technologies, and a strong voice representing their needs in Medicare policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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