Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the reauthorization of the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how-to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program. Every 2 minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest. By improving access to AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities. In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other states, heart disease is the number one killer. Nationwide, heart disease is the cause of one out of every 2.8 deaths. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than breast cancer, lung cancer, and HIV/AIDS combined. Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out for victims of cardiac arrest. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the nation. Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations. Over 163,000 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an automated external defibrillator, AED, can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival. Over the past 9 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. This program is entering its ninth year of helping rural communities purchase defibrillators and train first responders, and I am pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities all over the country, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes. Approximately ninety-five percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only eight minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential-- a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives. Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived. This story is incredibly tragic. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives. Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within three minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within five minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments. These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified. After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives. Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs. The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country. The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life. This act exists because a family experienced the tragic loss of their son, but they were determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts. By making sure that AEDs are available in our nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund the ADAM Act and the Rural AED program at their full levels. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act. 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 am introducing the reauthorization of the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how-to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program. Every 2 minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest. By improving access to AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities. In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other states, heart disease is the number one killer. Nationwide, heart disease is the cause of one out of every 2.8 deaths. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than breast cancer, lung cancer, and HIV/AIDS combined. Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out for victims of cardiac arrest. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the nation. Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations. Over 163,000 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an automated external defibrillator, AED, can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival. Over the past 9 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. This program is entering its ninth year of helping rural communities purchase defibrillators and train first responders, and I am pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities all over the country, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes. Approximately ninety-five percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only eight minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential-- a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives. Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived. This story is incredibly tragic. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives. Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within three minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within five minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments. These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified. After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives. Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs. The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country. The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life. This act exists because a family experienced the tragic loss of their son, but they were determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts. By making sure that AEDs are available in our nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund the ADAM Act and the Rural AED program at their full levels. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act. 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 reintroducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care. High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need. Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual employee's health care is $3,983. For a family, the employer contribution is $9,325. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care. By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 60 employer-led coalitions across the U.S. that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 7,000 employers nationwide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of high-quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as high-quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 13 surrounding counties on behalf of more than 160 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their more than 80,000 employees and dependents. This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to groups of businesses so that they could form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality. This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance. My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer high-quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees. For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers. By working together, the group could develop better insurance plans and negotiate better rates. This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits--for example, more preventive care--and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization. We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with Senators Burr, Bayh, Snowe and McCain, a resolution that will implement a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission-- the granting of appropriations authority to the Senate Intelligence Committee. This effort to reform and improve congressional oversight has a long bipartisan history. It began as an amendment offered by Senator McCain to the 2004 reorganizing resolution that accompanied the intelligence reform bill. And, in the last Congress, this resolution was introduced by Senator Burr. It should also be noted that it has the same bipartisan set of cosponsors as it did last year, despite the change of administration. This underscores the principle that effective congressional oversight is neither a partisan nor political issue and that it has nothing to do with who the President is. It is about ensuring that the Intelligence Community is keeping America safe, complying with the Constitution and laws of our country, and using taxpayer dollars in an appropriate manner. Next month will mark the 5th anniversary of the release of the 9/11 Commission's report. The country is by now familiar with the many recommendations of the Commission that have been implemented, including the establishment of the DNI and the National Counterterrorism Center. Yet, the Commission stressed that, ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.'' In November 2007, Lee Hamilton, the former Vice Chairman of the Commission testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee on behalf of himself and former Chairman Tom Kean and again emphasized what needs to be done. He testified that: The single most important step to strengthen the power of the intelligence committees is to give them the power of the purse. Without it, they will be marginalized. The intelligence community will not ignore you, but they will work around you. In a crunch, they will go to the Appropriations Committee. Within the Congress, the two bodies with the jurisdiction, time and expertise to carry out a careful review of the budget and activities of the Intelligence Community are the Senate and House intelligence committees. Yet all of us have to live by the Gold Rule: That is, he who controls the Gold makes the Rules. The testimony of the former Chairman and Vice Chairman highlighted three practical examples of why this particular reform is so critical. First, if and when the U.S. goes to war, the decision will ride largely on intelligence--and oversight is critical to ensuring that the intelligence community gets it right. Second, oversight is necessary to safeguard the privacy and civil liberties of Americans in an age of enhanced collection capabilities and data mining. Third, the success of intelligence reform requires sustained congressional oversight. Vigorous, effective, independent congressional oversight is fundamental to the checks and balances of our constitutional system. In recent years, we have seen outright contempt for this oversight, particularly as the previous administration sought to hide the CIA's detention and interrogation and the NSA's warrantless wiretapping programs from Congress. But the inauguration of a new president has not removed all impediments to effective oversight, nor is it a guarantee that serious abuses won't occur in the future. That is why the implementation of this reform is just as important as ever and why this resolution has bipartisan support. In the end, this reform is not just about our constitutional system, as important as that is. It is about how best to protect the American people. As Lee Hamilton testified, ``the strong point simply is that the Senate of the U.S. and the House of the U.S. is not doing its job. And because you are not doing the job, the country is not as safe as it ought to be, because one of my premises is that robust oversight is necessary for a stronger intelligence community.'' The implementation of this reform is long overdue. It has been more than seven and a half years since the attacks of 9/11, almost 5years since the 9/11 Commission made this recommendation, and a year and a half since the Senate Intelligence Committee heard directly from former Chairman Hamilton and former Vice Chairman Kean. There should be no more excuses, or delays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the current emergency supplemental spending bill--the second one of this fiscal year--and I would like to briefly list my concerns before explaining them in more detail. For years I have been fighting to bring an end to our involvement in the misguided war in Iraq. While I am pleased that President Obama has provided a timeline for redeployment of our troops, I am concerned that he intends to leave up to 50,000 of the United States troops in Iraq. I am also concerned that this supplemental may pad the defense budget with items not needed for the war. We should be paying for such items through the regular budget, not running up the deficit to purchase them. Finally, while the President clearly understands that the greatest international security threat to our Nation resides in Pakistan, I remain concerned that his strategy regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan does not adequately address, and may even exacerbate the problems we face in Pakistan, problems made even more clear by the current rising tide of displaced civilians. I do want to make clear, however, that there are a number of provisions in the bill I support, including funding for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. In addition, I am pleased that the bill addresses the increased demand for direct farm loans through the USDA's Farm Service Agency, FSA. As of May 7, the FSA reports backlogs of nearly 3,000 loans, including $250 million in ownership loans and over $100 million for operating loans. With many States having already completely utilized their initial fiscal year 2009 allocations of direct loan funds, the emergency addition of $360 million for direct farm ownership loans and $225 million for direct operating loans in the supplemental will help ensure that credit is available to farmers and ranchers. I was also encouraged that an additional $49.4 million was included for the costs associated with modifying existing FSA farm loans, which will help ensure that FSA is able to work with farmers who are viable to avoid foreclosure. Let me start by focusing on Iraq. President Obama has taken a necessary and overdue step by outlining a schedule to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. This will help us focus on al-Qaida and its affiliates elsewhere, which continue to be the main threat to U.S. national security. I was disappointed, however, that the President decided to draw out the redeployment over 3 years. Furthermore, recent press reports indicate that in order to meet the June 30 deadline for U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities, certain military officials may redraw city borders instead of relocating nearly 3,000 Americans, as required under the Status of Forces Agreement. This kind of fluidity is troubling as it would further delay an already too long schedule for redeployment. While we have an obligation to help stabilize the region over the long term, we must not lose sight of the fact that our very presence has a destabilizing impact and the vast majority of Iraqis support a prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops. I am concerned that if the United States does not appear to be moving to redeploy consistent with the bilateral agreement negotiated with Iraq, there could be a surge in violence against the troops of the United States. Finally, I note that the Bush administration chose to negotiate that deal as an executive agreement when its scope clearly exceeds that of any previous Executive agreement and extends far beyond the kinds of issues addressed in a mere status-of-forces agreement. It should have been submitted to the Congress as a treaty and been subjected to the requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate. The Congress always retains the ultimate authority to determine whether to continue to fund military operations abroad so it is in the interest of the President to seek Senate approval. Our national security is best served when the two branches work together to determine our policy on matters of such profound importance to the United States. The Congress should make clear that, in the future, any such agreements must be submitted for ratification. President Obama's strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan finally focuses the Government's attention and resources where they are most needed. After years of our country being bogged down in Iraq, President Obama has brought to the White House an understanding that the key to our national security is defeating al-Qaida, and that to do so we must refocus on this critical region. But while the President clearly understands that the greatest threat to our Nation resides in Pakistan, I am concerned that his announced strategy has the potential to escalate rather than diminish this threat without making things better in Afghanistan. According to credible polls, the majority of Afghans do not support a surge in U.S. forces and a majority in the south even oppose the presence of U.S. troops. For years, the Bush administration shortchanged the mission in Afghanistan, with disastrous results. But we cannot simply turn back the clock. Sending significantly more troops to Afghanistan now could end up doing more harm than good--further inflaming civilian resentment without significantly contributing to stability in that country. Furthermore, sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan could very well make those problems even worse. And don't just take my word for it. When I raised this point with Ambassador Holbrooke during a recent hearing, he replied: [Y]ou're absolutely correct that . . . an additional [number] of American troops, and particularly if they're successful in Helmand and Kandahar could end up creating a pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability. By providing additional funds for our troops in Afghanistan, this supplemental may actually undermine our national security as increasing numbers of the Taliban could seek refuge in Pakistan's border region. Already, the Taliban's leadership has safe haven in Quetta, while the Pakistani military fights militants in the north. Without a concurrent plan for Pakistan, the movement of Taliban across the border could further weaken local governance and stability, while a flood of refugees from Afghanistan would compound Pakistan's already dire IDP problem. And let's not forget, we are talking about instability in a country with a nuclear arsenal that according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is being expanded. The emergence of a new civilian-led government offers the United States an opportunity to develop a balanced and sustained relationship with Pakistan that includes a long-term counterterrorism partnership. I am pleased that this administration, unlike the last, has extended its engagement to a broad range of political parties and encouraged the development of democracy. I am also pleased that there are efforts to significantly increase nonmilitary aid and to impose greater accountability on security assistance. After years of a policy that neglected Pakistan's civilian institutions and focused on short-sighted tactics that were dangerous and self-defeating, this is a refreshing step in the right direction. Make no mistake about it, the threat of militant extremism has been and continues to be very real in Pakistan, but by embracing and relying on a single, unpopular, antidemocratic leader we failed to develop a comprehensive counterterrorism sustained strategy that transcended individuals. As a result, we must now recover from a policy that led Pakistanis to be skeptical about American intentions and principles. While I support efforts to build a sustained relationship with Pakistan, I remain concerned that, even as we continue to provide support to the Pakistani military, elements of the Pakistani security forces remain unhelpful in our efforts to cut off support for the Taliban. During a recent hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain asked Admiral Mullen if he still worries about the ISI cooperating with the Taliban. Admiral Mullen responded that that he did. This bill contains over $1 billion for the Pakistani military, and while we must not over generalize or take an all or nothing approach, it would be unwise and very dangerous to convey to the Pakistani military that it has our unconditional support. That would be especially dangerous now as recent fighting between militants and Pakistani forces has reportedly displaced nearly 1\1/12\ million people--the greatest displacement there since 1947. This is very troubling, and has potentially grave strategic implications for U.S. national security. As General Petraeus has said, ``We cannot kill our way to victory.'' As we continue to provide assistance to Pakistan's military, we must ensure they--and we--have the support of the Pakistani people. No amount of civilian aid after the fact can make up for military operations that are not tailored to protect the civilian population in the first place. We must also recognize that, while the Pakistani security forces are undertaking operations in the Swat Valley, there are individuals in Baluchistan who also present a significant threat to our troops in Afghanistan. When I asked Ambassador Holbrooke if he knew whether the Pakistani Government was doing everything it could to capture Taliban leaders in Baluchistan, he replied that he did not know and that while they have ``captured . . . killed and eliminated over the years a good number of the leaders of the Taliban and al-Qaida [while] others have been under less pressure.'' I encourage the Obama administration to engage in tough negotiations with the Pakistani Government on this issue and to prepare contingency plans in the event that we continue to see members of the security services supporting militants. We must continue to ensure al-Qaida and the Taliban are the key targets in Pakistan, but strategic success will also depend in part on the ability of the Pakistani military to demonstrate they are pursuing a targeted approach that seeks to protect the civilian population. For example, we should work to ensure that the Pakistani Government has taken steps to detain known militant leaders and is providing assistance to those who have been displaced by the ongoing violence. On the civilian side, working to help reform and strengthen vital institutions, including the judiciary and education and health care systems, is essential. We must also work to reform the police, whose permanent presence in the community is less likely to engender hostility than the military's. In short, we must focus on helping to build the civilian institutions that are part of a responsive, accountable government needed to ensure al- Qaida and militant extremists do not find support among the Pakistani people. Lastly, I would like to address an issue that has received much attention. A number of my colleagues have spoken on the floor in opposition to the President's commitment to close the detention facility in Guantanamo bay. I believe it is time for Guantanamo to be closed. Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Colin Powell and James Baker share this view. The facility has become a rallying cry and recruiting tool for al-Qaida. It contributes to extremism, anti-American sentiment and undermines our ability to build the international support we need to defeat al-Qaida. Secretary Gates has testified that ``the announcement of the decision to close Guantanamo has been an important strategic communications victory for the United States.'' The Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has stated that: The detention center at Guantanamo has become a damaging symbol to the world and that it must be closed. It is a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security, so closing it is important for our national security. And, former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq--as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat--are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. There are many unresolved questions about the process we will use to prosecute these detainees. We need to resolve those tough questions, but we should not use them as an excuse to avoid taking a step that is so important to our national security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Teachers at the Table Act of 2009. This bill is the Senate companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York and Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska and would create a Volunteer Teacher Advisory Committee to advise Congress and the Department of Education on the impact of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, also known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB, on students, their families, and the classroom learning environment. The teachers serving on this committee would be chosen from past or present State or national Teachers of the Year and would be competitively selected by the Secretary of Education and the majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Every year I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties to hold a listening session to listen to Wisconsinites' concerns and answer their questions. Since NCLB was enacted in early 2002, education has rated as one of the top issues brought up at these listening sessions. I have received feedback from constituents about the noble intentions of NCLB, but I have also heard about the multitude of implementation problems with the law's provisions. The feedback from teachers, parents, school administrators, and school board members has been invaluable over the past 7 years and has guided many of my education policymaking decisions. As Congress seeks to undertake the reauthorization of ESEA this year, it is my hope that this legislation can be part of the reauthorization. Feedback from good teachers is absolutely vital to understanding how federal education policy is impacting classroom instruction around the country. This legislation seeks to help ensure that continuous feedback is provided to Congress about how the reauthorized ESEA is impacting student achievement and closing the persistent achievement gap that exists in our Nation. The Teachers at the Table bill I am introducing today seeks to help ensure that Congress and the Department of Education receive high- quality yearly feedback on how ESEA/NCLB is impacting classroom learning around the country. The teachers who will serve on this committee represent some of the best that teaching has to offer. The bill would create a committee of 20 teachers, with 4 selected by the Secretary of Education and 4 selected by each of the majority and minority leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives. These teachers would serve 2-year terms on the advisory committee and would work to prepare annual reports to Congress as well as quarterly updates on the law's implementation. Every State and every school district is different and this legislation ensures that the teacher advisory committee will represent a wide range of viewpoints. The bill specifies that the volunteer teacher advisory committee should include teachers from diverse geographic areas, teachers who teach different grade levels, and teachers from a variety of specialty areas. Creating a diverse committee will help ensure that the committee presents a broad range of viewpoints on ESEA/NCLB to Congress and the Department of Education. Much work needs to be done this year to reform many of the mandates of ESEA/NCLB and I look forward to working with my colleagues during the reauthorization to make those necessary changes. One thing is certain whatever form the reauthorized ESEA takes, there will be a need for consistent feedback from a diverse range of viewpoints. We need to ensure that the voices of students, educators, parents, and administrators, who are on the frontlines of education reform in our country, are heard during the reauthorization of ESEA and going forward during the reauthorized law's implementation in years to come. This bill seeks to help address that need by enlisting the service of some of America's best teachers in providing information to Federal education policymakers. The advisory committee created by this legislation will provide nationwide feedback and will allow Congress to hear about ESEA/NCLB directly from those who deal with the law and its consequences on a daily basis.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Teachers at the Table Act of 2009. This bill is the Senate companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York and Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska and would create a Volunteer Teacher Advisory Committee to advise Congress and the Department of Education on the impact of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, also known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB, on students, their families, and the classroom learning environment. The teachers serving on this committee would be chosen from past or present State or national Teachers of the Year and would be competitively selected by the Secretary of Education and the majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Every year I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties to hold a listening session to listen to Wisconsinites' concerns and answer their questions. Since NCLB was enacted in early 2002, education has rated as one of the top issues brought up at these listening sessions. I have received feedback from constituents about the noble intentions of NCLB, but I have also heard about the multitude of implementation problems with the law's provisions. The feedback from teachers, parents, school administrators, and school board members has been invaluable over the past 7 years and has guided many of my education policymaking decisions. As Congress seeks to undertake the reauthorization of ESEA this year, it is my hope that this legislation can be part of the reauthorization. Feedback from good teachers is absolutely vital to understanding how federal education policy is impacting classroom instruction around the country. This legislation seeks to help ensure that continuous feedback is provided to Congress about how the reauthorized ESEA is impacting student achievement and closing the persistent achievement gap that exists in our Nation. The Teachers at the Table bill I am introducing today seeks to help ensure that Congress and the Department of Education receive high- quality yearly feedback on how ESEA/NCLB is impacting classroom learning around the country. The teachers who will serve on this committee represent some of the best that teaching has to offer. The bill would create a committee of 20 teachers, with 4 selected by the Secretary of Education and 4 selected by each of the majority and minority leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives. These teachers would serve 2-year terms on the advisory committee and would work to prepare annual reports to Congress as well as quarterly updates on the law's implementation. Every State and every school district is different and this legislation ensures that the teacher advisory committee will represent a wide range of viewpoints. The bill specifies that the volunteer teacher advisory committee should include teachers from diverse geographic areas, teachers who teach different grade levels, and teachers from a variety of specialty areas. Creating a diverse committee will help ensure that the committee presents a broad range of viewpoints on ESEA/NCLB to Congress and the Department of Education. Much work needs to be done this year to reform many of the mandates of ESEA/NCLB and I look forward to working with my colleagues during the reauthorization to make those necessary changes. One thing is certain whatever form the reauthorized ESEA takes, there will be a need for consistent feedback from a diverse range of viewpoints. We need to ensure that the voices of students, educators, parents, and administrators, who are on the frontlines of education reform in our country, are heard during the reauthorization of ESEA and going forward during the reauthorized law's implementation in years to come. This bill seeks to help address that need by enlisting the service of some of America's best teachers in providing information to Federal education policymakers. The advisory committee created by this legislation will provide nationwide feedback and will allow Congress to hear about ESEA/NCLB directly from those who deal with the law and its consequences on a daily basis.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I voted in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Inouye, No. 1133, because I believe it makes sense for Congress to review the administration's plan to close Guantanamo before providing funding. I continue to believe that President Obama made the right decision to close Guantanamo, and I look forward to reviewing his plan to do so. While closing Guantanamo may not be easy, it is vital to our national security that we close this prison, which is a recruiting tool for our enemies.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, and I am pleased to do so with a great champion on this issue: Senator Sam Brownback. For many years, we have both sought to bring attention to the terror orchestrated by the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA, and the suffering of the people of northern Uganda. We have come a long way in just a few years, thanks especially to young Americans who have become increasingly aware of and outspoken about this horrific situation. As a result, the U.S. has made increased efforts to help end this horror. Those efforts have yielded some success, but if we are now to finally see this conflict to its end, we need to commit to a proactive strategy to help end the threat posed by the LRA and support reconstruction, justice, and reconciliation in northern Uganda. This bill seeks to do just that. For over two decades, northern Uganda was caught in a war between the Ugandan military and rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army, leading at its height to the displacement of 1.8 million people, nearly 90 percent of the region's population. Just a few years ago, northern Uganda was called the world's worst neglected humanitarian crisis. In 2007, I visited displacement camps in northern Uganda and saw firsthand the terrible conditions and the desperation of people forced to endure such conditions year after year. Meanwhile, the LRA survived throughout this conflict by kidnapping an estimated 66,000 children, indoctrinating them, and forcing them to become child soldiers. In recent years, the LRA have come under increasing pressure. In 2005 and 2006, they largely withdrew from northern Uganda and moved into the border region between northeastern Congo, southern Sudan and even the Central African Republic. Then for almost two years, there was a lull in the violence as representatives from the Ugandan government and LRA engaged in sporadic peace negotiations in southern Sudan. The parties brokered a comprehensive agreement, but then hopes were dashed as the LRA's megalomaniac leader Joseph Kony refused to sign the agreement and reports surfaced that the LRA had been conducting new abductions to replenish his rebel group. In December 2008, the Ugandan, Congolese and South Sudanese militaries launched a joint offensive against the LRA's primary bases in northeastern Congo. The operation failed to apprehend Kony and over the following two months, his forces retaliated against civilians in the region, leaving over 900 people dead. It's tragically clear that insufficient attention and resources were devoted to ensuring the protection of civilians during the operation. Before launching any operation against the rebels, the regional militaries should have ensured that their plan had a high probability of success, anticipated contingencies, and made precautions to minimize dangers to civilians. It is widely known that when facing military offensive in the past, the LRA have quickly dispersed and committed retaliatory attacks against civilians. However, this botched operation does not mean that we should just give up on the goal of ending the massacres and the threat to regional stability posed by this small rebel group. Moreover, given that the U.S. provided assistance and support for this operation at the request of the regional governments, we have a responsibility to help see this rebel war to its end. In order to do that, I strongly believe we need a regional strategy to guide U.S. support--which includes political economic, intelligence and military support--for a multilateral effort to protect civilians and permanently end the threat posed by the LRA. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 requires of the administration to develop such a strategy. It leaves it up to the discretion of the administration to determine the most effective way forward, but it ensures this issue will not get put on the back burner and that we will not continue to rely on a piecemeal approach. In addition to removing the threat posed by the LRA, we cannot lose sight of the importance that the Ugandan government address the conditions out of which the LRA emerged and which could give rise to future conflict if unchanged. Rebuilding northern Uganda's institutions and addressing political and economic grievances is the surest safeguard against future violence and instability. The government of Uganda committed last year to move forward with that reconstruction and reconciliation process under the framework of its Peace, Recovery and Development, the PRDP plan. International donors, including the United States, have already put forth substantial funds for that process. However, thus far it has been hampered by a lack of strategic coordination, weak leadership and the government's limited capacity. In particular, there has been very little progress toward establishing the mechanisms envisaged by the peace agreement to address the original causes of the war and promote reconciliation and justice. Our legislation recognizes the importance of helping the Ugandan government to reinvigorate the PRDP process. The second part of the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 encourages the U.S. to increase assistance in the upcoming fiscal years for recovery with the condition that the Ugandan government demonstrates a commitment to genuine, transparent and accountable reconstruction. We should better leverage our contributions to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Finally, this legislation authorizes a small amount of additional assistance to see that mechanisms are finally established to promote accountability and reconciliation in Uganda on both local and national levels. A failure to address the underlying political grievances in northern Uganda could lead to new conflicts in the future. As my colleagues know, I make it a practice to pay for all bills that I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by reducing funds appropriated for excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force. A report by the Government Accountability Office in 2007 found that more than half of the Air Force's secondary inventory or spare parts, worth roughly $31.4 billion, were not needed to support required on-hand and on-order inventory levels for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. The GAO report concluded that this is not only wasteful, but could also negatively impact readiness. The Air Force has acknowledged that it currently has over $100 million of spare parts on order for which it has no need. Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but last year's Office of Management and Budget's projections confirm that we have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country. We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. I believe reducing the excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force by $40 million, a small amount, to pay for this bill is a responsible move that we can all support. Americans from all states and all walks of life have been touched by the stories of children from northern Uganda abducted and forced to commit unspeakable acts. Congress, too, has a long history of being involved with efforts to help end this rebel war, dating back to the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act that we passed in 2004, which committed the United States to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to the conflict. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 reaffirms and refocuses that commitment to help see this--one of Africa's longest running and most gruesome rebel wars--to its finish. I believe that, with the necessary leadership and strategic vision envisioned by this legislation, we can contribute to that end. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, and I am pleased to do so with a great champion on this issue: Senator Sam Brownback. For many years, we have both sought to bring attention to the terror orchestrated by the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA, and the suffering of the people of northern Uganda. We have come a long way in just a few years, thanks especially to young Americans who have become increasingly aware of and outspoken about this horrific situation. As a result, the U.S. has made increased efforts to help end this horror. Those efforts have yielded some success, but if we are now to finally see this conflict to its end, we need to commit to a proactive strategy to help end the threat posed by the LRA and support reconstruction, justice, and reconciliation in northern Uganda. This bill seeks to do just that. For over two decades, northern Uganda was caught in a war between the Ugandan military and rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army, leading at its height to the displacement of 1.8 million people, nearly 90 percent of the region's population. Just a few years ago, northern Uganda was called the world's worst neglected humanitarian crisis. In 2007, I visited displacement camps in northern Uganda and saw firsthand the terrible conditions and the desperation of people forced to endure such conditions year after year. Meanwhile, the LRA survived throughout this conflict by kidnapping an estimated 66,000 children, indoctrinating them, and forcing them to become child soldiers. In recent years, the LRA have come under increasing pressure. In 2005 and 2006, they largely withdrew from northern Uganda and moved into the border region between northeastern Congo, southern Sudan and even the Central African Republic. Then for almost two years, there was a lull in the violence as representatives from the Ugandan government and LRA engaged in sporadic peace negotiations in southern Sudan. The parties brokered a comprehensive agreement, but then hopes were dashed as the LRA's megalomaniac leader Joseph Kony refused to sign the agreement and reports surfaced that the LRA had been conducting new abductions to replenish his rebel group. In December 2008, the Ugandan, Congolese and South Sudanese militaries launched a joint offensive against the LRA's primary bases in northeastern Congo. The operation failed to apprehend Kony and over the following two months, his forces retaliated against civilians in the region, leaving over 900 people dead. It's tragically clear that insufficient attention and resources were devoted to ensuring the protection of civilians during the operation. Before launching any operation against the rebels, the regional militaries should have ensured that their plan had a high probability of success, anticipated contingencies, and made precautions to minimize dangers to civilians. It is widely known that when facing military offensive in the past, the LRA have quickly dispersed and committed retaliatory attacks against civilians. However, this botched operation does not mean that we should just give up on the goal of ending the massacres and the threat to regional stability posed by this small rebel group. Moreover, given that the U.S. provided assistance and support for this operation at the request of the regional governments, we have a responsibility to help see this rebel war to its end. In order to do that, I strongly believe we need a regional strategy to guide U.S. support--which includes political economic, intelligence and military support--for a multilateral effort to protect civilians and permanently end the threat posed by the LRA. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 requires of the administration to develop such a strategy. It leaves it up to the discretion of the administration to determine the most effective way forward, but it ensures this issue will not get put on the back burner and that we will not continue to rely on a piecemeal approach. In addition to removing the threat posed by the LRA, we cannot lose sight of the importance that the Ugandan government address the conditions out of which the LRA emerged and which could give rise to future conflict if unchanged. Rebuilding northern Uganda's institutions and addressing political and economic grievances is the surest safeguard against future violence and instability. The government of Uganda committed last year to move forward with that reconstruction and reconciliation process under the framework of its Peace, Recovery and Development, the PRDP plan. International donors, including the United States, have already put forth substantial funds for that process. However, thus far it has been hampered by a lack of strategic coordination, weak leadership and the government's limited capacity. In particular, there has been very little progress toward establishing the mechanisms envisaged by the peace agreement to address the original causes of the war and promote reconciliation and justice. Our legislation recognizes the importance of helping the Ugandan government to reinvigorate the PRDP process. The second part of the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 encourages the U.S. to increase assistance in the upcoming fiscal years for recovery with the condition that the Ugandan government demonstrates a commitment to genuine, transparent and accountable reconstruction. We should better leverage our contributions to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Finally, this legislation authorizes a small amount of additional assistance to see that mechanisms are finally established to promote accountability and reconciliation in Uganda on both local and national levels. A failure to address the underlying political grievances in northern Uganda could lead to new conflicts in the future. As my colleagues know, I make it a practice to pay for all bills that I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by reducing funds appropriated for excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force. A report by the Government Accountability Office in 2007 found that more than half of the Air Force's secondary inventory or spare parts, worth roughly $31.4 billion, were not needed to support required on-hand and on-order inventory levels for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. The GAO report concluded that this is not only wasteful, but could also negatively impact readiness. The Air Force has acknowledged that it currently has over $100 million of spare parts on order for which it has no need. Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but last year's Office of Management and Budget's projections confirm that we have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country. We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. I believe reducing the excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force by $40 million, a small amount, to pay for this bill is a responsible move that we can all support. Americans from all states and all walks of life have been touched by the stories of children from northern Uganda abducted and forced to commit unspeakable acts. Congress, too, has a long history of being involved with efforts to help end this rebel war, dating back to the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act that we passed in 2004, which committed the United States to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to the conflict. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 reaffirms and refocuses that commitment to help see this--one of Africa's longest running and most gruesome rebel wars--to its finish. I believe that, with the necessary leadership and strategic vision envisioned by this legislation, we can contribute to that end. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life of Rev. Robert Cornell, a great Wisconsin public servant and teacher. For most of his life, Reverend Cornell called northeast Wisconsin his home--as a student at St. Norbert Abbey, a Congressman, and a professor of history and government at St. Norbert College. Reverend Cornell was only the second Catholic priest to be elected to Congress when he represented Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District from 1975 to 1979. Just as he did all his life, Reverend Cornell came to Washington to fight for education and social justice for the Wisconsinites he represented. But his greatest accomplishments may have come in the halls of St. Norbert College as he used history to help guide young Wisconsinites to new levels of academic achievement. During his decades in the classroom, Reverend Cornell would bring history to life like no other. He brought out the best in his students with captivating lectures that displayed his tremendous knowledge, experience, and wit. His impact will certainly be felt for years to come through the countless students he taught and mentored. Reverend Cornell stands out as a towering figure in the history of northeast Wisconsin. His influence on education and public service has left a lasting mark on our State.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is critically important to the country and to my State of Wisconsin that we do everything we can to preserve an American auto manufacturing industry. The domestic auto industry has been vital to the economic development of Wisconsin for much of the last century, but that industry is undergoing a rapid restructuring right now, and I am very concerned about how this restructuring will affect communities in Wisconsin. We need an American auto industry, but it can't be American in name only. American jobs must be protected. Unfortunately, the auto restructuring plans that have been put forward contain proposals that ship jobs overseas. That is not acceptable to me or to my constituents. The taxpayer dollars that are propping up the industry should be used to preserve family-supporting jobs in Wisconsin and around the country. My State of Wisconsin has been hard hit by the troubles in the auto industry over the past year. There are two major auto plants located in my State--a General Motors plant in my hometown of Janesville, and a Chrysler engine plant in Kenosha. In addition, there are a dozen companies in Wisconsin that support these two plants, including supply companies and car dealers. Both the Janesville and Kenosha plants have received grim news from GM and Chrysler over the past year, including last year's announcement that production would cease at the GM Janesville plant and this week's statement that the Kenosha engine plant would close at the end of 2010. The Wisconsin community, including workers, economic development officials, technical colleges, workforce development groups, Governor Doyle, the Federal congressional delegation, and others have mobilized to assist these communities in the larger region in responding to this troubling news from both GM and Chrysler. I supported carving out some of the Wall Street bailout funds to help U.S. automakers because unlike the money heading to Wall Street firms, the money provided to the automakers actually had a chance of preserving essential jobs in the United States. But that doesn't mean we should give auto companies a blank check, which is why I said that any Federal assistance provided to the automakers should come with requirements that the industry reform itself, including producing more fuel efficient cars that Americans are now demanding. When Congress failed to pass legislation to provide Federal loans to the auto industry, I applauded then-President Bush for stepping in and using some of the Wall Street bailout money to help the auto industry while also requiring that the companies submit restructuring plans. Frankly, I am appalled that the automakers that received taxpayer assistance are not prioritizing the retention of American jobs, including jobs in Wisconsin. Over the past several months, I have heard concerns from the workers at the Chrysler Kenosha Engine Plant that work that Chrysler had promised to assign to the Kenosha plant might no longer actually be assigned to the Kenosha plant. At the same time, Kenosha's workforce told me that the same work would likely continue as scheduled at a plant in Mexico. In response to these concerns, I led a letter in early April, cosigned by Senator Kohl, Representative Ryan, and Representative Moore, to Secretary Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers. The letter urged the administration to consider including a priority for saving auto manufacturing jobs in the United States as the administration worked with the auto companies to craft restructuring plans. I received a response from Secretary Geithner that said it was the administration's hope that any Chrysler restructuring deal ``will help ensure that we retain as many Chrysler jobs as possible in Wisconsin . . . .'' Despite this assurance, the Kenosha community found out through media last week that in fact no Chrysler jobs would be retained at the Kenosha Engine Plant. Instead the Kenosha community was informed that the Kenosha plant would close by the end of 2010 while a Mexican plant slated to build the same product that has been promised to the Kenosha facility would remain open. This news, which was not heard directly from the company itself, outraged the Kenosha community and other Wisconsinites who believe that their tax dollars should not be used to save jobs overseas, but should instead be used to save jobs in the United States and in Wisconsin--and rightly so. The Federal delegation, State and local officials, and the Kenosha workforce are united in working together to try to persuade the administration and Chrysler to reconsider this terrible decision. I understand tough decisions need to be made as these companies restructure themselves. But both Chrysler and GM have received billions of American taxpayer dollars since December and the companies as well as the administration need to take steps to help ensure that those taxpayer dollars are being utilized for the purpose they were intended--to save American jobs. If Chrysler is going to close the Kenosha plant as well as other domestic plants while keeping its overseas facilities open, then we need to think seriously about whether it is in the interest of the American taxpayers to provide continued financial assistance to the company. There may still be some hope for the Chrysler Engine Plant in Kenosha and the GM Assembly Plant in Janesville, and other American plants--if the administration steps up. The Janesville community is waiting to hear whether or not the incentive package it presented to GM will be accepted and the Kenosha community is waiting to hear whether Chrysler's decision to close the Kenosha plant will be reconsidered. Over the years, both the Kenosha and Janesville workers have been commended for their productivity, their creativity, and their willingness to negotiate fairly with the management at each plant and both communities are great locations for retooled auto companies to thrive in the future. The first priority of any company receiving Federal taxpayer assistance should be to preserve jobs within the United States and I call upon the administration, Chrysler, and GM to reexamine their restructuring plans to make the preservation of U.S. jobs the top priority of these plans. I will continue to do all I can to support Wisconsin's workers and local communities in their efforts both to respond to these decisions and to ensure these auto companies prioritize saving auto manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin as the restructuring process moves forward in the coming days and weeks. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I voted in favor of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 but I am disappointed that it does not include key reforms of our defense procurement system. While President Obama and leaders in Congress deserve credit for beginning to address the longstanding problem of wasteful and abusive defense contracting, we need to go further. Secretary Gates has stated that we ``must consistently demonstrate the commitment and leadership to stop programs that significantly exceed their budget or which spend limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs.'' Unfortunately, this bill falls short in this regard. It permits programs to continue even if they have experienced cost growth of over 25 percent. GAO has found that 42 percent of our programs have experienced cost growth and that, due in part to such cost overruns, we have scaled back the number of weapons we are buying in 10 major programs by 30 percent. Congress's failure to make tough choices and restructure troubled programs is therefore having a direct impact on our ability to deliver sufficient quantities to our fighting forces. Secretary Gates has also stated that ``we must ensure that requirements are reasonable and technology is adequately mature to allow the department to successfully execute the programs.'' This bill encourages such reforms, but unfortunately does not require them. For example, it requires additional reporting on the Department's reliance on immature, risky technologies but does not prohibit the Department from purchasing such equipment. GAO reported this year that of 40 programs that it has reviewed, the Department will decide to move to the production of nearly a fourth of them without requiring realistic testing of their critical technologies. No company would buy a plane before they have flown it. I don't know why it should be any different for the U.S. Armed Forces. Indeed, given that our brave men and women in uniform are relying on these weapons systems, stricter standards should be enforced. Unfortunately, these are not new issues. I first objected to inadequate testing of weapons systems in 1998 when the Navy sought to rush the F-18 through its tests, notwithstanding the fact that preliminary tests had discovered serious problems in the aircraft. I am disappointed that a decade has passed and we are still seeing the same problems over and over again. I suggested that we should require higher level review of alternative acquisition strategies before purchasing systems that have not been tested in a realistic environment but was informed that this would be too strict of a requirement. While I am pleased that the committee at least accepted an amendment I cosponsored that will ensure that annual reports to the Congress identify programs moving into production without undergoing adequate testing, this is just a start. Secretary Gates demonstrated his commitment to fixing these problems when he recommended the cancellation of several programs that were over budget, were behind schedule, relied on immature technologies and were designed to combat a military-peer that does not exist. GAO had been reporting that these systems were in trouble for several years. If these systems had been restructured when it first became obvious that they were unnecessary and unrealistic, it would have saved the government tens of billions of dollars and sped up our efforts to replace our aging weapons systems. It is my hope that Congress will eventually forgo the parochial interests that have prevented it from making the tough choices that need to be made and stop repeating the same mistakes of the past. I will continue to work with my colleagues until we have achieved this goal. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 2:15 p.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Auctioning under Cap and Trade: Design, Participation and Distribution of Revenues''.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2009, to conduct a hearing. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2009. The hearing will commence at 2 p.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate office building. THe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on armed services

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2009 at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening the S.E.C.'s Vital Enforcement Responsibilities.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, to conduct a business meeting.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.