Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Service Fellowship Act with Senators Voinovich, Whitehouse, Cochran and Cardin. This important bill would provide more Americans the opportunity to volunteer overseas and strengthen our commitment to international volunteerism. This bill also authorizes Volunteers for Prosperity, VFP, an office created by President Bush under Executive Order 13317. As the new administration seeks to rebuild and restore our image abroad, increasing the number of Americans volunteering abroad is a critical component of that work. The federal government should facilitate such international volunteering experiences for U.S. citizens by promoting both short and long-term opportunities. My bill would not only provide more opportunities for people-to- people engagement, it would also reduce barriers that the average citizen faces when trying to volunteer internationally. First of all, my bill would reduce financial barriers by awarding fellowships designed to defray some of the costs associated with volunteering. The fellowship can be applied toward many of the costs associated with such travel including airfare, housing, or program costs. By providing financial assistance, the Global Service Fellowship program opens the door for more Americans to participate--not just those with the resources to pay for it. Secondly, my bill reduces volunteering barriers by offering flexibility in the length of the volunteer opportunity. I hear frequently from constituents who are unable to participate in volunteer programs because they cannot leave their jobs or family for years or months at a time, but are interested in creating cross cultural connections and contributing meaningfully to positive global change. A survey released by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in December 2008 indicates that between 2002 and 2008, opinions of the U.S. declined steeply in 14 out of the 19 countries polled. The Global Service Fellowship Program offers U.S. citizens an immediate opportunity to help reverse this negative trend on a schedule that works for them-- from a month up to a year. My bill provides a commonsense approach to the time limitations of the average American while also recognizing the important role people-to-people engagement can play in countering negative views of our country around the world. Not only does this bill make it easier for all Americans to apply for fellowships, it also engages Congress by giving Members of Congress the opportunity to notify their constituents who are awarded the fellowship--and calls on the recipient to report back to USAID and to their congressional representatives once they have returned from their time abroad. Through this process, Congress will see firsthand the benefit international volunteering brings to their communities and the Nation. This program would cost $15 million, which is more than offset by a provision in my bill that would require the IRS to deposit all of its fee receipts in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. This program would be a valuable addition to our public diplomacy, development, and humanitarian efforts overseas and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Service Fellowship Act with Senators Voinovich, Whitehouse, Cochran and Cardin. This important bill would provide more Americans the opportunity to volunteer overseas and strengthen our commitment to international volunteerism. This bill also authorizes Volunteers for Prosperity, VFP, an office created by President Bush under Executive Order 13317. As the new administration seeks to rebuild and restore our image abroad, increasing the number of Americans volunteering abroad is a critical component of that work. The federal government should facilitate such international volunteering experiences for U.S. citizens by promoting both short and long-term opportunities. My bill would not only provide more opportunities for people-to- people engagement, it would also reduce barriers that the average citizen faces when trying to volunteer internationally. First of all, my bill would reduce financial barriers by awarding fellowships designed to defray some of the costs associated with volunteering. The fellowship can be applied toward many of the costs associated with such travel including airfare, housing, or program costs. By providing financial assistance, the Global Service Fellowship program opens the door for more Americans to participate--not just those with the resources to pay for it. Secondly, my bill reduces volunteering barriers by offering flexibility in the length of the volunteer opportunity. I hear frequently from constituents who are unable to participate in volunteer programs because they cannot leave their jobs or family for years or months at a time, but are interested in creating cross cultural connections and contributing meaningfully to positive global change. A survey released by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in December 2008 indicates that between 2002 and 2008, opinions of the U.S. declined steeply in 14 out of the 19 countries polled. The Global Service Fellowship Program offers U.S. citizens an immediate opportunity to help reverse this negative trend on a schedule that works for them-- from a month up to a year. My bill provides a commonsense approach to the time limitations of the average American while also recognizing the important role people-to-people engagement can play in countering negative views of our country around the world. Not only does this bill make it easier for all Americans to apply for fellowships, it also engages Congress by giving Members of Congress the opportunity to notify their constituents who are awarded the fellowship--and calls on the recipient to report back to USAID and to their congressional representatives once they have returned from their time abroad. Through this process, Congress will see firsthand the benefit international volunteering brings to their communities and the Nation. This program would cost $15 million, which is more than offset by a provision in my bill that would require the IRS to deposit all of its fee receipts in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. This program would be a valuable addition to our public diplomacy, development, and humanitarian efforts overseas and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two factfinding commissions: one commission to review the treatment by our Government during World War II of American citizens or residents of German or Italian descent and persons of European descent living in Latin American countries, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue. I am very pleased that my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman, Inouye, Cardin and Wyden have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support. And I thank Congressman Wexler, who has been the unflagging champion of this legislation and will be introducing an identical bill in the House of Representatives. The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans. But, at the same time that so many brave Americans fought for freedom in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. Government was curtailing the freedom of people here at home. While it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives. War tests our principles and our values. And as our Nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and ultimately into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. While I commend our Government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the Government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by American citizens or residents of German or Italian descent and persons of European descent living in Latin American countries, as well as Jewish refugees. The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II. I believe that most Americans are unaware that the U.S. Government designated more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000 German-born United States resident aliens and their families as ``enemy aliens.'' The U.S. Government unfairly subjected many to arrest, detainment, and relocation. Indeed, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Even less well known is the U.S. policy coordinated with many Latin American countries that resulted in thousands of European Americans, including German and Austrian Jews, being arrested, shipped to the United States by U.S. military transport, and interned. Many European Americans and European Latin Americans were later repatriated or deported to European Axis nations during World War II, and some were exchanged for Americans and Latin Americans held in those nations. We must learn from this history and explore why we failed to protect the basic freedoms of our fellow Americans and those brought here from Latin America. A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must review the facts here as well and determine how restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible truth that the United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. Government to complete the accounting of this period in our Nation's history. It is now time to create independent, fact finding commissions to conduct a full and thorough review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II. Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps. There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who were taken from their homes, shipped to the United States, and interned here. There has been no justice for the European Americans and European Latin Americans who were repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries. Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores. The injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred more than 60 years ago. Americans must learn from these tragedies now, while the people who survived these injustices are still with us, and are still here to teach us. We cannot put this off any longer. Their numbers are rapidly dwindling. I spoke on the Senate floor in the last Congress about one such former internee, Max Ebel, who died still waiting for his country to acknowledge his internment and those of many other European Americans. If we wait any longer, even more people who were affected will no longer be here to know that Congress has at last recognized their sacrifice and resolved to learn from the mistakes of the past. We should never allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government. I was very pleased that the Senate approved this bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority as an amendment to the immigration bill in 2007. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act again this Congress, and to allow this bill to become law as soon as possible. I have been seeking to enact this legislation for eight years. It is long past time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our Nation's history. 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 introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two factfinding commissions: one commission to review the treatment by our Government during World War II of American citizens or residents of German or Italian descent and persons of European descent living in Latin American countries, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue. I am very pleased that my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman, Inouye, Cardin and Wyden have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support. And I thank Congressman Wexler, who has been the unflagging champion of this legislation and will be introducing an identical bill in the House of Representatives. The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans. But, at the same time that so many brave Americans fought for freedom in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. Government was curtailing the freedom of people here at home. While it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives. War tests our principles and our values. And as our Nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and ultimately into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. While I commend our Government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the Government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by American citizens or residents of German or Italian descent and persons of European descent living in Latin American countries, as well as Jewish refugees. The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II. I believe that most Americans are unaware that the U.S. Government designated more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000 German-born United States resident aliens and their families as ``enemy aliens.'' The U.S. Government unfairly subjected many to arrest, detainment, and relocation. Indeed, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. Even less well known is the U.S. policy coordinated with many Latin American countries that resulted in thousands of European Americans, including German and Austrian Jews, being arrested, shipped to the United States by U.S. military transport, and interned. Many European Americans and European Latin Americans were later repatriated or deported to European Axis nations during World War II, and some were exchanged for Americans and Latin Americans held in those nations. We must learn from this history and explore why we failed to protect the basic freedoms of our fellow Americans and those brought here from Latin America. A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must review the facts here as well and determine how restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible truth that the United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. Government to complete the accounting of this period in our Nation's history. It is now time to create independent, fact finding commissions to conduct a full and thorough review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II. Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps. There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who were taken from their homes, shipped to the United States, and interned here. There has been no justice for the European Americans and European Latin Americans who were repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries. Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores. The injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred more than 60 years ago. Americans must learn from these tragedies now, while the people who survived these injustices are still with us, and are still here to teach us. We cannot put this off any longer. Their numbers are rapidly dwindling. I spoke on the Senate floor in the last Congress about one such former internee, Max Ebel, who died still waiting for his country to acknowledge his internment and those of many other European Americans. If we wait any longer, even more people who were affected will no longer be here to know that Congress has at last recognized their sacrifice and resolved to learn from the mistakes of the past. We should never allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government. I was very pleased that the Senate approved this bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority as an amendment to the immigration bill in 2007. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act again this Congress, and to allow this bill to become law as soon as possible. I have been seeking to enact this legislation for eight years. It is long past time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our Nation's history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday I joined people around the world in marking International Women's Day. Since the beginning of the 20th century, variations of this day have been observed as an opportunity to highlight the issues that directly affect the lives of women and girls. At the same time, it is a day to reflect upon the lives, accomplishments, and struggles of women in our personal and collective histories. Much has been achieved since the first celebrants of National Women's Day began advocating for voting rights, shorter working hours, and higher pay. I am pleased that this Congress has already added to those achievements by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 to help ensure protection from pay discrimination. Nevertheless, the need for such activism continues and the theme selected by the United Nations for this year's International Women's Day reminds us of that. The theme is ``Women and men united to end violence against women and girls.'' Throughout the world, whether in war-torn villages in eastern Congo or Darfur or Sri Lanka, this theme is tragically relevant. Here in America, too, this year's theme is tragically relevant. Despite all the progress we have made, gender- based violence and sexual assault remain a devastatingly regular occurrence. We must do more to protect women and girls here at home and abroad whose lives are affected by this violence. I believe one way we can affirm our commitment to improving the status of women domestically and internationally is by ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women--CEDAW--now. The Convention was signed by the U.S. in 1980 and favorably reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002 with several reservations, understandings and declarations clarifying the Senate's position. Nevertheless, it still hasn't been considered by the full Senate. Our ratification would send an important message to the international community about our commitment to the rights of women and girls. We still have a long way to go, but International Women's Day reminds us that transformation is possible. We recognize the awesome power of our heroes who have struggled for change, especially women who have refused to give in or remain silent in the face of injustice. Many famous women come to mind, but there are also so many more whose names may not be noted in the pages of history but whose courage and compassion have made a lasting difference in the lives they've touched. Let's commit today to honor their legacy and to work for a lasting end to violence against women and girls.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against this Omnibus appropriations bill, which contains thousands and thousands of unjustified, unexamined earmarked spending provisions, and which is being rushed through the Senate. By one estimate, the total cost of those items is nearly $8 billion. Even under ordinary circumstances it would be hard to defend those earmarks but there is certainly no defense for them at a time when the Nation is contending with this deep recession and millions of families are struggling to make ends meet. The hundreds of pages of tables in the report accompanying the bill, each listing multiple earmarks, is probably the best rationale I have seen for earmark reform. I have been pleased to work with a number of my colleagues on a proposal to establish a new point of order against unauthorized earmarks, and on another proposal to provide the President with authority similar to a line item veto to cancel earmark spending. We certainly need to enact something like those reforms because we cannot afford to continue this abusive process. After all the talk of reform last year, and after the promising beginning made by keeping the stimulus legislation free of earmarks, we have quickly slid back to business as usual. We are considering a bill that has nearly $8 billion in earmarks. And that is just one bill. We haven't even begun the appropriations process for fiscal year 2010. The President deserves great credit for keeping the stimulus bill free of earmarks. He should build on that achievement by insisting this omnibus appropriations bill be stripped of the earmarks currently in it. If that means vetoing the bill and sending it back to Congress for further work, then that is exactly what he should do. I strongly prefer that Congress address this issue and clean up its own earmark mess. But right now there is little indication that Congress act without some tough leadership from the President. Mr. President, I was pleased to support amendments offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, that sought to eliminate some of the earmarks in the bill. I did not, however, support other efforts to cut overall funding levels in the bill. While I believe that Congress needs to be extra vigilant in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well-spent, those efforts failed to specify where the funding would be cut. We should be making those tough decisions ourselves, and ensuring that any cuts are targeted and appropriate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again offer this measure, the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009 with my colleague from Wisconsin, the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan. I have worked with Congressman Ryan on this issue for the last two years. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, WI, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility. I am also delighted to be joined by my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009. Senator McCain has been one of the preeminent champions of earmark reform, and I have been pleased to work with him in fighting this abuse over the last two decades. The measure we are each introducing today would grant the President specific authority to rescind or cancel congressional earmarks, including earmarked spending, tax breaks, and tariff benefits. This new authority would sunset at the end of 2014, ensuring that Congress will have a chance to review its use in two different presidential terms before considering whether or not to extend it. While not a true line- item veto bill, our measure provides for fast-track consideration of the President's proposed cancellation of earmarks. Thus, unlike current law, it ensures that for the specific category of congressional earmarks, the President will get an up or down vote on his proposed cancellations. There have been a number of so-called line-item veto proposals offered in the past several years. But the measure we propose today is unique in that it specifically targets the very items that every line- item veto proponent cites when promoting a particular measure, namely earmarks. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority. That is exactly what our bill does. It provides the President with new expedited rescission authority--what has been commonly referred to as a line-item veto--to cancel congressional earmarks. The definitions of earmarks that we use are the very definitions upon which each house has agreed in passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in the 110th Congress. Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. By one estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. While some in Congress may wish to dismiss this issue, this year a single bill, the omnibus appropriations bill we are considering in the Senate, has by one count over eight thousand earmarks that cost over $7 billion. That is just one bill. We haven't even begun the appropriations process for the coming i cal year. There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year, and while I have opposed granting the President line-item veto authority to effectively reshape programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for this specific category, I support giving the President this additional tool. Under our proposal, wasteful spending does not have anywhere to hide. It is out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that's what we are trying to get at with this legislation. President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks. I was pleased to hear reports that President Obama looks forward to giving the line item veto a ``test drive.'' I very much hope that with this bill we can give him that opportunity. 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 pleased to once again offer this measure, the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009 with my colleague from Wisconsin, the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan. I have worked with Congressman Ryan on this issue for the last two years. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, WI, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility. I am also delighted to be joined by my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009. Senator McCain has been one of the preeminent champions of earmark reform, and I have been pleased to work with him in fighting this abuse over the last two decades. The measure we are each introducing today would grant the President specific authority to rescind or cancel congressional earmarks, including earmarked spending, tax breaks, and tariff benefits. This new authority would sunset at the end of 2014, ensuring that Congress will have a chance to review its use in two different presidential terms before considering whether or not to extend it. While not a true line- item veto bill, our measure provides for fast-track consideration of the President's proposed cancellation of earmarks. Thus, unlike current law, it ensures that for the specific category of congressional earmarks, the President will get an up or down vote on his proposed cancellations. There have been a number of so-called line-item veto proposals offered in the past several years. But the measure we propose today is unique in that it specifically targets the very items that every line- item veto proponent cites when promoting a particular measure, namely earmarks. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority. That is exactly what our bill does. It provides the President with new expedited rescission authority--what has been commonly referred to as a line-item veto--to cancel congressional earmarks. The definitions of earmarks that we use are the very definitions upon which each house has agreed in passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in the 110th Congress. Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. By one estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. While some in Congress may wish to dismiss this issue, this year a single bill, the omnibus appropriations bill we are considering in the Senate, has by one count over eight thousand earmarks that cost over $7 billion. That is just one bill. We haven't even begun the appropriations process for the coming i cal year. There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year, and while I have opposed granting the President line-item veto authority to effectively reshape programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for this specific category, I support giving the President this additional tool. Under our proposal, wasteful spending does not have anywhere to hide. It is out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that's what we are trying to get at with this legislation. President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks. I was pleased to hear reports that President Obama looks forward to giving the line item veto a ``test drive.'' I very much hope that with this bill we can give him that opportunity. 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 pleased to support this bill, and congratulate the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Utah for their tireless efforts. Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch have put forward innovative, bipartisan legislation that will strengthen our democracy. I also want to recognize the contribution of the majority leader, who, by championing this issue, renews and fulfills our country's commitment to equality, democracy, and justice. When I watch my colleagues on the floor today, I see the spirit of Paul Douglas, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen. This legislation is part of the struggle to fulfill the promise of America that led to the landmark civil rights bills of 1957, 1964, and 1965. Today, we follow in the footsteps of some of our greatest predecessors. We are here to right a historic wrong, to enfranchise hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans by giving them a vote in Congress. The struggle to give Washington, DC, a vote in the House of Representatives has already been historic. I was disappointed that the Senate was the graveyard for this bill in 2007. By using a filibuster to prevent the bill from even reaching the floor at that time, opponents of this bill recalled history, too--an unfortunate history we should not revisit. I am sure that I do not need to remind anyone here that for decades the Senate was an implacable bulwark that no civil rights bill could breach. Unfortunately, when this great institution was faced a year and a half ago with a new kind of voting rights bill, it did not rise to the challenge. Now we have a chance to correct this breach of American principles and pass the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009. And so now is the time to remedy the injustice being done to Americans residing in the District of Columbia, and stop this violation of their fundamental rights. Now is the time to take action on this legislation and to finally give the disenfranchised District at least a partial say in the decisions of the Congress, to make the ``People's House'' a body that truly represents all of the people of this Nation. In 1964, the Supreme Court stated that ``[n]o right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.'' It is time for Congress to live up to those words. At a time when Americans whose families wait for them at home in the District are fighting for our country overseas, it is a cruel and bitter irony that their own country denies them the right to representation in the House. With all of the difficult issues and momentous decisions facing this Congress, the people of DC deserve a voice in it, now more than ever. As of February 14, 29 DC residents have been killed or wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, wars that their elected representative had no say in commencing or funding. Approximately 1,500 homes are in foreclosure or pre-foreclosure, unemployment has gone up over 3 percent in the last year, to 8.8 percent. Just like all other Americans, the residents of the District want to participate in the crucial and difficult debates this Congress is having over foreign and economic policy. They want to set a new course for this country. Their voices should count just as much as their fellow citizens'. Opponents of this bill have asserted that it is unconstitutional. I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing in May 2007 to examine whether the Constitution, perhaps the greatest testament to democracy and freedom in human history, prevents the elected legislature of the people of this country from granting the most basic right of citizenship to the people of the District of Columbia. The hearing confirmed that while this is not an easy question of constitutional interpretation, there are strong arguments for the bill's constitutionality. Our conclusions were strengthened by the finding of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that Congress's authority to legislatively extend House representation is supported by two centuries of judicial precedent. In light of the historic wrong that this bill will correct, the case for its constitutionality is certainly strong enough to justify enacting it and letting the Supreme Court make the final decision. The Constitution grants Congress the power of ``exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever,'' over the District; I believe that we can use that authority to ensure that this Government's just powers are derived from the consent of the governed. Moreover, the basic sweep of the Constitution, its very essence, is to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of this country, including the right to be represented in Congress. The other fundamental document of our founding, the Declaration of Independence, laid out a list of grievances against the King of Great Britain, including the following: He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. That inestimable right has been denied to the residents of the District of Columbia for far too long. We in Congress have a duty to fulfill the promise of democracy for DC residents. Those who rely on constitutional arguments to oppose this bill should ask themselves what the Framers would think today, if they were faced with the question of whether their handiwork should be used to prevent Congress from granting over a half million people the most basic right in a democracy--the right of representation in the legislature. It is simply inconceivable to me that those great and brave patriots would be comfortable with such a blatant injustice. I hope that we finally have the votes to right this historic wrong. I urge my colleagues to support the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009, and grant the most basic of democratic rights to the people of the District.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the fairness doctrine was repealed by the FCC over 20 years ago. I do not support its reinstatement because I don't like the idea of the government micromanaging speech. I also have serious questions about whether it would be constitutional to reinstate the fairness doctrine, given the wide variety of media outlets available for the expression of different points of view. That is why I voted for the amendment offered by Senator DeMint banning the fairness doctrine. Unfortunately, that amendment was drafted so broadly that it could have also restricted the FCC from encouraging localism and ensuring that broadcasters are living up to their public interest responsibilities. These are responsibilities that broadcasters agree to when they are provided a segment of spectrum--a valuable piece of public property--and they should not be undone. I supported the Durbin amendment to clarify that public interest obligations remain, while ensuring that the fairness doctrine does not return.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with the senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill to require that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. This step is long overdue; indeed I first introduced this bill in 2003. I hope that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation this year. A series of reports by the Campaign Finance Institute has highlighted the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get access to Senate campaign finance reports while most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission, FEC. The Campaign Finance Institute asks a rhetorical question: ``What makes the Senate so special that it exempts itself from a key requirement of campaign finance disclosure that applies to everyone else, including candidates for the House of Representatives and Political Action Committees?'' The answer, of course, is nothing. The U.S. Senate is special in many ways. I am proud to serve here. But there is no excuse for keeping our campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House candidates or others is readily available. My bill amends the section of the election laws dealing with electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 hours. The FEC is required to make available on the Internet within 24 hours any filing it receives electronically. So if this bill is enacted, electronic versions of Senate reports should be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast improvement over the current situation, which, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, requires journalists and interested members of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of reports, and involves a completely wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost every campaign has available in electronic format. The current filing system also means that the detailed coding that the FEC does, which allows for more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering the first two weeks of October are often not susceptible to detailed scrutiny before the election. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, in the 2006 election, ``[v]oters in six of the hottest Senate races were out of luck the week before the November 7 election if they did Web searches for information on general election contributions since June 30. . . . In all ten of the most closely followed Senate races voters were unable to search through any candidate reports for information on pre-general election (October 1- 18) donations.'' And a September 18, 2006, column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum in the Washington Post noted that ``When the polls opened in November 2004, voters were in the dark about $53 million in individual Senate contributions of $200 or more dating all the way back to July. . . .'' Because the Senate failed to pass this bill last Congress, even though we had 48 bipartisan cosponsors and no known opposition, and even though the Senate Rules Committee reported the bill by voice vote, the same problem existed for Senate elections in the 2008 cycle. In addition, because of the expense, when the FEC puts information from the paper filings in its electronic database, it only enters contributions, not expenditures. So anyone interested in how a Senate campaign is spending its money has to consult the paper forms. As Roll Call said in its recent editorial in favor of the bill, ``[i]t's time for this nonsense to come to an end.'' It is time for the Senate to at long last relinquish its backward attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs, House and Presidential candidates, and even 527 organizations. I close with another question from the Campaign Finance Institute: ``Isn't it time that the Senate join the 21st century and allow itself to vote on a simple legislative fix that could significantly improve our democracy?'' This Congress, let us finally answer that question in the affirmative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the Roll Call editorial be printed in the Record. [From Roll Call, Feb. 11, 2009] Outrageous In this year when ``transparency'' is all the rage, it would be appropriate for the Senate--at long last--to join the House and every federal political committee in filing campaign finance reports electronically. Fundraising and spending reports for the end of 2008 were due on Jan. 31. Reports for House Members and candidates and the Republican and Democratic parties and their campaign committees all were instantly available to the media, watchdog groups and the public on the Federal Election Commission's Web site. But Senate reports take weeks from the filing deadline to make it into the public realm. And when they are made available, it's at the conclusion of a circuitous process that costs taxpayers an estimated $250,000 a year that could be far better spent elsewhere--almost anywhere else--or simply used to narrow the federal deficit. Moreover, because of the expense, the FEC does not electronically post Senate campaign expenditures, only contributions--a gap that Steve Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute correctly calls ``outrageous.'' Senators use FEC-approved software to compile their reports, but then they snail-mail paper copies to the office of the Secretary of the Senate, which then scans some 27,000 pages and sends them electronically to the FEC. They can be then combed through page by page on the FEC Web site, but not digitally manipulated or matched. The FEC hires a contractor to key the data into digital form. Only then, a month or more after the filing deadline, can the data be searched and connections made, if any, between money collected and votes or positions Senators or their opponents have taken. But it still takes page-by-page searching to review candidates' spending--to determine, for instance, if candidates' relatives are on the campaign payroll. All this ridiculous complexity is necessary because in 2000 the Senate exempted itself from an electronic filing requirement written into the FEC's appropriation. Legislation to correct the situation has been regularly introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and it's regularly had dozens of co-sponsors. But it's never passed. Change was resisted at first by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who wanted to maintain a fusty Senate ``prerogative,'' and then by various Republican Senators who wanted to attach amendments that amounted to ``poison pills.'' Last year, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee approved the bill for floor action, but it was blocked by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) who sought to add a provision requiring disclosure of the donors to any organization filing ethics complaints against a Senator. The bill never was voted on. It's time for this nonsense to come to an end. Feingold is planning to re-introduce the measure soon. It ought to be processed promptly by the Rules Committee, now chaired by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and pushed to the floor for passage as early in the year as possible so if it's subject to more shenanigans, they can be exposed and resolved.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with the senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill to require that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. This step is long overdue; indeed I first introduced this bill in 2003. I hope that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation this year. A series of reports by the Campaign Finance Institute has highlighted the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get access to Senate campaign finance reports while most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission, FEC. The Campaign Finance Institute asks a rhetorical question: ``What makes the Senate so special that it exempts itself from a key requirement of campaign finance disclosure that applies to everyone else, including candidates for the House of Representatives and Political Action Committees?'' The answer, of course, is nothing. The U.S. Senate is special in many ways. I am proud to serve here. But there is no excuse for keeping our campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House candidates or others is readily available. My bill amends the section of the election laws dealing with electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 hours. The FEC is required to make available on the Internet within 24 hours any filing it receives electronically. So if this bill is enacted, electronic versions of Senate reports should be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast improvement over the current situation, which, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, requires journalists and interested members of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of reports, and involves a completely wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost every campaign has available in electronic format. The current filing system also means that the detailed coding that the FEC does, which allows for more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering the first two weeks of October are often not susceptible to detailed scrutiny before the election. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, in the 2006 election, ``[v]oters in six of the hottest Senate races were out of luck the week before the November 7 election if they did Web searches for information on general election contributions since June 30. . . . In all ten of the most closely followed Senate races voters were unable to search through any candidate reports for information on pre-general election (October 1- 18) donations.'' And a September 18, 2006, column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum in the Washington Post noted that ``When the polls opened in November 2004, voters were in the dark about $53 million in individual Senate contributions of $200 or more dating all the way back to July. . . .'' Because the Senate failed to pass this bill last Congress, even though we had 48 bipartisan cosponsors and no known opposition, and even though the Senate Rules Committee reported the bill by voice vote, the same problem existed for Senate elections in the 2008 cycle. In addition, because of the expense, when the FEC puts information from the paper filings in its electronic database, it only enters contributions, not expenditures. So anyone interested in how a Senate campaign is spending its money has to consult the paper forms. As Roll Call said in its recent editorial in favor of the bill, ``[i]t's time for this nonsense to come to an end.'' It is time for the Senate to at long last relinquish its backward attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs, House and Presidential candidates, and even 527 organizations. I close with another question from the Campaign Finance Institute: ``Isn't it time that the Senate join the 21st century and allow itself to vote on a simple legislative fix that could significantly improve our democracy?'' This Congress, let us finally answer that question in the affirmative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the Roll Call editorial be printed in the Record. [From Roll Call, Feb. 11, 2009] Outrageous In this year when ``transparency'' is all the rage, it would be appropriate for the Senate--at long last--to join the House and every federal political committee in filing campaign finance reports electronically. Fundraising and spending reports for the end of 2008 were due on Jan. 31. Reports for House Members and candidates and the Republican and Democratic parties and their campaign committees all were instantly available to the media, watchdog groups and the public on the Federal Election Commission's Web site. But Senate reports take weeks from the filing deadline to make it into the public realm. And when they are made available, it's at the conclusion of a circuitous process that costs taxpayers an estimated $250,000 a year that could be far better spent elsewhere--almost anywhere else--or simply used to narrow the federal deficit. Moreover, because of the expense, the FEC does not electronically post Senate campaign expenditures, only contributions--a gap that Steve Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute correctly calls ``outrageous.'' Senators use FEC-approved software to compile their reports, but then they snail-mail paper copies to the office of the Secretary of the Senate, which then scans some 27,000 pages and sends them electronically to the FEC. They can be then combed through page by page on the FEC Web site, but not digitally manipulated or matched. The FEC hires a contractor to key the data into digital form. Only then, a month or more after the filing deadline, can the data be searched and connections made, if any, between money collected and votes or positions Senators or their opponents have taken. But it still takes page-by-page searching to review candidates' spending--to determine, for instance, if candidates' relatives are on the campaign payroll. All this ridiculous complexity is necessary because in 2000 the Senate exempted itself from an electronic filing requirement written into the FEC's appropriation. Legislation to correct the situation has been regularly introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and it's regularly had dozens of co-sponsors. But it's never passed. Change was resisted at first by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who wanted to maintain a fusty Senate ``prerogative,'' and then by various Republican Senators who wanted to attach amendments that amounted to ``poison pills.'' Last year, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee approved the bill for floor action, but it was blocked by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) who sought to add a provision requiring disclosure of the donors to any organization filing ethics complaints against a Senator. The bill never was voted on. It's time for this nonsense to come to an end. Feingold is planning to re-introduce the measure soon. It ought to be processed promptly by the Rules Committee, now chaired by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and pushed to the floor for passage as early in the year as possible so if it's subject to more shenanigans, they can be exposed and resolved.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, we have seen a historic and unprecedented expansion in United States leadership in global health over the last decade and especially over the last few years. I applaud the previous administration's work in this regard, and I was proud last July when we came together across party lines to authorize $48 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. That was a courageous commitment to save millions of lives, and it is critical that the United States deliver on our promises. I am sympathetic to those who ask how we can maintain such a high level of investment in health abroad at a time when we are facing widespread economic troubles here at home. Throughout my career, I have worked to try to bring fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget, and I am very concerned about the massive deficits we are running. This is a time when we must have priorities, and our first priority must be protecting and meeting the basic needs of the American people. However, this does not mean that the global health challenges of our time should be left unaddressed; indeed they too demand our continued and consistent engagement. Just last month, our Intelligence Community released an assessment of the connections between health and our national interests abroad. They found that infectious diseases--whether HIV/AIDS or SARS--as well as general maternal and child mortality and the availability of healthcare can have significant impacts on the economies, governments, and militaries of key countries and regions. Moreover, their assessment found that U.S. global health assistance provides substantial opportunities to advance diplomacy, support stabilization in Iraq and Afghanistan, engage constructively with the rising powers of China and India, and ease tensions within the developing world. I urge my colleagues to look at this report if they have not already. I have seen firsthand--as I know many Americans have--the tremendous good will generated for the United States by our leadership in global health. This has been especially true in sub-Saharan Africa. Just last December, I traveled to Tanzania and visited a health center funded by U.S. assistance that treats pregnant women and malaria patients. Over recent years, as we have tried to reverse a growing trend of anti- Americanism around the world, our health assistance has been a critical tool toward that goal. New levels of U.S. engagement in global health have spurred thousands of Americans to become involved in service abroad and build cross-border relationships that foster mutual understanding. I strongly believe the power of citizen diplomacy cannot be understated in an increasingly interconnected world. For these reasons and more, I believe it is essential that we continue to lead in global health. It should not be a question of whether we do so, but a question of how we do so in a time of limited resources. We need an approach that maximizes efficiency, demonstrates real results, and fully leverages our programs toward our broader foreign policy objectives. American taxpayers should be confident that they are getting the most for their money. That is why I believe that, more than ever, we must develop a global health strategy that is all inclusive, integrated and sustainable. Let me explain what I mean when I say those three things: all- inclusive, integrated and sustainable. First, all-inclusive. We all know that the current U.S. approach to global health has been focused on one disease, HIV. This is understandable, especially with tens of millions of people still affected and more being infected every day. Our efforts in this area must continue. However, a failure to simultaneously address other common infectious diseases can limit our progress toward combating the AIDS pandemic, as well as promoting overall health. This is especially the case with malaria, which continues to kill over a million people each year despite the fact that we have simple, affordable tools to prevent and treat it. I plan to work with my colleagues in Congress and the Obama administration to continue and build upon the efforts of President Bush's Malaria Initiative. At the same time, we cannot forget there is much work to be done to address tuberculosis and neglected tropical diseases, and we must not give up on the goal of eradicating polio. Our efforts in each of these areas should be brought together under a comprehensive vision that also incorporates the preventable and treatable illnesses that kill millions of men, women, and children each year. In fact, developing a plan to address the basic challenges to child and maternal health should be the foundation of our global health work, not a secondary initiative. By ``all inclusive,'' I am also talking about the means by which we seek to pursue our overall global health objectives. Too often, restrictions or requirements on U.S. health assistance have limited our flexibility to effectively balance prevention and treatment measures, or to pursue evidence-based approaches. This has especially been the case with regard to reproductive health and family planning initiatives, which I believe have an essential role to play if we are to stem the tide of HIV infections or reduce maternal mortality. To that end, I am pleased that President Obama recently overturned the Mexico City policy. I hope we can now move past the ideological divisions surrounding this policy as we develop and implement a truly comprehensive approach to advancing our global health objectives. It is not enough, though, to balance and bring all of our initiatives together under one umbrella; they must also be integrated. In many places, U.S. health programs remain fragmented on the ground and not well coordinated with each other. For example, we are funding some HIV/ AIDS clinics that do not provide testing for malaria or tuberculosis even though these diseases often co-exist. As another example, we support some programs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV that are entirely disconnected from the provision of basic services in maternal and child health. This lack of integration is inefficient, places a great burden on patients, and can ultimately render our efforts ineffective. Just as it is important to have a comprehensive strategy, it is critical that its many parts are well coordinated. Greater integration can also ensure that our global health programs are working in support of, not against, building stronger health systems. This brings me to the third and what I believe is perhaps the most important point in developing a global health strategy: the need to place greater emphasis on sustainability. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the global health community today is addressing the continuing weaknesses in health infrastructure around the world. I am concerned that our current programs have not done enough to address those infrastructure weaknesses, and in some cases may even be perpetuating them. We need to not only devote more resources and attention to strengthening indigenous health systems that can meet national and local needs, but we need to do so effectively by engaging with local communities and governments to understand where there are gaps and where the needs are greatest. Such a strategy includes help to recruit, train, and retain a new health workforce. Toward that goal, I was pleased to work with Senators Durbin and Coleman in the last Congress to introduce the Africa Health Care Capacity Act, and I hope to continue working on this issue in this new Congress. Until developing countries have the healthcare professionals and infrastructure they need, we will continue to fight an uphill battle for decades to come against HIV/AIDS and other global health challenges. The time is now to put in place an all-inclusive and robust strategy for global health. By doing so, we can help ensure that our leadership in global health is a good investment for the American taxpayer and that the world's sick and vulnerable can see the results so desperately needed. I look forward to working with the Obama administration and my colleagues on these issues this Congress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of Dr. Alison Des Forges in the tragic crash of Continental flight 3407 on February 12. In her passing, we lost not only one of the foremost experts on the state of human rights in Rwanda and Central Africa, but also one of the greatest advocates for human rights in our time. Alison's tireless appeals for international action to save lives both before and during the 1994 Rwandan genocide are legendary in the human rights and Africa policy communities. Her efforts have been widely reported on since that time, and I hope they will continue to inspire future generations. Her personal witness should inspire and challenge us all as we seek an end to ongoing mass atrocities, whether in Darfur, eastern Congo, or areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army. Long after the genocide ended, Alison maintained her relentless commitment to pursue the truth and promote human rights. Her authoritative research on the genocide informed the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, national courts across Europe and North America, and even this Congress. She was widely recognized over the years for her objective and balanced analysis of the changing situation in Rwanda and Central Africa. This was not a standard easily achieved or without its sacrifices. Indeed, just last year, Alison was twice refused entry by the Rwandan Government, a government that once praised her reporting on the genocide. 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.'' Alison was unwilling to allow that growing intolerance to go unnoticed--even when the result made it more difficult for her to do her job. Alison was never vindictive, but she was never afraid to speak the truth about growing repression or threats to basic rights when she saw them. In that sense, Alison Des Forges embodied the very best of America's tradition of supporting human rights and pressing for meaningful accountability for violations of those rights. She will be greatly missed, but we can pay tribute to her by carrying that tradition forward.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the confirmation of Leon Panetta to be Director of the CIA. His integrity and independence, his managerial skills, his broad experience in both the executive and legislative branches, and his testimony during his confirmation hearing suggest he is exactly the kind of CIA Director our country needs right now. First, his statements, in his meeting with me and at his confirmation hearing, provide assurances that he will put CIA activities squarely within the law and refocus the brave and dedicated professionals of the Agency on what they do best, and on what we need them for the most. Not only did he express his commitment to ending an illegal and ineffective interrogation and detention program, but he clearly indicated that the CIA would not conduct extraordinary renditions to secret detentions. Congressman Panetta also committed to ending the Bush administration's practice of using ``Gang of Eight'' briefings to evade its legal responsibility to brief the full congressional intelligence committees, thereby thwarting oversight. And he assured me that the CIA would cooperate with the Department of Justice as the Department reviews interrogation, detention, rendition and other matters that raise legal questions. These statements, along with his previous condemnations of torture and of warrantless surveillance of Americans, suggest a personal commitment to the law and to our Constitution that will be needed as the CIA faces the challenges ahead. I have long been concerned that intelligence resources have not been sufficiently allocated toward long-term and emerging threats in places like Africa, and was pleased that Congressman Panetta testified that he shares these concerns. More importantly, he has committed to conducting a review of CIA operations and resources in light of these concerns and to working closely with the committee in the course of that review. Finally, he testified that he agrees with the goal of developing strategies that integrate clandestine collection with the information obtained openly by our government, particularly through diplomatic collection. Last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee passed legislation creating an independent Commission to make-recommendations on how to achieve this integration and Congressman Panetta has committed to working with me on that legislation. These commitments give me confidence that Congressman Panetta will work to refocus the CIA on its central mission of protecting our national security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, consistent with my practice of deferring to Presidents on executive branch nominations, I will vote to confirm William Lynn to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. I do have some concerns, however, about Mr. Lynn's longtime service as a lobbyist for a major defense contractor. I hope that, if confirmed, Mr. Lynn will take seriously the need for serious reforms to address the Department's troubling record of financial mismanagement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend this body for including provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to energize the fledgling green economy. While I am concerned by the enormous cost of this bill and lack of offsets, I recognize the need for urgent action as we strive to keep and create jobs for those who are suffering because of our failing economy. Earlier this year, I introduced the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation Act, S. 222, as part of my E4 Initiative aimed at fueling job creation and spurring economic development. I am very pleased that so much of what I proposed in this bill has been included in the economic recovery package. The economic recovery legislation passed by the Senate includes an increase for the bond limit for the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program from $800 million to $3.2 billion, more than a 300 percent increase. While I proposed increasing the program to $3.6 billion, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for including such a significant increase. The second component of my Community Revitalization Energy Conservation Act would boost job growth and help businesses and homeowners go green by expanding the types of projects that are eligible for the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program, which was established by Congress last fall. I am pleased the Senate adopted my amendment making this change as part of the economic recovery package. Business and labor leaders and others in Wisconsin have told me about the tremendous potential for energy efficiency retrofits to generate more green-collar jobs. And already, Wisconsin communities are beginning to pursue these improvements. My amendment will allow Wisconsin to launch programs--modeled after Milwaukee's proposed Me2 program--throughout the State by utilizing the tax credit bonds allocated to Wisconsin under the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program. My amendment specifically ensures that States and local governments can increase the number of building retrofits by eliminating significant financial barriers facing homeowners and businesses interested in making energy efficiency and conservation improvements. It does this by allowing energy efficiency projects to be performed as part of a ``green community program'' using grants, loans, or other repayment mechanisms, such as periodic fees included on a utility bill or municipal bill. By using utilities as intermediaries, States and localities can ensure homeowners and businesses do not incur upfront costs and can gradually pay back the costs of the energy efficiency retrofits through their electricity or water bills at a rate that reflects energy savings. For example, if a monthly energy bill before energy efficiency improvements is $150 and with improvements the energy costs are down to $110, then at most a homeowner or business would pay $40 monthly towards paying off the costs of the energy efficiency building retrofits. Presently, buildings account for 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption and 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption so there are significant gains to be made with energy efficiency. Projects that could qualify for the funding include heat-saving measures like insulation, electricity-saving measures like lighting and appliances, water-saving measures like low-flow shower heads and toilets, renewable energy generating devices like photovoltaic solar installations, storm water management like rain barrels, or other measures that also result in reduced energy use. My amendment will allow Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds to support these partnerships among cities, utilities, homeowners, and businesses to make energy efficiency improvements within more people's reach and put Americans to work. I thank Senator Debbie Stabenow for cosponsoring this amendment, and I appreciate the endorsements from the Air Conditioning Contractors of America, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Apollo Alliance, National Electrical Contractors Association, National SAVE Energy Coalition, and the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association. I am pleased my provision was included, offering another opportunity to help jumpstart the green economy and bring relief to our citizens as we reinvest in America. I intend to work with conferees to ensure the provision is retained and look forward to its enactment as part of economic recovery legislation. I am also pleased that funding was included for several other energy programs that I sought funding for including the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program, both of which can quickly generate jobs and generate lasting energy savings.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Leahy, Specter, and Kennedy in introducing the State Secrets Protection Act of 2009. This bill establishes uniform procedures for courts to use when evaluating governmental assertions of the state secrets privilege in civil litigation. It takes an important step toward restoring the rule of law by ensuring that the privilege will be used only to protect true state secrets, and not as a means for the Government to avoid accountability for its actions. In a democracy, the public should have the right to know what its government is doing. That should be the rule, and secrecy should be the rare exception, reserved for the very few cases in which the national security is truly at stake. Unfortunately, the Bush administration stood that presumption on its head, cloaking its actions in secrecy whenever possible and grudgingly submitting to public scrutiny only when it couldn't be avoided. The ``state secrets'' privilege was a favorite weapon in that administration's arsenal of secrecy. None of us disputes that information may properly be withheld as a ``state secret'' when disclosing the information would cause grave damage to national security. The problem arises when the privilege is abused and invoked to shield Government wrongdoing. Indeed, that is exactly what happened the first time the Supreme Court recognized the privilege in 1953, in the case of United States v. Reynolds. The Government had been sued after a military aircraft crash killed nine people, and it invoked the ``state secrets'' privilege to shield an internal investigative report. Decades later, when the report was declassified, it revealed nothing that could fairly be characterized as a ``state secret'' but it did reveal faulty maintenance of the aircraft. Abuses like these can be prevented, but only if the courts fulfill their responsibility to carefully review claims of privilege. In the Reynolds case, no court actually looked at the supposedly privileged report. That simple step would have prevented the miscarriage of justice that ensued. Yet, despite the fact that courts have the acknowledged authority to order in camera review of the evidence, fewer than one third of courts have actually exercised that option when the Government has asserted the ``state secrets'' privilege. And a host of other tools available to the courts to evaluate and respond to claims of privilege have been employed inconsistently at best, resulting in a confused body of case law that preserves accountability in some cases while granting the government a ``get out of jail free'' card in others. In the last Congress, Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Leahy introduced the State Secrets Protection Act to standardize the procedures courts use in cases where the Government asserts the ``state secrets'' privilege and to ensure adequate scrutiny of such claims. The bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee last April after extensive debate. Much of the credit for this legislation goes to Senator Kennedy, whose unfailing commitment to the rule of law inspired both the concept and the particulars of this bill. I had the honor of working with him to develop this legislation, and it is a pleasure now to cosponsor its reintroduction, with Senator Leahy as the lead sponsor. The bill makes use of existing tools that are available to the courts when handling national security information. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is in camera review of the allegedly privileged evidence, which the bill requires. The idea here is simple: Determining what information the evidence contains is the threshold step in determining whether that evidence is privileged. This step is far too important to be left to a party with a built-in conflict of interest. Just as a court would never accept a private litigant's description of his or her evidence in lieu of the evidence itself, the court should not rely solely on the Government's description of the evidence when the Government has a clear interest in the outcome of the case. That courts may examine sensitive national security information in camera is beyond any serious dispute. Since 1974, the Freedom of Information Act has allowed courts to engage in in camera review of any records that the Government claims are exempt from disclosure under the Act. Courts have also reviewed the most sensitive national security information in criminal cases, pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act. In fact, courts handle highly classified information on a regular basis. There is no legitimate justification for skipping this crucial step. The bill also requires courts to hold in camera hearings on the question of whether the evidence is privileged. Based on the court's previous review of the evidence, the court may conduct the hearing ex parte i.e., without any participation by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyers but only if the court finds that national security cannot adequately be protected through other means. For example, the court may limit attendance at the hearing to attorneys with the requisite clearances, or the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the plaintiff's interests at the hearing. The bill thus preserves the adversarial process to the maximum extent consistent with protecting national security. That's important, for at least two reasons. First, our justice system is premised on the notion of fairness, and that principle of fairness is undermined any time a party to litigation is excluded from the proceedings. But fairness isn't the only principle at stake. For all its complications and occasional inefficiencies, the adversarial process remains the best system for getting to the truth. If only one party is present at the hearing, the court is more likely to reach the wrong result it's as simple as that. Taken together, the requirements of in camera review of the evidence and an in camera hearing ensure that the Government's claim of privilege is evaluated fairly and thoroughly. A fair, thorough review is necessary, because the bill makes absolutely clear that once evidence is found to be privileged, it cannot be disclosed, however great the plaintiff's need for the evidence may be. The interest of national security, once the court determines that interest is truly at stake, is given absolute protection. That may mean the end of the lawsuit but it may not. As Congress recognized when it passed the Classified Information Procedures Act, courts have many tools at their disposal to move litigation forward even when some of the evidence cannot be disclosed. For example, courts can require the Government to submit non-privileged substitutes for the privileged evidence, such as summaries of the evidence, redacted versions, or admissions of certain facts. Under the bill, where the court finds that it would be feasible for the Government to craft a non-privileged substitute for privileged evidence, it may order the Government to do so. Again, however, the court can never compel the production of privileged evidence. If the Government refuses to craft a non-privileged substitute, the remedy is the same one that exists in the CIPA: the court may resolve the relevant issue of fact or law against the Government. The bill does not allow courts to dismiss lawsuits at the pleadings stage based on a claim of ``subject matter privilege.'' As the Fourth Circuit has explained, ``subject matter privilege'' applies if the case is so pervaded with state secrets, it would be impossible to conduct the lawsuit without revealing them. Such cases undoubtedly exist. But until all of the relevant evidence is identified and the privilege determinations are made, any conclusion that a case will be pervaded with state secrets is simply a prediction. Only by proceeding through discovery and pre-trial hearings can that prediction be replaced with certainty. And this can be done without revealing a single state secret, since the bill allows privilege determinations to be made in camera and ex parte. The bill does not change the ordinary rules of summary judgment. If a court determines, after discovery and pre-trial hearings are completed, that the key evidence is privileged and the plaintiff cannot prove his or her case using non-privileged evidence, then the Government may move for summary judgment and prevail. The bill thus retains the concept of ``subject matter privilege'' it simply requires a more thorough testing of the claim. Nor does the bill ever put the Government to the ``Hobson's choice'' of either revealing privileged evidence or conceding the lawsuit. Under the bill, even if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, the court can and must dismiss the lawsuit if the Government would need to disclose privileged evidence in order to present a valid defense. The Government's interests, as well as the national security, are thus scrupulously protected. Finally, the bill facilitates congressional oversight by requiring the executive branch to share with the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees the documents it makes available to the courts: the Government affidavit explaining why the evidence is privileged, the index of privileged evidence, and, where requested, the evidence itself. This information will help Congress monitor the Government's use of the privilege and assess the need for any further legislation. Perhaps even more important, it will provide a means of accountability in those cases where the privilege prevents a court from ruling on allegations of Government wrongdoing. The idea of simply letting such allegations go unaddressed should be profoundly troubling to anyone who respects the rule of law yet for eight years, the response of the Bush administration was little more than a shrug. This bill rejects such a cavalier attitude toward the rule of law. The citizens of this country should never again be told that there is simply no remedy for wrongs their Government has committed. In cases where the courts cannot provide that remedy, then Congress should step in and providing the necessary information to the relevant committees of Congress will enable that to happen. I am pleased that both the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the nominee for Associate Attorney General, Thomas Perrelli, have indicated a willingness to review this bill and work with us on it. I hope that it will be possible to fashion legislation that the Administration can support. The public deserves to have confidence that the state secrets privilege is not going to be used to cover up Government misconduct. This bill provides the courts a system for resolving claims of privilege that will inspire that confidence. A country where the Government need not answer to allegations of wrongdoing is a country that has strayed dangerously far from the rule of law. We must ensure that the ``state secrets'' privilege does not become a license for the Government to evade the laws that we pass. This bill accomplishes that goal, while simultaneously providing the strongest of protections to those items of evidence that truly qualify as state secrets. I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule of law by supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Leahy, Specter, and Kennedy in introducing the State Secrets Protection Act of 2009. This bill establishes uniform procedures for courts to use when evaluating governmental assertions of the state secrets privilege in civil litigation. It takes an important step toward restoring the rule of law by ensuring that the privilege will be used only to protect true state secrets, and not as a means for the Government to avoid accountability for its actions. In a democracy, the public should have the right to know what its government is doing. That should be the rule, and secrecy should be the rare exception, reserved for the very few cases in which the national security is truly at stake. Unfortunately, the Bush administration stood that presumption on its head, cloaking its actions in secrecy whenever possible and grudgingly submitting to public scrutiny only when it couldn't be avoided. The ``state secrets'' privilege was a favorite weapon in that administration's arsenal of secrecy. None of us disputes that information may properly be withheld as a ``state secret'' when disclosing the information would cause grave damage to national security. The problem arises when the privilege is abused and invoked to shield Government wrongdoing. Indeed, that is exactly what happened the first time the Supreme Court recognized the privilege in 1953, in the case of United States v. Reynolds. The Government had been sued after a military aircraft crash killed nine people, and it invoked the ``state secrets'' privilege to shield an internal investigative report. Decades later, when the report was declassified, it revealed nothing that could fairly be characterized as a ``state secret'' but it did reveal faulty maintenance of the aircraft. Abuses like these can be prevented, but only if the courts fulfill their responsibility to carefully review claims of privilege. In the Reynolds case, no court actually looked at the supposedly privileged report. That simple step would have prevented the miscarriage of justice that ensued. Yet, despite the fact that courts have the acknowledged authority to order in camera review of the evidence, fewer than one third of courts have actually exercised that option when the Government has asserted the ``state secrets'' privilege. And a host of other tools available to the courts to evaluate and respond to claims of privilege have been employed inconsistently at best, resulting in a confused body of case law that preserves accountability in some cases while granting the government a ``get out of jail free'' card in others. In the last Congress, Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Leahy introduced the State Secrets Protection Act to standardize the procedures courts use in cases where the Government asserts the ``state secrets'' privilege and to ensure adequate scrutiny of such claims. The bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee last April after extensive debate. Much of the credit for this legislation goes to Senator Kennedy, whose unfailing commitment to the rule of law inspired both the concept and the particulars of this bill. I had the honor of working with him to develop this legislation, and it is a pleasure now to cosponsor its reintroduction, with Senator Leahy as the lead sponsor. The bill makes use of existing tools that are available to the courts when handling national security information. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is in camera review of the allegedly privileged evidence, which the bill requires. The idea here is simple: Determining what information the evidence contains is the threshold step in determining whether that evidence is privileged. This step is far too important to be left to a party with a built-in conflict of interest. Just as a court would never accept a private litigant's description of his or her evidence in lieu of the evidence itself, the court should not rely solely on the Government's description of the evidence when the Government has a clear interest in the outcome of the case. That courts may examine sensitive national security information in camera is beyond any serious dispute. Since 1974, the Freedom of Information Act has allowed courts to engage in in camera review of any records that the Government claims are exempt from disclosure under the Act. Courts have also reviewed the most sensitive national security information in criminal cases, pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act. In fact, courts handle highly classified information on a regular basis. There is no legitimate justification for skipping this crucial step. The bill also requires courts to hold in camera hearings on the question of whether the evidence is privileged. Based on the court's previous review of the evidence, the court may conduct the hearing ex parte i.e., without any participation by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's lawyers but only if the court finds that national security cannot adequately be protected through other means. For example, the court may limit attendance at the hearing to attorneys with the requisite clearances, or the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the plaintiff's interests at the hearing. The bill thus preserves the adversarial process to the maximum extent consistent with protecting national security. That's important, for at least two reasons. First, our justice system is premised on the notion of fairness, and that principle of fairness is undermined any time a party to litigation is excluded from the proceedings. But fairness isn't the only principle at stake. For all its complications and occasional inefficiencies, the adversarial process remains the best system for getting to the truth. If only one party is present at the hearing, the court is more likely to reach the wrong result it's as simple as that. Taken together, the requirements of in camera review of the evidence and an in camera hearing ensure that the Government's claim of privilege is evaluated fairly and thoroughly. A fair, thorough review is necessary, because the bill makes absolutely clear that once evidence is found to be privileged, it cannot be disclosed, however great the plaintiff's need for the evidence may be. The interest of national security, once the court determines that interest is truly at stake, is given absolute protection. That may mean the end of the lawsuit but it may not. As Congress recognized when it passed the Classified Information Procedures Act, courts have many tools at their disposal to move litigation forward even when some of the evidence cannot be disclosed. For example, courts can require the Government to submit non-privileged substitutes for the privileged evidence, such as summaries of the evidence, redacted versions, or admissions of certain facts. Under the bill, where the court finds that it would be feasible for the Government to craft a non-privileged substitute for privileged evidence, it may order the Government to do so. Again, however, the court can never compel the production of privileged evidence. If the Government refuses to craft a non-privileged substitute, the remedy is the same one that exists in the CIPA: the court may resolve the relevant issue of fact or law against the Government. The bill does not allow courts to dismiss lawsuits at the pleadings stage based on a claim of ``subject matter privilege.'' As the Fourth Circuit has explained, ``subject matter privilege'' applies if the case is so pervaded with state secrets, it would be impossible to conduct the lawsuit without revealing them. Such cases undoubtedly exist. But until all of the relevant evidence is identified and the privilege determinations are made, any conclusion that a case will be pervaded with state secrets is simply a prediction. Only by proceeding through discovery and pre-trial hearings can that prediction be replaced with certainty. And this can be done without revealing a single state secret, since the bill allows privilege determinations to be made in camera and ex parte. The bill does not change the ordinary rules of summary judgment. If a court determines, after discovery and pre-trial hearings are completed, that the key evidence is privileged and the plaintiff cannot prove his or her case using non-privileged evidence, then the Government may move for summary judgment and prevail. The bill thus retains the concept of ``subject matter privilege'' it simply requires a more thorough testing of the claim. Nor does the bill ever put the Government to the ``Hobson's choice'' of either revealing privileged evidence or conceding the lawsuit. Under the bill, even if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, the court can and must dismiss the lawsuit if the Government would need to disclose privileged evidence in order to present a valid defense. The Government's interests, as well as the national security, are thus scrupulously protected. Finally, the bill facilitates congressional oversight by requiring the executive branch to share with the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees the documents it makes available to the courts: the Government affidavit explaining why the evidence is privileged, the index of privileged evidence, and, where requested, the evidence itself. This information will help Congress monitor the Government's use of the privilege and assess the need for any further legislation. Perhaps even more important, it will provide a means of accountability in those cases where the privilege prevents a court from ruling on allegations of Government wrongdoing. The idea of simply letting such allegations go unaddressed should be profoundly troubling to anyone who respects the rule of law yet for eight years, the response of the Bush administration was little more than a shrug. This bill rejects such a cavalier attitude toward the rule of law. The citizens of this country should never again be told that there is simply no remedy for wrongs their Government has committed. In cases where the courts cannot provide that remedy, then Congress should step in and providing the necessary information to the relevant committees of Congress will enable that to happen. I am pleased that both the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the nominee for Associate Attorney General, Thomas Perrelli, have indicated a willingness to review this bill and work with us on it. I hope that it will be possible to fashion legislation that the Administration can support. The public deserves to have confidence that the state secrets privilege is not going to be used to cover up Government misconduct. This bill provides the courts a system for resolving claims of privilege that will inspire that confidence. A country where the Government need not answer to allegations of wrongdoing is a country that has strayed dangerously far from the rule of law. We must ensure that the ``state secrets'' privilege does not become a license for the Government to evade the laws that we pass. This bill accomplishes that goal, while simultaneously providing the strongest of protections to those items of evidence that truly qualify as state secrets. I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule of law by supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am deeply troubled by the enormous debt this legislation is creating for future generations. Under almost any other circumstance I would vote against this bill for that very reason. But our economy is in desperate shape, and we are facing the worst economic crisis since World War II. Since the recession began a little over a year ago, 3.6 million jobs have been lost, with nearly half of those coming just in the last 3 months. The unemployment rate is 7.6 percent and rising, and the number of unemployed is approaching 5 million. The deeply flawed financial regulatory policies of the last two decades paved the way for this economic collapse, and the budget policies of the last 8 years have left us ill-equipped to address it without running up hundreds of billions in debt. There are no good options, but doing nothing is simply unacceptable. The bill on which we will vote today is far from perfect. On that there is nearly unanimous agreement. The question before us, then, is whether to vote against this bill and hope we can produce legislation that will be more effective, or to support this bill and begin to do something, however imperfect, to stop the economy from plunging further. Given the current makeup of the Senate, it is extremely unlikely that the Senate will produce a better bill. We could work on it for another couple of weeks, but the changes would be small. It is far more important that we act to prime the economic pump, and that we do so soon. And for that reason, I will support this far from perfect measure, and hope that it will be improved in conference. But this bill should not set a new precedent for budget policies. Once we stop the economic plunge, we absolutely must return to a sustainable budget policy, one that will reduce the mountain of debt we have left to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this year's Black History Month comes at a remarkable time that will be marked in the history books for generations to come. The inauguration of our Nation's first African- American President, Barack Obama, and confirmation of the first African-American Attorney General, Eric Holder, demonstrate our Nation's boundless capacity to change. All Americans have great cause to celebrate during this year's Black History Month our groundbreaking progress. As Civil rights icon Representative John Lewis observed, ``When he [President Obama] was born, people of color couldn't register to vote in many quarters of the deep South.'' Now, an African-American holds the most distinguished elected position in our country--President of the United States of America. This month is a time to reflect on the distance we have traveled, and the civil rights we have successfully fought for, in just one generation. But it is also not a time to become complacent. Americans still encounter injustices solely because of their background or the color of their skin. There still exist large and unacceptable disparities in the opportunities afforded many Americans for good education, health care, employment, and more. Black History Month provides an opportunity for Congress to remember that addressing these injustices and disparities must be an important goal for Congress in the years ahead. So this month let us reflect on our past triumphs, take note of this significant historical moment for our Nation, and look forward to an even brighter future as we continue working to ensure equality for all Americans.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 485.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, while the current economic downturn did not begin in rural America, the full brunt of the impact is certainly being felt by many of our farmers and small rural communities now. The dairy sector has been especially hard hit in Wisconsin and across the Nation as evidenced by a call last week for the USDA to take additional actions to help remove a surplus of dairy products from our markets in a letter led by the senior Senator from Wisconsin and myself and signed by 33 other Members including the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee. A provision in the current legislation also takes another important step to help soften the landing for farmers facing drops in the prices they receive of approximately 50 percent as we are seeing in dairy over the recent months. I am very appreciative of the fact that the Appropriations Committee includes critically needed farm loan funding for direct and guaranteed ownership and operation loans for our Nation's family farmers who are struggling along with everyone else through this economic recession. It is critical they get access to the financing they need to stay in business and keep their operations intact. It is my assumption that the interest of both the Appropriations and the authorizing committee in having this farm loan funding in the bill is to ensure that current farming operations and facilities can continue to operate and that small family farms and beginning and minority farmers have access to capital to secure new farming opportunities. I also think it is important to ensure that USDA loan programs such of these do not inadvertently encourage expanded production in sectors of agriculture, including dairy, where prices are depressed and farmers are trying to cope with revenues below the cost of production prices. I hope to continue to work with the chairman of both the Agriculture Committee and Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to oversee the utilization of these funds to minimize any inadvertent negative effects if they exist.