Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week I spoke at length on my prioritization amendment. I urge all my colleagues to support the Feingold-McCain-Coburn-Carper-Gregg-Sununu- DeMint amendment. This important amendment would help jump-start a process for ensuring that limited taxpayer dollars go to the most worthy water resources projects. Right now, Congress does not have any information about the relative priority of the nearly $60 billion authorized but unbuilt corps projects. What we do have is individual Members arguing for projects in their States or districts, but no information about which projects are most important to the country's economic development or transportation systems, or our ability to protect citizens and property from natural disasters. This amendment would create a temporary group of water resources experts to do two things: (1) make recommendations on a process for prioritizing corps projects; and (2) analyze projects authorized in the last 10 years or that are under construction, and put similar types of projects into tiers that reflect their importance. This would be done with clear direction to seek balance between the needs of all States. This information will be provided to Congress and the public in a nobinding report. That is--Congress and the public get information to help them make decisions involving millions, even billions, of dollars. We need to get ideas on the table, and I think my colleagues will agree that a report with recommendations to Congress is a good, commonsense first step. The New Orleans Times Picayune certainly does. Just yesterday, the paper editorialized in favor of my amendment and stated: Using objective criteria rather than political clout to decide what should be done is a smart, reform-minded step. This amendment also has the support of a number of taxpayer and conservation groups. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their efforts to retain key reforms in the underlying bill; however, this is a critical reform component and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support Senator Kerry's amendment to the Water Resources Development Act. This amendment is quite simple, and if enacted, would contribute to the modernization of the Army Corps of Engineers, something I have been fighting for for many years. The Kerry-Feingold amendment would require the Corps to account for the potential long and short term effects of global climate change when planning projects. This commonsense amendment is vital for safeguarding communities and the environment since virtually every water resource project designed and built by the Corps sits on the front lines of global warming. All Corps projects are going to feel the strain, the impact, and the consequences of global warming. This is true whether we are talking about ensuring that flood damage reduction projects will in fact provide communities with the promised levels of protection; ensuring that port projects take climate change into account for emergency preparedness purposes; or ensuring that ecosystem restoration projects are properly designed. Along with many of my colleagues, I believe it is essential to take bold steps to address global climate change. Senators Sanders and Boxer are leading the most comprehensive, scientifically based global warming pollutant bill to address the emission of carbon dioxide. I am proud to cosponsor that bill. The Kerry-Feingold amendment does not address the emissions of global warming, but rather simply makes sure that future water resources projects take into account the effects of global warming. There are a lot of necessary policy changes needed to respond to global warming and we need to move forward on all fronts. This proposed amendment should gain broad bipartisan support, even from those who remain unsure of the best approach for curbing greenhouse gas emissions and even from those who remain skeptical about the causes of global climate change. Our amendment ensures that Corps of Engineers projects will take into account the impacts of climate change, regardless of its cause. It also ensures that the Corps will take more aggressive steps to protect natural systems that can help buffer the impacts of climate change and that provide a host of other vital benefits. Scientists clearly agree that the climate is changing. They also agree that, as a result of that change, we can expect an increase in extreme weather events. A recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expresses this consensus. Climate scientists agree that global warming will cause stronger storms, more frequent floods, increased sea level, and extended droughts. This report concludes, among other things, that: Climate change will lead to more intense storms and increasing sea levels, particularly along the gulf and Atlantic coasts, which will pose significant risks to coastal communities from storm surges and flooding; climate change will lead to more flooding in the winter and early spring due to earlier snowmelt and increased rainfall, followed by more water shortages during the summer, particularly in the Western States; and climate change will lead to lower water levels in major river systems and the Great Lakes that will exacerbate existing water resources challenges. The Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change to the United Nations also recently concluded that human health ``will be threatened'' by the global climate change-induced increases in the intensity and frequency of storms, floods, droughts, and heat-related mortality. These changes will clearly complicate water resource planning for the foreseeable future. But we also know that there are ways to buffer the effects of these changes. Healthy rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands reduce the impacts of flooding by acting as natural sponges and basins, absorbing flood waters, and releasing them slowly over time. Coastal wetlands provide vital barriers between storm surges and communities. When these wetlands are lost, coastal communities are far more vulnerable to disaster, as we saw so tragically during Hurricane Katrina. Healthy streams and wetlands also help minimize the impacts of drought by recharging groundwater supplies and filtering pollutants from drinking water. And all of these resources provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, and important recreational opportunities. Even without global climate change, it is imperative that we take a more aggressive approach to accounting for and protecting these resources that are so essential for the Nation's health, safety, economic prosperity, and well-being. We do not have to peer into a crystal ball to see the dangers of allowing the Corps to continue to plan projects without accounting for the changes that will be wrought by climate change. The Nation bore witness to those dangers when Hurricane Katrina slammed into the gulf coast. The devastation of New Orleans is a horrific example of the tragic consequences of an intense storm hitting a region where Corps projects have destroyed vital natural wetland buffers and have not properly accounted for the risk of severe storms. Our amendment requires the Corps to immediately begin to address these types of issues. Our amendment would require the Corps to utilize the best available climate science in assessing flood and storm risks. This seems like plain common sense to me, but as we have sadly witnessed again and again, common sense does not always guide the Corps and its decisionmaking processes. Our amendment would require the Corps to more fully account for the value of the services provided by healthy rivers, streams, wetlands, and floodplains. Of special importance to me, our amendment also builds on existing law and policy to require the Corps to use nonstructural approaches, where appropriate, in project planning. This is critical for ensuring the best possible protection for those natural systems that are so important for our current and future health, safety, and welfare. While the Corps is currently required to consider nonstructural approaches, it rarely recommends them. This is true even when nonstructural approaches would provide the same or better project benefits while avoiding damages to these vital resources. This provision would not--let me say this again, it would not-- prevent the Corps from using structural approaches like levees and floodwalls where they are needed. But it would require the Corps to be more aggressive in its efforts to utilize natural systems that on their own provide vital flood protection and water quality benefits. And it would also help the Corps overcome what the Department of the Army inspector general concluded was an ``institutional bias'' for constructing costly, large scale structural projects. We can no longer rely on the status quo to protect our future. We can no longer rely solely on the Corps' traditional approaches to water projects. These approaches have too often severed critical connections between rivers and their wetlands and floodplains, and produced unanticipated wetland and floodplain losses. These approaches have left coastal communities, like New Orleans, far more vulnerable. These approaches have exacerbated flood damages by inducing development in high risk, flood prone areas and by increasing downstream flooding. This amendment will change the status quo by removing blinders that have plagued water resources planning for too long. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and the commonsense changes it would bring about.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman from California and the distinguished majority leader in a colloquy with respect to the provisions in section 2006, 2007, and 2008 (c) and (e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, S.1248.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I appreciate the efforts and success of the chairman and the Environment and Public Works Committee in reporting a Water Resources Development Act that includes many important Corps of Engineers reforms. I would simply like to clarify that it is the intent of the committee and of the majority leader that these provisions be retained through conference and enacted into law. These provisions should be the minimum reforms coming out of conference.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to point out some of the critical elements to ensuring meaningful independent review of Corps of Engineers water resources projects that are contained in section 2007 of S.1248. Section 2007 is the same language that was adopted on the Senate floor during last summer's consideration of the Water Resources Development Act of 2006. Though the House of Representatives has an independent review provision in their bill, there are several important distinctions between the House and the Senate provisions. The Senate provision houses responsibility for independent review in the Office of the Secretary of the Army and makes independent review mandatory for any project meeting the review triggers. The mandatory review triggers and placement of responsibility for carrying out independent reviews outside the Office of the Chief of Engineers are essential for ensuring full independence of the review process. The Senate provision gives the independent review panels the ability to review those issues deemed significant by the panel. This is essential for ensuring that all relevant study issues are examined by the panel. The House of Representatives provision gives the Chief of Engineers essentially unlimited authority to restrict the scope of a panel's review. The Senate provision places limits on the Corps' ability to ignore panel recommendations by requiring the Secretary of the Army to provide a written explanation regarding the rejection of any panel recommendations and by requiring the Corps to prove why it is appropriate to reject a panel's recommendation in any lawsuit that might be brought to challenge the project. The Senate bill does not create a new cause of action. This is essential for ensuring that the findings of an independent review panel are given appropriate consideration by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the Senate provision establishes a critical safety assurance review of the detailed technical design of vital flood control projects. The House language does not include this essential provision. Importantly, the Senate provision ensures that the independent review panel will review the draft study released for public comment and will have the benefit of public comment to help guide their review. The House bill in general requires that independent review be complete before there is a draft study for review. That would limit a fundamental purpose of independent review, which is to ensure review of draft studies and limit public participation in the independent review process. I ask my colleagues to concur with the importance of retaining these critical elements of independent review contained in Section 2007.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mitigation for Corps of Engineers civil works projects is another important area that must be improved. Despite the clear mitigation requirements established for water resources projects in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the Government Accountability Office reported in 2002 that the Corps of Engineers does not mitigate at all for almost 70 percent of its projects. To help address this problem, the Senate provision requires the Secretary to ensure that mitigation for water resources projects complies fully with the mitigation standards and policies established pursuant to section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344. This will help protect the environment and is consistent with the fundamental principal that we will hold the Federal Government to the same environmental criteria as private enterprise. In addition, in order to ensure that mitigation produces the same or greater ecosystem values as those lost to a water resources project, the Senate provision requires that the Corps of Engineers implement not less than in-kind mitigation. To ensure that mitigation will be effective, the Senate bill requires the preparation of detailed mitigation plans, requires that mitigation be monitored until ecological success criteria are met, and requires the Corps of Engineers to consult yearly with applicable Federal and State agencies on the status of individual mitigation efforts. The Senate provision applies the new mitigation standards to projects that the Corps of Engineers has determined must be reevaluated for other reasons. The Senate provision also requires the Corps to establish a publicly accessible mitigation tracking system. The language of sections 2008(c) and (e) obtained bipartisan support from the Environment and Public Works Committee last Congress and was included in the Senate Water Resources Development Act of 2006. I ask my colleagues to concur with the importance of retaining these key elements of mitigation reform contained in section 2008(c) and (e).

Mr. FEINGOLD. Lastly, section 2006 of S. 1248 would update the Corps' woefully out-of-date Principles and Guidelines, P&G, and related planning documents by establishing a Cabinet-level interagency working group to revise the guidelines and regulations and circulars, which have not been revised since their inception in 1983. Numerous studies have called for updating the Corps' planning guidelines to provide an increased focus on protecting and restoring the environment and to modernize and incorporate new methods and more cost-effective approaches to solving water problems. More than a decade of reports from the National Academy of Sciences, Government Accountability Office, Army inspector general, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and independent experts have revealed a pattern of stunning flaws in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project planning and implementation and urged substantial changes to the Corps' project planning process. The most recent call for revising the Corps' planning guidelines came just 2 months ago from the National Academy of Public Administration. These flaws have increased taxpayer costs and environmental degradation with antiquated economic analysis of projects and in some cases overly structural projects. It is vital that these planning guidelines be modernized so that they no longer promote projects that destroy healthy natural ecosystems and lure development in high risk areas. It is also essential that the provision to require the Corps to adopt those revisions, subject to public comment, be retained. The language of section 2006 obtained bipartisan support from the Environment and Public Works Committee last Congress and was included in the Senate Water Resources Development Act of 2006. I ask my colleagues to concur with the importance of retaining these elements.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the chairman and the majority leader for engaging in this colloquy. Instituting meaningful reforms to the Corps of Engineers' planning process is essential for protecting public safety, the environment, and the taxpayers. I remain committed to ensuring that meaningful reforms are included in the next Water Resources Development Act that is enacted into law. I thank the chairman and the majority leader for their commitment as well. middle creek project

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Water Resources Development Act being considered today includes important language to reform the Corps of Engineers which I have long championed. I especially thank my colleague Senator Boxer in particular, but also Senator Inhofe, Senator Baucus, and Senator Isakson for reporting a Water Resources Development Act that includes many important Corps of Engineers reforms that were so hard fought in last year's Congress, both in negotiations and on the floor. While we still have far to go in improving Corps planning, such as, for example, passing the Feingold-McCain prioritization amendment, reform provisions in the underlying bill are absolutely essential for improving the Nation's water resources planning, and they should be the baseline for reforms that come out of Congress. These reform provisions include independent peer review of costly or controversial Corps projects, dramatic improvement to the Corps' mitigation process, modernizing the Corps' woefully out-of-date planning guidelines, establishing a new national policy that directs the Corps to avoid impacts to floodplains, requiring an interagency assessment of the Nation's vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, and recommendations to improve the Nation's various flood prevention programs. These reforms are essential for improving the Corps' ability to properly plan and construct projects. Over the past decade, dozens of studies have highlighted stunning flaws in Corps project planning. Problems with the Corps project planning are so great that the GAO recently told Congress that Corps projects ``did not provide a reasonable basis for decisionmaking because they were fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.'' We can no longer afford to build projects based on flawed engineering, flawed science, or flawed economics. These reforms are essential for preventing costly and potentially deadly mistakes, such as the levee failures that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Corps, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the National Academy of Sciences have all said faulty design and construction by the Corps resulted in the levee failures. So these reforms are essential for protecting the Nation's natural resources. The Nation's rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands provide vital services for all Americans. They help attenuate floods, they improve water quality, they provide vital fish and wildlife habitat, and they provide exceptional recreational opportunities. They are vital to the health, safety, welfare, and economic well-being of all of us. I am very pleased Senators Boxer and Reid agreed to join me in a colloquy with respect to the provisions in sections 2006, 2007 and 2008(c) and (e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. We have reached an understanding that these are fundamental elements of meaningful reform. Chairman Boxer has stated it is the committee's intent to retain these elements, and that she will strenuously support them in conference. I understand the Senate is now debating the motion to proceed to H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act. So at this point, while I cannot formally offer my prioritization amendment to that bill, I wish to take the time to speak in favor of it. I will be offering this amendment to the Water Resources Development Act on behalf of myself and Senators McCain, Coburn, Carper, Gregg, and Sununu. Senator McCain and I have worked together for years to modernize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and I am pleased to be working with him again on this issue. I also appreciate the strong support of Senators Coburn, Carper, Gregg, and Sununu. This important amendment recognizes we must address our current flawed planning process and also respond to the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina by working to make sure that limited taxpayers' dollars go to the most worthy water resource projects. That doesn't seem like a lot to ask. As we all know, our Nation is staring down deficits that only a few years ago were unimaginable. We also have a backlog of $58 billion in Corps projects that are authorized but not built, and that number will be closer to $70 billion when this bill passes. Clearly, we have to get some kind of a way of identifying projects that are most needed. Right now, Congress does not have any information about the relative priority of the current massive backlog of authorized projects, and we don't have any way of evaluating the relative priority of new projects. What we do have is individual Members arguing for projects in their States or district, but no information about which projects are most important to the country's economic development or transportation systems or to our ability to protect our citizens and property from natural disasters. Clearly, the status quo is not serving the public well. This amendment would simply help Congress develop the tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public transparency in decisionmaking. This amendment would do that by creating a temporary bipartisan water resources commission to do two things: one, make recommendations on a process for prioritizing Corps projects and, two, analyze projects authorized in the last 10 years or that are under construction and put similar types of projects into tiers that reflect their importance. This would be done with a clear direction to seek balance, meeting the needs of all States. My amendment would place Corps projects into three categories that correspond to the three main mission areas of the Corps: flood damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. The commission will establish broad national priorities to apply to those projects. The amendment sets out minimum requirements that projects in each category have to meet so that, for example, flood reduction projects must be evaluated in part on whether they reduce the risk of loss of life. But the commission is free to consider other factors as long as it is clear which factors it is, in fact, considering. Projects in each of the three project types will be placed in tiers based on how great a priority they represent. This information will then simply be provided to Congress and the public in a nonbinding report--a nonbinding report. That is it. The Congress and the public will get information to help them make decisions involving millions and even billions of dollars. Surely, that isn't too much to ask. Don't we want the benefit of objective, impartial advice when we decide how to allocate scarce taxpayers' dollars? As my colleagues may recall, Senator McCain and I offered a prioritization amendment last Congress. This year's amendment has been revised to address some of the concerns raised on the floor last year, in particular those raised by my friend and now-Chairman Boxer. In response to criticism that the amendment gave too much authority to the administration, this year's new amendment creates a temporary commission comprised of eight non-Federal individuals appointed by Senate and House leaders of both parties and the President. Also, instead of requiring regular updating of a prioritization report, the bipartisan commission created by this year's new amendment would only issue one nonbinding report that would include recommendations for reevaluating priorities in the future and when new projects are authorized. I am pleased to have the support of a number of outside groups, including Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife Federation, Earth Justice, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. A number of editorial writers weighed in last year on behalf of prioritization. Here is what the New York Times had to say: The Army Corps of Engineers must learn, or be compelled, to place a higher priority on safety projects than on Congressional pork . . . it would shine more light on an often opaque process, a reform we support. The New Orleans Times-Picayune said: The best chance for changing the way the corps operates is through reforms sought by Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold. They're offering two amendments to the water resources bill. One would establish independent review of corps projects from planning and design to construction. The other would require corps projects to be ranked in importance based on three national priorities: flood and storm damage reduction, navigation and environmental restoration. The Philadelphia Inquirer opined that ``with 50 States demanding services, the Corps needs better direction than the whims of competing politicians.'' And the Washington Post said: Hurricane Katrina was a crisis that has created a real opportunity: to bring some rationality to the way we spend tens of billion of dollars on water projects in this country so we can protect millions of Americans-- Millions of Americans-- whose lives are at risk. Clearly, based on that mere series of endorsements and statements, this amendment has broad interest and impact. The public clearly believes the Congress should do a better job spending billions of dollars on water projects. The Feingold-McCain-Coburn-Carper-Gregg- Sununu prioritization amendment would help Congress in evaluating options for how to prioritize Corps projects. I also wish to remind my colleagues that modernizing all aspects of water resources policy will help restore credibility to a Federal agency that is plagued by public skepticism in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The Corps has admitted serious design flaws in the levees it built in New Orleans, and it is clear the Corps' mistakes contributed significantly to the devastation in that city. I can tell my colleagues when I was down in New Orleans last summer, I heard even more complaints about the Corps than I did about FEMA. As we worked as a body to improve FEMA, we must also work to improve the Corps. Our constituents and the people of this country deserve no less. Of course, the Corps does important work. The real problem this amendment seeks to address is us in Congress. Congress has too long used the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored porkbarrel projects while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. If we want to change our ways, we can start by passing the Feingold- McCain-Coburn-Carper-Gregg-Sununu prioritization amendment to help us make sure the Corps continues to contribute to our safety, environment, and economy without wasting taxpayers' dollars. I will conclude my initial remarks and again thank Senator Boxer and also Senator Inhofe, Senator Baucus, and Senator Isakson for retaining the reform provisions we worked so hard to get included in last year's Senate bill. However, this bill authorizes an additional $15 billion worth of projects which, coupled with an additional backlog of $58 billion, would take 40 years to complete. I hope by adopting this amendment we can also move this bill in a direction that will truly benefit the American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chair of the committee. Of course, I have enjoyed working with her on so many issues, and I again compliment her for retaining key reforms in the underlying bill. She has provided a great deal of leadership on Corps reform, and for that I am truly appreciative. In the past, the chairman has offered to work together on the issue of prioritization in the future, and I hope that is still something in which she is interested. I don't think we should wait to enact commonsense reform. This is not a new idea I just thought of; rather, it is a critical reform that many of my colleagues and I have been calling for since 2002. In fact, it was the former Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, who first called for prioritizing Corps projects. I cosponsored Senator Smith's Corps bill in the 107th Congress, along with Senators McCain, Ensign, and Daschle. I certainly commend Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus, and Isakson for limiting the number of additional projects added to this bill. I recognize some of the efforts they have made with regard to fiscal responsibility in the committee process, and I commend them for that. I also commend them for their effort to move this bill quickly. However, the desire to move a bill quickly should not override the need to ensure that Congress enacts the full suite of reforms necessary to respond to over a decade of evidence calling for reforms. I strongly believe prioritization is one of these key pieces, which is why I am offering an amendment during consideration of WRDA on behalf of this group of Senators. We need to get these ideas on the table, and I think my colleagues agree a report, with recommendations to Congress, is a good, commonsense approach. I was interested in the Senator's remark that we have met the enemy and it is us. I think that is not the case unless we are foolish enough not to back up our decisions and our judgment with the benefit of people who know what they are taking about. The Senator from California says these are political appointees, but, in fact, these folks have to be water resource experts. That is who we will put together on this group to take a look at these 70 billion dollars' worth of projects. Of course, despite the way in which the Senator described the impact of this report, all this does is set priorities. This is not mandatory in any way. It is nonbinding. It is simply a report that gives us information. Yes, it ranks things in different tiers, but we still have the power--and, of course, we fully retain the power--to change those priorities if, in our judgment, we believe it is the right thing to do. We do that all the time. There are all kinds of government reports that tell us to do X or Y and, in our judgment and our responsibility as Members of Congress, we exercise our own independent judgment. Not to have the benefit of these experts saying these projects are more important than others--I can't understand the downside of that. In fact, when the Senator says this somehow casts doubt on the Senate, or trashes the Senate, I think it is just the opposite. It will make us look good if, for once, it looks as if we are basing our priorities on something other than pure political pull. When we were out here together, the Senator from California and I were arm in arm, literally, on ethics reform and lobbying reform, and some said that was trashing the Senate. Some said that was somehow saying we weren't capable of regulating ourselves; that somehow we didn't need these laws and we should be trusted. Well, this is an area just like the ethnics and lobbying reform, where people have concerns. Anything we can do to enhance our credibility, anything we can do to say, hey, look, we didn't agree with every part of this report, but in large part we agree with these priorities, I think strengthens our hand. I think it enhances the reputation of the Senate, particularly in the eyes of the taxpayer who now see that, after this bill, we are talking about $70 billion in projects. I think this is a win-win proposition. Of course, I respect the chair's disagreement on this particular point. I know she agrees with reform in almost every single context. She just doesn't see this particular reform. But I urge her, once again, to consider the fact this is nonbinding, informational. I don't think it is binding in any way that would cause a problem for the Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just wanted to ask that the time be reserved on my side so that, should other Senators want to talk on this, they could. But I am prepared, if the Senator is, to move on at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this week I introduced two bills to assist members of the armed services and veterans. S. 1314, the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act, will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. S. 1313, the Servicemembers' Cellular Phone Contract Fairness Act, will ensure that deployed servicemembers are not subjected to unfair penalties for cancelling their cell phone contracts. I would also like to thank my good friend, the junior Senator from Hawaii, for holding a hearing yesterday that considered both of these bills along with many other important pieces of legislation to improve the treatment of veterans, servicemembers and their families. Senator Akaka is a strong leader on these vitally important issues as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee and I commend him on his efforts and look forward to working with him to enact veterans' benefits legislation that includes my two proposals. I am pleased to be joined in the effort to improve outreach by the Department of Veterans Affairs by the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr. I introduced identical legislation in the 108th and 109th Congresses. I am also pleased to note that there is a companion bill in the House, H.R. 67, sponsored by Representative McIntyre. On Tuesday, the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs approved the bill by a voice vote. I was extremely troubled by revelations of gaps in care as servicemembers transition to the VA that emerged as a result of investigations of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I appreciate the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs' attempts to remedy these gaps, but more work remains to be done. It can be extremely difficult for veterans to navigate the VA's health care and benefits systems. This bill will increase congressional oversight of the VA's outreach activities and authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to work with States to perform outreach. Several years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' Under the direction of Secretary Ray Boland, the program encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the U.S. military. As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored several events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and preregistration for internment in veterans cemeteries. The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine. The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the VA. These are Federal benefits that we owe to our veterans and it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse to halt or reduce these efforts. The legislation that I introduced was spurred by the overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 11,000 Wisconsin veterans are unaware of benefits that may be owed to them, it is troubling to think how many veterans around our country are also unaware of them. We can and should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe. In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach.'' My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. Currently funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding with other crucial VA programs. I have long supported efforts to adequately fund VA programs. We can and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim processed. Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding. Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative agreements with State Departments of Veterans Affairs regarding outreach activities and would give the VA grantmaking authority to award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are awarded to State departments under this program could be used to enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits process. State departments that receive grants under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other public entities, or private or nonprofit organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities. I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of organizations that are committed to improving the lives of our Nation's veterans, including the American Legion; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; Wounded Warrior Project; and National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs. The second bill that I introduced seeks to make life a little easier for our servicemembers and their families when they are called up to duty or transferred. We all recognize the heroic service the men and women in our armed services provide the Nation each day. So when I heard stories about servicemembers and their families in Wisconsin having trouble canceling their cell phone contracts after being called up, I looked for a way to help. With the prospect of a combat assignment, the last thing our men and women in uniform should have to worry about are early termination fees or being forced to pay for a service they cannot use. I tried to have this provision adopted as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill last June and, while I was unsuccessful, I will continue to push for the adoption of this commonsense measure. These problems with canceling cellular phone service have not been just isolated incidents. In fact, the issue has been raised by the Wisconsin National Guard. I will ask that the full testimony of 1LT Melissa Inlow of the Wisconsin Army National Guard at a hearing on a Wisconsin State Assembly bill in April be made part of the Record. I just want to highlight one part of that testimony that makes the point that this is a real issue facing our servicemembers. She testified: ``It's becoming increasingly difficult to get cell phone service providers to suspend the contract. Even with suspension the soldiers are still paying up to $25 a month for a service they cannot reap the benefits of. These fees can accumulate to more than the termination fee which on average is $200.'' First Lieutenant Inlow went on to specifically recommend that the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act be amended to include a section on cellular phones. First Lieutenant Inlow and the Wisconsin National Guard are not alone in this opinion either. The National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Military Officers Association of America have supported my proposal since the original amendment was offered last June. I was glad to add the support of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled Veterans of America, the American Legion, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars to this list when they expressed support at a recent Veterans Affairs hearing. This practically universal support among the current armed services and the veterans communities clearly show that this commonsense provision should be enacted. It is common now for cellular phone contracts to require a contract term of up to 2 years. Along with these long contracts, there are often early termination fees of several hundred dollars. When National Guard members are called up to active duty or soldiers are transferred overseas or to a base that isn't covered by their current provider, they often face the prospect of either paying these significant fees or paying monthly fees for the remainder of the contract for a service they cannot use. While many servicemembers and their families have been able to work with telecommunications companies to eventually get the early termination fee canceled, the account suspended, or the fees reduced, they have enough to deal with after being called up that they should not have this added burden as well. My legislation proposes that we bring these cellular phone contracts in line with what we have already done for residential and automotive leases in the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act--let the servicemembers cancel the contract. Under my proposal, if servicemembers are called up for more than 90 days, transferred overseas, or transferred to a U.S. duty station where they could not continue their service at the same rate, they could cancel their contract without a termination fee. While my legislation helps to prevent servicemembers from being financially punished for volunteering to protect this country, I have also tried to make sure that the telecommunications providers are treated fairly as well. That is why I have included a provision that would allow the providers to request the return of cell phones provided as part of the contract. If the company requests the return under this provision, it would also have to give the servicemember the option of paying a prorated amount for the cell phone should he or she wish to keep it. Moreover, if the provider and servicemember mutually agree to suspend instead of terminate the contract, the bill makes sure that the reactivation fee is waived. Several States, including Wisconsin, have already given servicemembers this protection. While these State laws are positive steps, a national law will make sure all servicemembers are afforded this protection and give the industry a baseline standard. While this is a modest addition to the rights of servicemembers, it is important that we remove as many unfair burdens facing this country's men and women in uniform as we can. I hope my colleagues will share this view and quickly adopt this nonpartisan proposal. Both of these two bills I introduced earlier in the week and that were considered in yesterday's Veteran's Affairs Committee hearing have widespread support. I hope this support will translate into the Veterans Affairs Committee including them as part of its package of veterans' benefits legislation later this year. I again, want to thank Chairman Akaka and the Veterans Affairs Committee for considering my bills to improve outreach activities and allow servicemembers to cancel cellular phone contracts in yesterday's hearing. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned testimony of 1LT Melissa Inlow be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to support S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act of 2007. This much- needed legislation improves our country's prescription drug and medical device safety, and responds to problems that Congress is long overdue in addressing. This legislation strengthens the Food and Drug Administration, a body that has been continually underfunded and weakened by political and corporate interests. While I would like to see an even stronger bill passed, this legislation drastically improves our current policies that regulate the FDA. My constituents in Wisconsin largely trust that their food, medications, and medical devices are safe. I generally trust that they are as well. We all depend on the FDA to ensure that our lives are not jeopardized by faulty products or contaminated food. However, recently a steady stream of dangerous drugs, food, and devices have made their way into Americans' homes. Vioxx, antidepressant drugs for children, salmonella poisoning in food, pet food contaminations--these are just a few of the most publicized instances that have harmed and even killed people in our country. Numerous investigations have been conducted in order to better understand why these events have occurred. The conclusions to these studies have found that we need a better FDA. We need to provide the agency with the legal authority necessary to ensure our safety, and we need to provide the FDA with the necessary funding to do its job. It is clear that the agency's authority has been watered down over the years as a result of corporate influence, and our citizens have suffered the consequences. This bill takes important steps to put safety over profit margins, and it has been long awaited. I commend the immense bipartisan effort that has been put into crafting this legislation. This is not an easy topic to tackle. It is a complex topic rife with political infighting, but today we have legislation that both parties and even many companies are fine with. Granted, the bill may be too far-reaching for some, and for others like me, it doesn't necessarily go far enough, but this is something that will pass that is a vast improvement from current law. I was glad to support Senator Durbin's amendment to improve the FDA's oversight and ability to respond to contaminated pet food. Like the bill as a whole, I think we need to do more to ensure that the ingredients used in both pet and human food are free from contamination, but this amendment was an important step in the right direction. The amendment strengthens the standards for pet food processing and ingredients and at the same time improves the FDA's ability to react to a problem through better detection, an adulterated food registry, and improved communication with the public. I hope this will be a platform for improving Federal oversight of the human food supply, which has been shown many times over the last year to be at risk. In my home State of Wisconsin, the outbreak of E.coli last summer, later linked to bagged spinach, killed an elderly woman and sickened at least fifty others. The spinach was traced back to four fields on four ranches in California. The FDA itself admits that ``There has been a long history of E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks involving leafy greens from the central California region'', and yet mostly depends on the industry to self-regulate. In fact, on the FDA Web site about this particular outbreak, it says, ``[the] FDA and the State of California expect the industry to develop a comprehensive plan which is designed to minimize the risk of another outbreak.'' I am concerned that all too often the FDA is allowing the food industry to dictate the rules and whether to implement food safety protections. This bill is a step in the right direction, but more steps are likely needed and I look forward to working with my colleagues on these. Along these lines, I was glad to offer an amendment and have it accepted in the bill that would require the FDA to resume annual reports on the level of pesticide residues in domestic and imported food and agricultural products. Moreover, my amendment requires the FDA to make the report more useful for Congress and the public. Specifically the amendment requires the FDA to work with other agencies to include similar data collected by other government agencies, conduct more advanced statistical analysis, report on efforts to prevent smuggling through mislabeling one product as another, and target future testing on products or countries, in the case of exports, that show relatively more prohibited pesticides. The recent headlines about contaminated Chinese wheat gluten clearly show a need to get a better handle on food safety. So it clearly wasn't the time for the FDA to end reporting on pesticide residues and this amendment follows the larger theme of the bill in improving our food safety oversight. While this pesticide residue amendment is important to improve consumers' confidence in the food they eat, it also can be important for U.S. farmers. For example, Wisconsin's ginseng growers have suffered a double insult over the past few years--facing unfair competition from imported ginseng that was treated with chemicals illegal in the U.S. and then often having that ginseng misbranded as the superior quality Wisconsin ginseng. My amendment and the improved pesticide residue data and ability to focus on certain products should help FDA identify and seize unsafe products such as contaminated ginseng imports. On another note, I am disappointed that the bill does not actually allow importing lower cost prescription drugs. While the Dorgan-Snowe amendment was accepted in the bill, it was modified and effectively nullified by the Cochran amendment, which I strongly opposed A competitive marketplace for prescription drugs will help in containing the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Over the past 4 years, I have worked in a bipartisan fashion to allow the safe importation of prescription drugs from abroad. I am a proud cosponsor of the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, which the provisions in the Dorgan-Snowe amendment were based on. This legislation would have allowed the importation of FDA-approved drugs from countries with FDA-comparable regulations, such as Canada. This legislation will finally allow the importation of safe and affordable prescriptions drugs to the United States. As I travel around Wisconsin listening to people's concerns, the high cost of health care continues to be at the top of the list, and this includes prescription drugs. The strong bipartisan support for reimportation makes clear that Americans of all political backgrounds want the Federal Government to support consumers, rather than the interests of drug companies, and make safe and affordable prescription drugs available to those who need them. The failure to include strong reimportation legislation in this bill is unfortunate, but we are getting closer to enacting reimportation with each vote. I fully expect this to pass in the near future, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting efforts to legalize reimportation. As I stated earlier, I will support the final FDA Revitalization Act, but I am disappointed that strong reimportation language is not included.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I certainly thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, once again for being so committed to getting this bill passed. It has been, as she said, over a week since we came to the floor to try to get the Senate to pass the Senate Campaign Parity Act. Last Tuesday, the senior Senator from Tennessee objected ``on behalf of a Republican Senator.'' Now we have waited to hear from that Senator, whoever he or she is, about his or her concerns about the bill. So far, not a word. It would not take very long to review this bill. It is very simple. In fact, it seems as if the source of the objection is hoping never to be identified because a citizen effort to find out who the objector is, supported by a number of blogs from both the right and the left, has so far come up empty. There has been a lot of discussion in the press and the blogs about whether the objection we heard last week constitutes one of those so- called secret holds, which have rightly come under attack in recent years. Well, someone anonymously blocked the bill from being passed last Tuesday, that person has made no effort to resolve his or her concerns with us, and the Republican leadership will not tell us who that person is. Now, that is a ``secret hold,'' in my book. It is time for some sunshine here. If someone has a problem with this bill, he or she should step forward and discuss it with us. I am hopeful that after a week to take a look at the bill, the objector will have realized how completely noncontroversial it is and will let it go through this week. This bill simply puts Senate campaigns under the same obligations to file their reports electronically that House and Presidential campaigns have been under for years. There is simply no reason the information in Senate campaign finance reports should remain less accessible to the public than any other campaign finance report. As the Senator from California said, we now have 37 bipartisan cosponsors, and not a single concern about the bill was heard in the Rules Committee. The bill passed the committee by a voice vote, and no one has come up to us with any concerns, even in this last week. So the time has come to get this done. I once again thank the Senator from California for her persistence. It is a pleasure to work with her. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I firmly believe that the death penalty should be abolished, at all levels of government. Just a few months ago, I introduced the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2007 toward that end. The bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level; it would put an immediate halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law. I first introduced my bill in 1999, and since then only a few Members of the Senate have been willing to join me in this cause. Not too long ago, some believed that opposition to or criticism of the death penalty was politically dangerous. But times have changed. The American people are expressing greater and greater concerns about the death penalty. A May 2006 Gallup poll reported that for the first time, when given a choice between the two sentencing options, more Americans choose the sentence of life without parole than the death penalty. The American public understands that the death penalty raises serious and complex problems. Leaders across the country are publicly expressing their opposition to the death penalty--leaders such as Governor Corzine of New Jersey, Governor O'Malley of Maryland, and Governor Kaine of Virginia. State legislatures in Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, and New Mexico have all given serious consideration to abolition bills in the past 3 months alone. In fact, each of these four measures failed to move to the next step of the process by only one vote. In Maryland, an abolition bill failed to pass out of a Senate committee by one vote. In Montana, a bill to repeal the State's death penalty passed the senate and then failed by just one vote to move out of a house committee. In Nebraska, the unicameral legislature failed to move an abolition bill forward by just one vote. And in New Mexico, an abolition bill passed the house and then lost in a senate committee by just one vote. Other States have taken important steps. Pennsylvania recently created a commission to study the administration of the State's death penalty, joining many other States that have already done so. Moratoriums on executions remain in place in Illinois and New Jersey and are under consideration in other States. New York's death penalty was overturned by a court decision in 2004 and has not been reinstated by the legislature. Along with New York, four other States that still have the death penalty technically on their books have not executed any individuals since 1976. In addition, there are 12 States, plus the District of Columbia, whose laws do not provide for capital punishment at all. And in 11 more States, executions have been halted while the courts grapple with the issue of whether the lethal injection process used by these States is unconstitutional. At the same time, the number of executions, the number of death sentences imposed, and the size of the death row population have decreased for the second year in a row. In the prosecutors' offices, jury boxes, and legislative chambers, it seems that consensus is growing that it is time for a change. In this connection, I think it is significant that the editorial boards for two major newspapers in very geographically diverse locations, Chicago and Dallas, recently called for an end to the death penalty. The Chicago Tribune's editorial page has been a leader for years in calling for reforms to the capital punishment system, yet it has never called for abolition--until now. Explaining its decision to renounce the death penalty, the editorial board stated, ``The system is arbitrary, and the system just plain gets it wrong.'' And the Dallas Morning News reversed its century-old stance on the death penalty, which is particularly notable because Texas has long been a bedrock of support for the death penalty and is the State with the dubious distinction of leading the Nation in executions. Even in a jurisdiction where support for the death penalty runs deep--even there--this strong voice of dissent rose to proclaim, ``we do not believe that any legal system devised by inherently flawed human beings can determine with moral certainty the guilt of every defendant convicted of murder.'' For these editorial boards, opposition to the death penalty sprang from concerns that mistakes might be made and innocent individuals executed. Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been 1,060 executions across the country, including three at the Federal level. During that same time period, 123 people on death row have been exonerated and released from death row. These people never should have been convicted in the first place. Consider those numbers. One thousand and sixty executions and one hundred and twenty-three exonerations in the modern death penalty era. Had those exonerations not taken place, had those 123 people been executed, those executions would have represented an error rate of greater than 10 percent. That is more than an embarrassing statistic; it is a horrifying one, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country. In fact, since 1999 when I first introduced the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act, 46 death row inmates have been exonerated throughout the country. The continued use of the death penalty in the United States is beneath us. The death penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right'' applies here in the most fundamental way. Our Nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of criminals. Just as we did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty. It is not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our criminal justice system as a truly just system that deserves the respect of our own people requires that we do so, as does our Nation's commitment to freedom, liberty, and equality. I applaud those leaders, be they in State government or in the media, who are stepping forward to challenge a practice that has no place in this day and age. Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take patience, persistence, and courage. As each new voice joins us, we become stronger, and together we will one day find success.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly oppose President Bush's statements that the Democratic leaders are trying to use the current emergency supplemental bill to make a political statement. Congress is acting on its mandate from the American people, who used their votes last November to register their opposition to the war in Iraq. The President has repeatedly made it clear that nothing--not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military foreign policy experts, not the concerns of members of both parties--will discourage him from pursuing a war that has no end in sight and that has no military solution. With our heroic troops stuck in an Iraqi civil war, Congress cannot wait for the President to change course. We must change the course ourselves. Once again, President Bush is stalling for time as he threatens to veto a bipartisan bill that could finally change the course in Iraq. Although the conference report does not go as far or move as quickly as I would like, it is an important step toward ending the President's misguided policies in Iraq. It requires the President to begin redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq, while permitting troops to remain in Iraq for defined and narrow purposes: To protect U.S. personnel and facilities, to engage in ``targeted special actions'' against al-Qaida and their affiliates and to train and equip Iraqi forces. The vast majority of our troops would have to be redeployed, thus bringing to an end our current involvement in what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history. Some of my colleagues may still feel we should defer to the Commander in Chief. But these arguments disregard our congressional responsibilities. Congress authorized this war and we have the power and the responsibility to bring it to a close. We have a responsibility to end a war that is taking away resources from our top national security priority--the global fight against al- Qaida and its affiliates. Let me remind my colleagues that this is indeed a global fight--focusing so much of our resources on one country against an enemy that operates around the world is shortsighted and self-defeating. I am not suggesting that we leave the Iraqis to their own devices. There are many serious and troubling political problems in Iraq that are driving the insurgency and sectarian struggle and they require the attention of U.S. policymakers. But they will not be solved by an open- ended, massive military engagement. Instead, we need a strategic approach to redeployment and a global strategy to defeat the threats posed by terrorist networks. As long as the President's Iraq policy goes unchecked, our military will continue to put their lives on the line unnecessarily, our constituents will continue to pour billions of their dollars into this war, our military readiness will continue to erode, and we will be unable to develop a strategy to truly confront al-Qaida. If the President vetoes this bill, he will be rejecting the wishes of the American people and the imperatives of our national security. I will oppose any efforts to send a weaker bill to the President's desk and I will continue to speak out on this issue until the voices of the American people are finally heard in Congress and the White House.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I speak today in support of the America Competes Act, ACA, a bill designed to increase math and science opportunities for our Nation's youth, an issue of great importance in our increasingly global economy. I have heard from Wisconsinites at the K-12 education level as well as members of my State's higher education community who have voiced support for the ACA and the boost it provides to math and science programming. I am particularly pleased the Senate accepted my amendment to improve education privacy protections in the P-16 database component of this legislation. For decades, America has dominated the science and technological fields both in the higher education community and the business sector. As the National Academy of Sciences', NAS, report ``Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for Brighter Future'' outlined, the United States is facing some important challenges that need to be addressed if our country wishes to remain the worldwide economic and scientific leader. The report made clear that the science and technology preeminence that we have enjoyed for decades should not be taken for granted and deserves serious attention. The NAS report also highlights the need for supporting basic and applied research as a foundation for America's continued competitive edge. The America COMPETES Act follows through on these suggestions by boosting funding for competitive basic research through the NSF and other agencies. I have long been a strong supporter of competitive research funding, cultivating young researchers, graduate students and professionals, and creating an overall environment that encourages innovation, so I was glad to see these provisions in the legislation. While this legislation provides a Federal emphasis, this effort is going to have to be a partnership with public and private universities and colleges to be successful. Knowing Wisconsin, I am sure our institutions and higher education and companies will step up to the plate and embrace this partnership. Keeping America competitive globally is particularly relevant as manufacturing and industrial plants have closed in the United States and been rebuilt in other nations where the cost of hiring technical experts like engineers and chemists are often one-fifth or even one- tenth that in the US. While we need to boost education and employment training for these workers, I am concerned that retraining and major investment in the science and technology arena will not be enough to make a long-term difference without improved trade agreements. I continue to be troubled by the trade agreements into which our country has entered in recent years. Too often, they lack even the most basic labor and environmental standards needed to prevent a race to the bottom, and to ensure that our businesses and workers can compete on an equal footing. The unfortunate result of these flawed agreements has been the flight of jobs overseas and downward pressure on wages and benefits for those jobs that remain. If agreements such as these continue to be the rule, I am afraid that even with significant investment in science and technology our global position will continue to erode. While trade policy is an important aspect of our country's competitiveness, maintaining and strengthening America's competitiveness is a multi-disciplinary effort. I am pleased that the ACA includes funding for various important education programs including teacher professional development and summer learning institutes for K- 12 teachers, and expanded access to AP and IB courses for students in high-need schools. Providing training and support to America's teachers is an essential component of strengthening our nation's educational system and ensuring the educational growth of American students. Teacher quality is one of the biggest factors that impacts student achievement and too many students in our nation's most disadvantaged schools are taught by less experienced and less qualified teachers than their counterparts in our more advantaged schools. The programs provided in the ACA move our country in the right direction towards closing the gap in teacher quality and increasing the number of math and science teachers throughout the country. I am pleased the Senate adopted my amendment to strengthen the education privacy provisions in the title IV section of the bill which funds alignment of education programs. Under this section, States could apply for grants to improve alignment of the K-12 education standards with the skills that are needed for both the workforce and college. States could also use the grants to create P-16 databases which would compile information on students from kindergarten through college for the purposes of improving education policy in the States. While I fully support better alignment between the K-12 and higher education systems, I was concerned that the privacy provisions of the underlying bill were not strong enough to protect this important student data. As we have seen recently with the unauthorized uses of the federal National Student Loan Data System, these data systems are not completely secure and are potentially subject to abuse by those who have access to such data systems. My amendment adds some commonsense protections that States would have to comply with in order to receive Federal funding to create or improve education databases. States and third parties will only be able to use the data in the P-16 systems to fulfill purposes set out in State and Federal education law and third parties who access the data must sign a data use agreement prohibiting further disclosure or unauthorized uses. States will also have to account for all disclosures of data and make the accounting available to individuals whose data has been disclosed. Additionally, States must maintain adequate electronic security measures to safeguard the confidentiality and integrity of the data. Databases established with these Federal grant dollars would be subject to the protections of the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act. Finally, the underlying bill requires States to assign students unique identifiers in the State databases and my amendment would prohibit Federal, State, and local agencies from using the unique identifiers for any purposes except those allowed under Federal and State education law, as well as requiring the Secretary of Education to promulgate regulations to govern the use of unique identifiers in order to safeguard individual privacy. During consideration of the bill I supported several amendments that would impose greater fiscal responsibility, such as Senator DeMint's amendment opposing earmarks and Senator Coburn's amendment addressing the Advanced Technology Program. I did not support other amendments that, while well-intentioned, could have undermined the principles and purposes of the bill. I opposed Senator Coburn's amendment to sunset the provisions of the ACA and its amendments because of my concerns that this would nullify positive policy changes made by the ACA. I also opposed his amendment regarding the grant programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That amendment would have unduly interfered with grant recipients' ability to meet the objectives of their grants by prohibiting participation in conferences that, for example, could further scientific understanding. Grant recipients from all Federal agencies already must comply with regulations that prohibit the misuse of Federal funds on things such as entertainment and alcohol expenses. I am pleased we were able to work in a bipartisan manner to pass this important legislation. Improving math and science programs for disadvantaged youth and strengthening professional development opportunities for America's teachers are critically important to our Nation's future. The United States has long been known for its leadership in scientific discoveries and achievement, but our country must continue to improve and strengthen our education programs related to math, science, and technology if the United States wants to remain the world's leader on these issues. I believe the America COMPETES Act moves our country in the right direction towards achieving these important goals.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of over 45 million people in the United States, and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the No. 1 issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the No. 1 issue for many Americans. Nevertheless, the issue has been largely ignored in the Halls of Congress. We sit idle, locked in a stalemate, refusing to give this life-threatening problem its due attention. We need a way to break that deadlock, and that is why I have introduced a bill with the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, that will do just that--the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. Senator Graham and I are from opposite ends of the political spectrum, we are from different areas of the country, and we have different views on health care. But we agree that something needs to be done about health care in our country. Every day, all over our Nation, Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even change they way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical discomfort. These Americans bear the additional burden of wondering where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health care needs. When illness strikes families, the last thing they should have to think about is money, but for many in our country, this is a persistent burden that causes additional stress and hopelessness when they are ill. It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. Forty-seven percent of the uninsured avoided seeking care in 2003 due to the cost. Thirty-five percent needed care but did not get it. Thirty-seven percent did not fill a prescription because of cost. The uninsured are seven times more likely to seek care in an emergency room. They are less likely to receive preventative care because they cannot afford to see the doctor, and they are more likely to die as a result. Each year, at least 18,000 people die prematurely in this country because of uninsurance. If the uninsured had access to continuous health coverage, a reduction in mortality of 5 percent to 15 percent could be achieved. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee health care for its citizens. In other countries, if someone is sick, they get proper care regardless of ability to pay. In our country, that is not the case. It is unacceptable for a nation as great as America to not provide good health care for all our citizens. We are failing those in need. We are failing the hard-working family that cannot afford the insurance offered to them. We are failing the uninsured children whose parents do not have any access to insurance. We are failing low-income Americans and middle-income Americans alike. This is not right. We can do better. Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. More and more, employers are forced to increase employee cost- sharing or to offer subpar benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation. I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold townhall meetings. Almost every year, the No. 1 issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These people used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Graham in introducing the State- Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot project to provide states with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement, it just provides an incentive for action, provided the states meet certain minimum coverage and low- income requirements. Even though Senator Graham and I support different methods of health care reform, we both agree that this legislation presents a viable solution to the logjam preventing reform. I have long said that a single-payer health care system is what I prefer for our country. Senator Graham would like to see health care privatized and see a base, catastrophic coverage offered to everyone. Despite our disagreements about the form that health care reform should take, we agree on this legislation. This bipartisan legislation harnesses the talent and ingenuity of Americans to come up with new solutions. This approach takes advantage of America's greatest resources--the mind power and creativity of the American people--to move our country toward the goal of a working health care system with universal coverage. With help from the Federal Government, States will be able to try new ways of covering all their residents, and our political logjam around health care will begin to loosen. Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we should change the health care system in this country. Some propose using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a national single payer health care system is the only way to go. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system. Under our proposal, States can be creative in the state resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a state can use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to the approval of the newly created Health Care Coverage Task Force, which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This task force will be responsible for choosing viable state projects and ensuring that the projects are effective. The task force will also help the States develop projects, and will continue a dialogue with the States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and Federal Governments. The task force is also charged with making sure that the State plans meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act bases affordability on income. Another provision in this legislation requires that the States contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. States that can afford to provide more are encouraged to, but the matching requirement will ensure the financial viability of the bill and state buy-in. Other than these requirements, the states largely have flexibility to design a plan that works best for their respective residents. The possibilities for reform are wide open. One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The bill doesn't avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be made if we are going to pay for health care reform. One of the offsets in the bill was proposed by the Congressional Budget Office: an increase in the flat rebate paid by drug manufacturers for Medicaid prescription drugs. Currently, Medicaid recoups a portion of its drug spending through a rebate paid by the manufacturer. The savings mechanism would set a flat rebate, and provide funding for the States' health care reform projects. Another offset in the bill, also proposed by the Congressional Budget Office, is reduced subsidies for Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits for the highest income seniors. This would impact only single retirees earning more than $80,000 per year and married retirees earning more than $160,000--less than 5 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries. Additional funding for the bill comes from the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to auction the radio spectrum and the authority of Customs and Border Protection to collect multiple different conveyance and passenger user fees through fiscal year 2016. My bill proposes similar extensions of these established authorities. Also, my bill proposes to both simplify and reduce the Federal subsidy of airline passenger screening costs by replacing the current variable fee, which is capped at $5 per one-way trip, with a flat $5 fee. This proposal is similar to one in the president's fiscal year 2007 budget and would decrease Federal subsidies to about 30 percent of passenger security costs, without reducing aviation security spending. We can say that it is time to move toward universal coverage, but it is empty rhetoric without a feasible plan. I believe that this is the way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is providing a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of health care costs. It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis. We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That is an injustice, but it is one we can and must address. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality. I urge my colleagues to support the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I congratulate the University of Wisconsin men's track and field team for winning the 43rd annual National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, Indoor Track and Field Championship. As a proud alumnus, I enjoy the many opportunities to tout the success of the Badgers to my colleagues. With their win on March 10, 2007, the Wisconsin men's track team became the first-ever Big Ten Conference school to win the NCAA Division I Indoor Track and Field Championship. Earlier in the season, the Badgers earned their seventh consecutive Big 10 championship by defeating the University of Minnesota by 27 points on February 24, 2007. I sincerely congratulate Coach Ed Nuttycombe and Assistant Coaches Jerry Schumacher and Mark Guthrie for their dedication and hard work throughout the season. Congratulations to senior Chris Solinsky, who rewrote the record book in Wisconsin as a high school runner, on winning his fourth individual NCAA title, placing first in the 5,000- meter race. The athletic prowess of the University of Wisconsin is a source of pride throughout my State and for alumni everywhere. I applaud the men's track and field team for its impressive accomplishment and wish it best of luck for a successful future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, as a proud alumnus, I congratulate the University of Wisconsin for another fantastic season. This year, the University of Wisconsin women's hockey team defended its National Collegiate Athletic Association Championship, earning its second straight title. The hard work of the Badger women's hockey team culminated in a 4-1 victory over the University of Minnesota-Duluth in the NCAA championship game on March 18, 2007, in Lake Placid, NY. The Badgers finished their season on a 26-game unbeaten streak and totaled an outstanding final record of 36-1-4. I commend and congratulate Coach Mark Johnson, a member of the championship Badger hockey team of 1977. The Badgers won the title at Lake Placid, the site of the 1980 ``Miracle on Ice'' U.S. Olympic hockey team, of which Johnson was a member. The continuing success of University of Wisconsin athletics has made the people of Wisconsin, and alumni throughout the country, proud to be Badgers. The success of this superb team helps remind sports fans in Wisconsin and around the country of UW-Madison's place as a dominant force in Big Ten and national athletics.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague in the other body, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2007. Congressman Ryan and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many important 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. 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 2012, ensuring that Congress will have a chance to review its use under two different Administrations 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 Congressman Ryan and I 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 legislation earlier this year. Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a growing problem. By one estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. 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 doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they would become law. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague in the other body, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2007. Congressman Ryan and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many important 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. 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 2012, ensuring that Congress will have a chance to review its use under two different Administrations 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 Congressman Ryan and I 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 legislation earlier this year. Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a growing problem. By one estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. 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 doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they would become law. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation, America's Red Rocks Wilderness Act of 2007, to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness. I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government. I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of southern Utah. Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's omnibus parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children. I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters. Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would cosponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.'' Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation, America's Red Rocks Wilderness Act of 2007, to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness. I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government. I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of southern Utah. Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's omnibus parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children. I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters. Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would cosponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.'' Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, one of the biggest flaws in the Medicare prescription drug benefit is that it does not adequately address the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. By denying the Government the ability to negotiate price discounts, the benefit actually takes away one of the best tools the Medicare Program could use in bringing down prescription drug prices. That is why I am a cosponsor of legislation that would help address this fundamental flaw. The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, S. 3, will remove language included in the Medicare Modernization Act that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating prescription drug prices with manufacturers. The legislation goes a step further to require much needed data that would set the stage for additional legislation to strengthen negotiation in the future. This bill is something that the entire Senate should support, and I am disappointed that the Senate is being prevented from even debating, let alone voting on, this important bill. When I talk about the new Medicare prescription drug benefit during my travels around my home State of Wisconsin, I continually hear from constituents about how they cannot believe that the Federal Government cannot negotiate with pharmaceutical companies about the prices of prescription drugs. We need to help Medicare beneficiaries obtain affordable prescription drugs while still ensuring the Federal Government keeps prescription drug costs down. By lowering the underlying cost of prescription drugs offered through the Medicare Program, we will not only be helping beneficiaries save money, but we will also save the Federal Government money. In a time of mushrooming deficits, skyrocketing prescription drug costs and an aging population, we need to be smart about how we use taxpayer dollars. If we are going to keep Medicare solvent, we need to take strong action to keep health care costs down, especially the increasing costs of the prescription drugs the new Medicare Program will be providing. This is the fiscally responsible thing to do, and it is also the compassionate thing to do as keeping drugs affordable ensures access to prescriptions for 43 million seniors. I support this legislation, but I also support an even stronger step. It makes sense at this time to impose a mandate on the Secretary of HHS to negotiate lower prices. The Secretary should also have the right tools to negotiate effectively. This bill doesn't address formulary or price control authority for the Secretary. An ideal bill would at least examine these issues closely, yet these are not mentioned. Formulary power and price controls in Medicare Part D should be debated in the near future, and the reports required in S. 3 will provide needed information for that debate. So while I would like a stronger bill today, I support today's legislation because it is a giant step forward from where we are today. I hope my colleagues who are currently blocking this important legislation will reconsider their actions.