Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would object on behalf of the leadership because I agreed that this should be the next step and we should take up this resolution. I say to the Senator from Kansas, this resolution before us, the Reid resolution, makes perfect sense. What it does is it says: Look, we no longer believe the authorization that was given in 2002 makes sense, and it severely limits that resolution and moves us in the right direction. So I think that is the proper step. The supplemental bill is about to come up. I think that is the right place, given that it has to do with funding, for the type of amendment I have suggested. So I would object on behalf of the leadership. But I do look forward very much to the day not only when we debate this but when I persuade you that it is a good idea that we cut off the funding in order to bring the troops safely home--which, by the way, is what we did--and I assume Senator Roberts was involved in this as well--with Somalia. The Senator remembers ``Black Hawk Down.'' He knows it well. We lost 18 people. We decided: This isn't working out. This isn't a good idea. What did the Senate do? It passed legislation that said by a certain date we will no longer fund this military mission, but it gave plenty of time to get the troops out, and they got out successfully. That is the nature of what I propose to do with an amendment on the supplemental.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Step 1 was our vote here in this body and in the House to say that the surge was unwise, and a majority did vote for that here, as well as in the House. This is step 2. This says that the fundamental underpinnings of this mistake should be reversed, that the resolution authorizing force in Iraq should be reversed. Yes, step 3, in my view, would be saying--to enforce it. Since the President won't listen to us, we need to turn to the ultimate power, the one the Senator from Kansas and I both agree is the appropriate power in this situation; that is, whether to use the power of the purse to remove funding.

Mr. FEINGOLD. We are on step 2.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I think we would be best to do it on the supplemental. That seems to be the appropriate vehicle.

Mr. FEINGOLD. We need to get to that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I think the Senator from Kansas is on shaky ground with some people now. But I think the Senator from Kansas should know that we are essentially in the heat of agreement here; the only question is the order in which it should happen. The exact questions the Senator has discussed should be debated in the Senate. I hope they are debated soon. Guess what. We just had a debate, so we are having a debate, and this is the beginning, and we will continue it.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I want to add my thoughts to the debate on the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. First, I preface my remarks by applauding the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for their work on this important bill. This bill makes crucial and long overdue improvements in transportation security, critical infrastructure protection, and emergency response capabilities. There is no higher priority than protecting homeland security, and this bill is a key component in that effort. Nearly 6 years since the horrific attacks of September 11, we are still struggling to give our first responders, law enforcement officers, and the employees of the Department of Homeland Security the resources they need to keep us safe. I thank these brave men and women who work daily to protect this Nation. They are on the front lines of the fight against terrorism. They are the ones who are called on to stop and respond to any future attack upon our Nation. This bill includes important resources these brave men and women need to perform their critical tasks. I am pleased that the Senate has increased funding for State homeland security grants, emergency management performance grants, emergency communications and the Urban Area Security Initiative. I have long advocated for greater funding of emergency management grants because they are crucial in assisting State and local officials in preparing for all-hazards emergencies. These grants provide emergency managers with the resources they need to increase coordination and planning so that if an emergency occurs, State and local officials will respond much more efficiently and effectively. It is my hope that this bill represents a lasting shift in priorities, a shift towards an enhanced focus on the most pressing threats facing our country. We are still spending almost twice as much on Iraq as is allocated for homeland security, diplomacy, and international assistance combined. The billions we spend each month in Iraq could be invested in the protection of critical infrastructure and our system of national preparedness and response that failed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As we consider the budget resolution and the defense and homeland security appropriations bills this year, I encourage my colleagues to take a broader view when it comes to our national security priorities and make the tradeoffs that must be made. I am particularly pleased that the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act is included in this bill as section 504. I have been working on this legislation for a number of years with Senator Sununu, Senator Leahy, and Senator Akaka. I am glad that Senator Sununu and Senator Akaka successfully offered the legislation as an amendment to S. 4 when it was before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Many law-abiding Americans are understandably concerned about the specter of secret government programs analyzing vast quantities of public and private data about their pursuits, in search of patterns of suspicious activity. Four years after we first learned about the Defense Department's program called Total Information Awareness, there is still much Congress does not know about the Federal Government's work on data mining. This bill is an important step in allowing Congress to conduct oversight of any such programs or related research development efforts. The Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act would require Federal agencies to report annually on their development and use of data mining technologies to discover predictive or anomalous patterns indicating criminal or terrorist activity the types of pattern-based data analysis that raise the most serious privacy concerns. As amended on the floor, it would also allow classified information, law enforcement sensitive information, trade secrets, and proprietary business information to be provided to the relevant committees separately, in a nonpublic form, under appropriate security measures. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies would not be doing their job if they did not take advantage of new technologies. But when it comes to pattern-based data mining, Congress needs to understand whether it can be effective in identifying terrorists, and Congress needs to consider the privacy and civil liberties implications of deploying such technology domestically. I hope these reports will help Congress--and to the extent possible, the public--finally understand what is going on behind the closed doors of the executive branch, so that we can start to have the policy discussion about data mining that is long overdue. I am concerned about the ongoing development of the Information Sharing Environment without adequate privacy and civil liberties guidelines. In the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress mandated that the President create an Information Sharing Environment, ISE, for the sharing of terrorism information among Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector. This is a critical goal in our counterterrorism efforts. But that legislation also required that the President issue privacy guidelines for the ISE, in recognition of the serious privacy and civil liberties implications of facilitating more sharing of information among these entities. Those privacy guidelines were issued in December, but in my view are wholly inadequate. They touch on the most significant privacy issues and provide a framework for agencies to think about the privacy issues that might arise, but they do not include specific guidelines and rules for protecting privacy. That is why I filed an amendment to S. 4 that would have provided more direction to the ISE program manager about what should be included in these privacy guidelines and the need for more specific government-wide rules for the ISE. I was disappointed that my amendment was not included, but will continue to work to ensure that the guidelines for implementation of the ISE are sufficient to protect the privacy of Americans. The bill mandates the declassification of the aggregate amount of the intelligence budget. This reform has a long history going back to the Church and Pike Commissions. It is supported by the current Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It was also one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which stated that ``when even aggregate categorical numbers remain hidden it is hard to judge priorities and foster accountability.'' I concur with the Commission, that aggregate budget figures ``provid[e] little insight into U.S. intelligence sources and methods.'' Sharing this information with the American people will, however, provide a greater level of transparency and accountability and in the end make us more secure. I was pleased to support Senator McCaskill's amendment to ensure that workers at the Transportation Security Administration are afforded the same workplace protections as other DHS employees. The low retention rate at TSA resulting in part from lack of workers' rights threatens our security. This amendment will address this concern while giving administrators the flexibility they need to respond to imminent threats. I am pleased that this bill includes provisions to ensure proper oversight of homeland security grants. I am deeply troubled by reports of improper oversight of expenditures at DHS, including an article in the Washington Post last November stating that the Department was unable to locate one-third of the files needed to perform an audit of its contracts. I therefore supported Senator Coburn's amendment to require DHS to perform audits on homeland security grants. While I understand concerns that this requirement could have led to delays in the issuance of grants in fiscal year 2008, I did not think it was unreasonable to require DHS to conduct the audits required in a timely manner. I will continue to work with my colleagues to improve oversight of homeland security funding. I supported several amendments that would have added funding for critical security needs not fully addressed in this bill. I do not take lightly a decision to vote in favor of spending more money. Fiscal responsibility is one of my highest priorities, but it is imperative that we provide the resources needed to combat terrorism. I voted for this bill because it makes key changes to address security needs. However, our Nation's vulnerabilities demand more and I will continue to work to ensure that our vital homeland security needs are met.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care. High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need. Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual employee's health care is $3,615. For a family, the employer contribution is $8,508. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care. By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 10,000 employers nationwide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 157 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their nearly 73,000 employees and dependents. This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality. This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance. My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees. For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers. By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates. This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization. We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care. High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need. Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual employee's health care is $3,615. For a family, the employer contribution is $8,508. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care. By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 10,000 employers nationwide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 157 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their nearly 73,000 employees and dependents. This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality. This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance. My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees. For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers. By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates. This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization. We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the reauthorization of the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how-to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program. Sudden cardiac death from coronary heart disease occurs over 900 times per day in the United States. By improving access to automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities. In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other States, heart disease is the number one killer. In 2004, 35.4 percent of all deaths in Wisconsin were caused by heart disease and stroke. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer and accidents combined. Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the Nation. Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations. An estimated 164,600 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an AED can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival. Over the past 6 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. I'm pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities in 49 States, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes. Approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only 8 minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives. Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived. This story is incredibly sad. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives. Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within 3 minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within 5 minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments. These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified to prevent cardiac arrest. After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives. Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the Nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs. The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. Should funding be enacted, the program will help to put life-saving defibrillators in the hands of people in schools around the country. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country. The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life. This act exists because a family that experienced the tragic loss of their son was determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts. By making sure that AEDs are available in our Nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund this Act. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing the reauthorization of the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how-to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program. Sudden cardiac death from coronary heart disease occurs over 900 times per day in the United States. By improving access to automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities. In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other States, heart disease is the number one killer. In 2004, 35.4 percent of all deaths in Wisconsin were caused by heart disease and stroke. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer and accidents combined. Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the Nation. Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations. An estimated 164,600 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an AED can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival. Over the past 6 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. I'm pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities in 49 States, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes. Approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only 8 minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives. Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived. This story is incredibly sad. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives. Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within 3 minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within 5 minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments. These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified to prevent cardiac arrest. After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives. Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the Nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs. The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. Should funding be enacted, the program will help to put life-saving defibrillators in the hands of people in schools around the country. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country. The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life. This act exists because a family that experienced the tragic loss of their son was determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts. By making sure that AEDs are available in our Nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund this Act. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic policy issue of our time, namely health care reform. I believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's in place in other countries or by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is ending a system where more than 46 million Americans are uninsured, and where too many of those who are insured are struggling to pay their premiums, struggling to pay for prescription drugs, and struggling to find long term care. 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. I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country, without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that States have a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are, and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their State. So I am in favor of a State-based universal health care system, where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage, and I am working with Senator Graham to develop a bipartisan bill that will help States do just that. If we are finally going to fix our broken health care system, we need to be open to good, new ideas. And this brings us to the legislation Senator Graham and I are introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the tens of millions who are uninsured or underinsured or struggling to pay their premiums, the Federal Government refuses to address the problem in a comprehensive way. That is why we are introducing this bill. Our legislation will force Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the session of Congress following enactment of the bill. This bill provides an expedited process for considering reform legislation. Similar procedures are established for House consideration. I want to emphasize that my bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be considered. But what my bill does do is require Congress to act. It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests. I am disappointed that Congress still has not acted to reform our health care system, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to address the country's health care crisis. It has been over 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive health care reform. We cannot afford any further delay. The cost of inaction is too great. I urge my colleagues to support the Reform Health Care Now Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic policy issue of our time, namely health care reform. I believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's in place in other countries or by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is ending a system where more than 46 million Americans are uninsured, and where too many of those who are insured are struggling to pay their premiums, struggling to pay for prescription drugs, and struggling to find long term care. 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. I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country, without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that States have a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are, and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their State. So I am in favor of a State-based universal health care system, where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage, and I am working with Senator Graham to develop a bipartisan bill that will help States do just that. If we are finally going to fix our broken health care system, we need to be open to good, new ideas. And this brings us to the legislation Senator Graham and I are introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the tens of millions who are uninsured or underinsured or struggling to pay their premiums, the Federal Government refuses to address the problem in a comprehensive way. That is why we are introducing this bill. Our legislation will force Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the session of Congress following enactment of the bill. This bill provides an expedited process for considering reform legislation. Similar procedures are established for House consideration. I want to emphasize that my bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be considered. But what my bill does do is require Congress to act. It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests. I am disappointed that Congress still has not acted to reform our health care system, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to address the country's health care crisis. It has been over 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive health care reform. We cannot afford any further delay. The cost of inaction is too great. I urge my colleagues to support the Reform Health Care Now Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his moving and sobering words but even more importantly for his leadership and tremendous clarity on this issue over these last few critical years. Mr. President, we are approaching the 4-year anniversary of one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in our country's history. In March 2003, with the prior authorization of Congress, the President took this country to war in Iraq. Almost 4 years later, virtually every objective observer and, more importantly, the American people as a whole agree that the President's policy has failed. Even the President acknowledges that his plan has not worked, though his solution is not a new plan but a troop escalation. Of course, sending more troops to implement what is essentially the same flawed strategy makes no sense. The American people agree that it makes no sense, and most of my colleagues agree that it makes no sense. So the question becomes, with a President unable or unwilling to fix a flawed policy that is jeopardizing our national security and our military readiness, what should we in Congress do about our country's involvement in this disastrous war? Do we do nothing and hope the President will put things right, when he has shown time and time again that he is incapable of doing so? Do we simply tell the President that we are unhappy with the way the war is going and that we hope he will change course or do we take strong, decisive action to fix the President's mistaken, self-defeating policies? It is pretty clear which course of action I support. I think it is a course of action the American people called for in the November elections. It is the course of action our national security needs, so we do not continue to neglect global threats and challenges while we focus so much of our resources and our efforts on Iraq. It is the course of action that will support--that will actually support--our brave troops and their families. We must end our involvement in this tragic and misguided war. The President will not do so; therefore, Congress must act. So far, Congress has not lived up to that responsibility. Instead of taking strong action in the Senate, instead of considering binding legislation that fixes the President's flawed Iraq strategy, we tied ourselves into knots last week in a convoluted and misguided effort to achieve a consensus that would have essentially reaffirmed congressional authorization for continuing our military involvement in Iraq. Of course, here I am referring to the resolution proposed by the senior Senator from Virginia. This resolution was portrayed, at least at first, by members of both parties as an important symbolic rebuke of the President's Iraq policy. In fact, it really was not a rebuke at all. In parts, it reads like a reauthorization of the war, rejecting troop redeployment and specifically authorizing ``vigorous operations'' in a critical region in Iraq. Now, when debate on the Warner resolution was blocked, we had a chance to get things right. And I am glad our majority leader, Senator Reid, has chosen to bring up the resolution being debated in the House today expressing support for the troops and, simply, opposition to the so- called surge. Now, this body--the Senate--should go on record in opposition to, or support of, the President's plan. I will vote to allow the debate on the resolution to take place. And I hope I will have the opportunity to actually vote for the resolution. I have yet to hear any convincing argument that sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq will bring about the political solution that is needed to end violence in that country. The President's decision to send more troops is based on two flawed assumptions. It assumes, first, that the presence of even more of our servicemembers will help Iraqi troops improve security in Baghdad and, second, that with improved security, Iraqi politicians can then achieve national reconciliation. The recent declassified NIE, or National Intelligence Estimate, shot holes in both of those assumptions. It said that Iraqi security forces ``will be hard pressed in the next 12-18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities'' and ``even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this Estimate.'' Obviously, those were direct quotes, not me characterizing the NIE. In other words, in the best case scenario, U.S. forces provide a little security that Iraqi forces can't sustain on their own and that Iraqi politicians won't use to settle their entrenched differences. That doesn't sound to me like a plan for success. Some of my colleagues, even those who don't support sending more troops to Baghdad, have spoken in favor of continued and even increased U.S. military operations in Al Anbar Province. Some of them even suggest that our troops should be directly combating an insurgency there. This, apart from everything else, is a recipe for disaster. Al Anbar Province is where a majority of U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. The insurgency there, as well as general opposition to the U.S. presence and to the Shiite-dominated Government in Baghdad, is fueled by the Sunnis' political and economic grievances. Conducting targeted missions to take out terrorists makes sense, but using U.S. troops to put down an insurgency doesn't. Maintaining or, worse yet, increasing a substantial U.S. presence in a primarily Sunni area without a political solution means nothing less than a continuation of unending and self- defeating policies in Iraq. Clearly, the President's decision to send more troops makes no sense. But I have to say that simply passing a nonbinding resolution criticizing it makes no sense, either, if we just stop there. So we need to go further, and we need to do it soon. Let me remind my colleagues, when the voters rejected the President's Iraq policy in November, they weren't rejecting an escalation. That option wasn't even on the table then. Who was talking about an escalation during that campaign? Certainly, the Presiding Officer knows well what was being discussed. They were rejecting the President's policy of trying to achieve a political solution in Iraq with a massive and unlimited military presence. After delaying action for a couple of months, the President just plain ignored overwhelming public sentiment, the advice of Members of both parties, and the views of the military and foreign policy experts when he proposed an escalation. The administration turned its back on the American people. We in Congress should not follow suit. We have a responsibility to our constituents and to our men and women in uniform. If no one will listen to and act on the will of the American people, then there is something seriously wrong with our political system. After almost 4 years of a disastrous policy, we must bring our troops out of Iraq. To do otherwise is to ignore public outrage over the war and to ignore the many other pressing national security priorities we are neglecting in favor of a myopic focus on Iraq. The American people recognize there is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war. And as long as we focus disproportionate attention and resources on Iraq, we will not be able to counter the full range of threats we face in places such as Afghanistan and Somalia and many other places around the world. So Congress must use its power. It must use its power of the purse to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Let's not be intimidated by the intentionally misleading rhetoric of the White House and its allies when they try to prevent any discussion at all of real action by the Congress to end the war. This isn't about cutting off funds for troops; it is about cutting off funds for the war. Every Member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and the support they need. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated, as I have proposed, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. That is how you get them out of harm's way, by getting them out of there. There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict. Last month, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End the War.'' Without exception, every witness, those called by the majority and the minority, those who have had a career more focused on the executive branch than the legislative branch--all of them did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress's authority to end the war. Lou Fisher of the Library of Congress is acclaimed as one of the foremost experts on the President's war powers. In fact, he literally wrote the book on this topic. He testified that Congress does not simply have the power, he said it has the responsibility to exercise it, when needed. He said: . . . is the continued use of military force and a military commitment in the Nation's interest? That is the core question. Once you decide that, if you decide it is not in the national interest, you certainly do not want to continue putting U.S. troops in harm's way. The argument that cutting off funding for a flawed policy would hurt the troops and that continuing to put U.S. troops in harm's way supports the troops makes no sense. By ending funding for the war, we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq. Walter Dellinger of Duke Law School made this point when he testified about my proposal. He said: There would not be one penny less for the salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for the benefit of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized. Instead of allowing the President's failed policy to continue, Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as do I in my bill, that important counterterrorism and training missions are still carried out. We should be coming up with a strategy for a postredeployment Iraq and the region that is squarely within the context of the global fight against al-Qaida. That means replacing a massive and unsustainable and unlimited military mission with a long-term strategy for mitigating the mess left behind by this war. With such a strategy, we can redirect substantially more resources and attention to the fight against al-Qaida and other affiliated or sympathetic international terrorist organizations. As long as this President goes unchecked by Congress, our troops will remain needlessly at risk and our national security will be compromised. Let me tell my colleagues, regardless of what happens with this resolution, this is just a first step--worthwhile but just a first step. And the first step must be followed by stronger steps, and it must be done quickly. I intend to keep pushing until the Senate votes to end our involvement in the Iraq war, and eventually this will happen because this is what a strong majority of the American people want. Congress may be able to put off its day of reckoning temporarily, the administration can continue down the same failed path a while longer, but all of us ignore the will of the American people at our peril. So let's have this debate. Let's do it openly and honestly. Let's not pretend anyone wants to deny our troops the equipment and resources they need. Let's not suggest that opposing the President's strategy is unpatriotic and that it would give aid and comfort to the enemy, that it would somehow weaken the resolve of our troops. Those claims are outrageous. They are offensive, and they are untrue. Do my colleagues believe the American people gave aid and comfort to the enemy when they rejected the President's Iraq policy in November? Are the overwhelming majority of our constituents who oppose this war trying to undermine our troops? Of course not. So how could anyone suggest that Congress actually acting on the will of the American people undermines the troops or emboldens the enemy? Our troops are undermined by a policy that places them in harm's way unnecessarily. And our enemy, our true enemy, al-Qaida and its allies, is emboldened by a U.S. strategy that neglects global challenges and instead focuses on a single country. It is unfortunate that those who wish to defend this strategy would resort to these kinds of charges. Let's do the job of the Senate and have full, open debate and votes on fixing our Iraq policy. Let's not pretend that such a debate would harm our national security. Let's not tell ourselves that it is up to just the President to fix the horrible situation his failed policies have created. It is our responsibility to act, too. Congress made the tragic mistake of authorizing this war over 4 years ago. Now Congress also has the job of bringing it to a close so we can refocus on the terrorists and other global threats that have been neglected way too much over the past 4 years. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I honor the memory of one of the great jurists in the history of my State and someone I was honored to call a friend and mentor: Judge Thomas Fairchild. Judge Fairchild earned the respect of all who knew him for his keen mind, his kind manner, and his humility. His long and distinguished career in public service included serving as Wisconsin's attorney general, as a State supreme court justice, and as Federal appeals court judge on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where he rose to become chief judge. He held that position from 1975 to 1981 when he became a senior judge on the appeals court. Judge Fairchild stood for justice and equality in his work on the bench, and his work in politics as he made a courageous run for Senate against Joe McCarthy in 1952. Through that and other efforts, he played a critical role in efforts to revitalize the State's Democratic Party. Judge Fairchild was a brilliant legal mind and a man of exceptional character. He was also an extremely special person in my family and a great friend of my father's. As is the case with anyone who has known me for more than 40 years, he called me Rusty. Whenever my father, Leon Feingold, or my mother, Sylvia Feingold, referred to Judge Fairchild, it was always with reverence. Some of the biggest decisions of his career were made, at least in part, in our living room. I have always been deeply proud of that fact. The Thomas E. Fairchild lecture at University of Wisconsin Law School, established in 1988 as a tribute to Judge Fairchild, is just one reflection of his tremendous stature in Wisconsin. When I delivered the Fairchild lecture in 2005, with Judge Fairchild listening in the audience, it was a great honor for me, and a wonderful experience. I am deeply saddened by the passing of Judge Fairchild, for the loss this means for his family, and for all those who knew him. He was one of our State's great legal minds, and one of our most dedicated public servants. I feel so fortunate to have known him, and so grateful for the many things he taught me and the many kindnesses he showed me over the years. The work he did, and the life he lived, will continue to enrich Wisconsin and the Nation for many years to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Earlier this week, I introduced a resolution which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters, and legislation which would strengthen the Buy American Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained for jobs in high-demand health care fields. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Mikulski, is cosponsoring this important legislation and I look forward to working with her to advance it during the 110th Congress. According to statistics from the Department of Labor, Wisconsin has lost over 90,000 manufacturing jobs between January 2000 and November 2006. Nationally, the country has lost around 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, yet the administration has continued to support policies that lead to the outsourcing of American jobs. I continue to be deeply troubled by the Bush Administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors. There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system. In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's workforce development boards--despite shoestring budgets--are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers. I strongly support the work of these agencies, and have urged the Administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I look forward to the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act this year and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my state and across our country receive the resources that they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful. I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care. As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health. As our population ages, and the baby-boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 1.4 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2014. In total, there will be almost 1.7 million job openings in health care support occupations through 2012. As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the surging job growth in health care will translate into a real need for workers, and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an additional 61,910 health care positions by 2014. This represents a 27 percent increase in jobs in health care by 2014. Workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities. As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family- oriented standard of living.'' I believe we should support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, my legislation is fully offset. This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes, from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities. I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, including: the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, Madison Area Technical College, the Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin, the Bay Area Workforce Development Board, the Healthcare Workforce Network, the Southwest Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, Sauk County Development Corporation, the American Osteopathic Society, Umos, the Fox Valley Workforce Development Board, and the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board. In order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue. I am very pleased that my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman and Inouye have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support. And I thank Congressman Wexler, who has been the unflagging champion of this legislation in the House of Representatives. The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans. But, at the same time that so many brave Americans fought for freedom in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of people here at home. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to defend. War tests our principles and our values. And as our Nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and ultimately into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, people of Japanese ancestry who were subjected to relocation or internment later received an apology and reparations on behalf of the people of the United States. February 19, 2007, is the ``Day of Remembrance,'' the 65th anniversary of the signing of Executive Order 9066. On this day, we should remember the freedoms all of these individuals were forced to give up, and resolve never to make these mistakes again. While I commend our government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees. The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II. I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. We must learn from this history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to protect their basic freedoms. A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must review the facts here as well and determine how restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible truth that the United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. government to complete the accounting of this period in our nation's history. It is time to create independent, fact- finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II. Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps. There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who were shipped to the United States and sometimes repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries. Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores. The injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred more than fifty years ago. Americans can learn from these tragedies now, while the people who survived these injustices are still with us, and are still here to teach us. We cannot put this off any longer. If we wait, the people who were affected will no longer be here to know that Congress has at last recognized their sacrifice and resolved to learn from the mistakes of the past. We should never allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government. As the Day of Remembrance approaches, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act, and to allow this bill to become law as soon as possible. I have been seeking to enact this legislation for six years. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our Nation's history. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Earlier this week, I introduced a resolution which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters, and legislation which would strengthen the Buy American Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained for jobs in high-demand health care fields. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Mikulski, is cosponsoring this important legislation and I look forward to working with her to advance it during the 110th Congress. According to statistics from the Department of Labor, Wisconsin has lost over 90,000 manufacturing jobs between January 2000 and November 2006. Nationally, the country has lost around 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, yet the administration has continued to support policies that lead to the outsourcing of American jobs. I continue to be deeply troubled by the Bush Administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors. There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system. In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's workforce development boards--despite shoestring budgets--are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers. I strongly support the work of these agencies, and have urged the Administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I look forward to the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act this year and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my state and across our country receive the resources that they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful. I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care. As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health. As our population ages, and the baby-boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 1.4 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2014. In total, there will be almost 1.7 million job openings in health care support occupations through 2012. As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the surging job growth in health care will translate into a real need for workers, and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an additional 61,910 health care positions by 2014. This represents a 27 percent increase in jobs in health care by 2014. Workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities. As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family- oriented standard of living.'' I believe we should support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, my legislation is fully offset. This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes, from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities. I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, including: the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, Madison Area Technical College, the Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin, the Bay Area Workforce Development Board, the Healthcare Workforce Network, the Southwest Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, Sauk County Development Corporation, the American Osteopathic Society, Umos, the Fox Valley Workforce Development Board, and the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board. In order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue. I am very pleased that my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman and Inouye have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support. And I thank Congressman Wexler, who has been the unflagging champion of this legislation in the House of Representatives. The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans. But, at the same time that so many brave Americans fought for freedom in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of people here at home. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to defend. War tests our principles and our values. And as our Nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and ultimately into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, people of Japanese ancestry who were subjected to relocation or internment later received an apology and reparations on behalf of the people of the United States. February 19, 2007, is the ``Day of Remembrance,'' the 65th anniversary of the signing of Executive Order 9066. On this day, we should remember the freedoms all of these individuals were forced to give up, and resolve never to make these mistakes again. While I commend our government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees. The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II. I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. We must learn from this history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to protect their basic freedoms. A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must review the facts here as well and determine how restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible truth that the United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. government to complete the accounting of this period in our nation's history. It is time to create independent, fact- finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II. Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps. There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who were shipped to the United States and sometimes repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries. Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores. The injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred more than fifty years ago. Americans can learn from these tragedies now, while the people who survived these injustices are still with us, and are still here to teach us. We cannot put this off any longer. If we wait, the people who were affected will no longer be here to know that Congress has at last recognized their sacrifice and resolved to learn from the mistakes of the past. We should never allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government. As the Day of Remembrance approaches, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act, and to allow this bill to become law as soon as possible. I have been seeking to enact this legislation for six years. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our Nation's history. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help American workers and companies. The bill that I am introducing, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing efforts to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad. The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. Regrettably, this law contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign-made goods. My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing law by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods with little or no accountability. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice. I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 90,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my State since 2000. And the country has lost around 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows that Congress needs to do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods. There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them. The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a contract up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract. The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowestpriced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured. I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors. The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on a regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source-- including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas. The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such as waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically. My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and the Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act, a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies. Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that ``American-made'' means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent. In addition, my bill would put in place for the next five years the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was included again by this body as an amendment to the recent minimum wage bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign--and domestic--made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process. This reporting requirement seeks to hold agencies accountable by requiring agencies to report on their foreign-made purchases and make that information available to Congress and the American public. The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act, including the type of waiver used; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet. Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would be required to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all Federal agencies. The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws. By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. We have worked together for some time to modernize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued commitment to this issue. I was pleased that the Senate made significant progress last Congress and included many key reforms in the Senate-passed Water Resources Development Act. I again thank my colleagues who cosponsored a successful independent peer review amendment: the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper; the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; the former Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; and the Senators from Maine, Ms. Collins and Ms. Snowe. I also want to acknowledge the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for her support for this amendment. In addition, I appreciate the efforts to include reform provisions in the underlying bill by the then-Environment and Public Works Committee Chairs and Ranking Members: the former Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus; the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe; and the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond. After six years of efforts on this issue, we made significant progress. However, negotiations between the House and Senate stalled and no conference report was agreed to. By introducing this bill today, I am renewing my efforts to ensure that the Corps of Engineers' water resources planning is brought into the 21st century. As we all know, Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most tragic and costly natural disasters in our Nation's history. Water resources projects authorized by Congress and planned by the Corps of Engineers contributed to the loss of vital coastal wetlands (which can provide natural buffers from storm surge), intensified the storm surge into New Orleans, and encouraged development in flood-prone areas. The flawed project planning, however, did not end there. Floodwalls and levees that the Corps built to protect New Orleans failed catastrophically during Hurricane Katrina. It is now well recognized and indeed, the Corps has acknowledged--that flawed engineering and construction led to those failures and the flooding of much of New Orleans. Over the past decade, dozens of governmental and scientific studies have documented other flaws in Corps of Engineers' project planning. Most recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified that recent Corps studies ``did not provide a reasonable basis for decision-making'' because they were ``were fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.'' The GAO found that the recurring problems at the agency were ``systemic in nature and therefore prevalent throughout the Corps' Civil Works portfolio.'' We can, and must, do better. Congress should not authorize additional Army Corps projects until it has considered and passed the reforms included in the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act. From ensuring large projects are sound to using natural resources to protect our communities, modernizing water resources policy is a national priority. The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 represents a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed or low priority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, Association of State Wetland Managers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has the backing of a committed and diverse coalition. The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 can be broadly divided into five parts: ensuring sound projects and responsible spending, valuing our natural resources, focusing our resources, identifying vulnerabilities, and updating the Army Corps of Engineer's planning guidelines. To ensure that Corps water resources projects are sound, the bill requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over $40 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected state, those which the head of a federal agency has determined may lead to a significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review should not increase the length of time required for project planning but would protect the public--both those in the vicinity of massive projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects. The Director of Independent Review can also require independent review of the technical designs and construction of flood damage reduction projects to ensure public safety and welfare. The independent review provision is identical to that supported by a majority of my colleagues last Congress and included in the Senate-passed WRDA. We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help buffer communities from storms, filter contaminants out of our water, support vibrant economies, and provide vital fish and wildlife habitat. Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 brings the Corps' 1986 mitigation standards into line with their regulatory program by requiring Corps water resources projects to meet the same mitigation standard that is required of all private citizens and other entities under the Clean Water Act. Where States have adopted stronger mitigation standards, the Corps must meet those standards. I feel very strongly that the Federal government should be able to live up to this requirement. Unfortunately, all too often, the Corps has not completed required mitigation. This legislation will make sure that mitigation is completed, that the true costs of mitigation are accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public is able to track the progress of mitigation projects. Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal Register for the public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill, comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public transparency in decision making--both needed and reasonable improvements to the status quo. Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources Council to identify and report to Congress on the nation's vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements to the nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such action, the legislation specifies that the Administration will submit a response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90 days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage reduction programs, languish like others before it. The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the Corps' principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the Corps' planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars. Updating the project planning process should involve consideration of a variety of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and the same discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple steps such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project costs and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project should move forward. Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress ensuring that the Corps sought ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for actual reform is stronger than ever. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can better contribute to our environment and our economy--without wasting taxpayer dollars or endangering public safety. I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future Corps projects produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities, and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the Corps the tools it needs to do a better job and focuses the attention of Congress on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the environment deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, which was introduced today by Senator Dodd. It amends the deeply flawed Military Commissions Act of 2006 to restore basic due process rights and to ensure that no person is subject to indefinite detention without charge based on the sole discretion of the President. Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. This administration has for too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country. Last year, the President agreed to consult with Congress on the makeup of military commissions only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan decision. Congress should have taken that opportunity to pass legislation that would allow these trials to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, would have had the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic, constitutional system of government is not a hindrance but a source of strength in fighting those who attacked us. Instead, we passed the Military Commissions Act, legislation that violates the basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity for them to challenge their detention in court. And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. The checks and balances of our system of government and the fundamental fairness of the American people and legal system are among our greatest strengths in the fight against terrorism. I was deeply disappointed that Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act. The day that bill became law was a stain on our Nation's history. It is time to undo the harm caused by that legislation. The Restoring the Constitution Act amends the Military Commissions Act to remedy its most serious flaws, and I am pleased to support it. First of all, this legislation would restore the great writ of habeas corpus, to ensure that detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere-- people who have been held for years but have not been tried or even charged with any crime--have the ability to challenge their detention in court. Senator Dodd's bill would repeal the habeas stripping provisions of both the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act. Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions. Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress last year, habeas corpus ``safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy--ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.'' The Military Commissions Act fundamentally altered that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it eliminated the right of habeas corpus. Under the Military Commissions Act, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial, without due process, without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law. That is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation. Under the Dodd bill, we would not have to wait. We would restore the right to habeas corpus now. We can provide a lawful system of military commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice, without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government. Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular--the writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy combatants. Unless it can be said with absolute certainty that every person detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained--and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case-- then we should make sure that people can't simply be locked up forever, without court review, based on someone slapping a ``terrorist'' label on them. We must return to the great writ. We must be true to our Nation's proud traditions and principles by restoring the writ of habeas corpus, by making clear that we do not permit our government to pick people up off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them indefinitely without court review. That is not what America is about. But the Restoring the Constitution Act does far more than restore habeas corpus. It also addresses who can be subject to trial by military commission. The Military Commissions Act was justified as necessary to allow our government to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Yet if you look at the fine print of that legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much broader than that. It would permit trial by military commission not just for those accused of planning the September 11 attacks, but also individuals, including legal permanent residents of this country, who are alleged to have ``purposefully and materially supported hostilities'' against the United States or its allies. This is extremely broad. And by including hostilities not only against the United States but also against its allies, the Military Commissions Act allows the U.S. to hold and try by military commission individuals who have never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any action against the United States. Not only that, but the Military Commissions Act would also define as an unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission, anyone who ``has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.'' This essentially grants a blank check to the executive branch to decide entirely on its own who can be tried by military commission. Senator Dodd's bill makes clear that the President cannot unilaterally decide who is eligible for trial by military commission. Under the Dodd bill, in order to be tried by military commission, an individual must have directly participated in hostilities against the United States in a zone of active combat, or have been involved in the September 11 attacks, and cannot be a lawful enemy combatant. Senator Dodd's bill also addresses the structure and process of the military commissions themselves. It ensures that these military commission procedures hew closely to the long-established military system of justice, as recommended by countless witnesses at congressional hearings last summer. Some examples of the ways in which the Dodd bill improves the military commission procedures include: It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through torture or coercion. It ensures that any evidence seized within the United States without a search warrant cannot be introduced as evidence. It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the existing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by military commissions, rather than the newly created ``Court of Military Commission Review,'' whose members would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense. And it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act to determine the constitutionally of its provisions before anyone is tried by military commission, so that we will not face even more delays in the future. Many of these provisions were included in the bill passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2006, but then stripped out or altered in backroom negotiations with the Administration. The bill also improves changes to the War Crimes Act and emphasizes the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions. In sum, Senator Dodd's legislation addresses many of the most troubling and legally suspect provisions of the Military Commissions Act. Congress would be wise to make these changes now, rather than wait around while the Military Commissions Act is subject to further legal challenge, and another 4 or 5 years are squandered while cases work their way through the courts again. In closing let me quote John Ashcroft. According to the New York Times, at a private meeting of high-level officials in 2003 about the military commission structure, then-Attorney General Ashcroft said: ``Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst killers in U.S. history. But at least we had fair procedures for him.'' How sad that Congress passed legislation about which the same cannot be said. We can and must undo this mistake.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. We have worked together for some time to modernize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued commitment to this issue. I was pleased that the Senate made significant progress last Congress and included many key reforms in the Senate-passed Water Resources Development Act. I again thank my colleagues who cosponsored a successful independent peer review amendment: the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper; the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; the former Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; and the Senators from Maine, Ms. Collins and Ms. Snowe. I also want to acknowledge the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for her support for this amendment. In addition, I appreciate the efforts to include reform provisions in the underlying bill by the then-Environment and Public Works Committee Chairs and Ranking Members: the former Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus; the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe; and the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond. After six years of efforts on this issue, we made significant progress. However, negotiations between the House and Senate stalled and no conference report was agreed to. By introducing this bill today, I am renewing my efforts to ensure that the Corps of Engineers' water resources planning is brought into the 21st century. As we all know, Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most tragic and costly natural disasters in our Nation's history. Water resources projects authorized by Congress and planned by the Corps of Engineers contributed to the loss of vital coastal wetlands (which can provide natural buffers from storm surge), intensified the storm surge into New Orleans, and encouraged development in flood-prone areas. The flawed project planning, however, did not end there. Floodwalls and levees that the Corps built to protect New Orleans failed catastrophically during Hurricane Katrina. It is now well recognized and indeed, the Corps has acknowledged--that flawed engineering and construction led to those failures and the flooding of much of New Orleans. Over the past decade, dozens of governmental and scientific studies have documented other flaws in Corps of Engineers' project planning. Most recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified that recent Corps studies ``did not provide a reasonable basis for decision-making'' because they were ``were fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.'' The GAO found that the recurring problems at the agency were ``systemic in nature and therefore prevalent throughout the Corps' Civil Works portfolio.'' We can, and must, do better. Congress should not authorize additional Army Corps projects until it has considered and passed the reforms included in the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act. From ensuring large projects are sound to using natural resources to protect our communities, modernizing water resources policy is a national priority. The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 represents a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed or low priority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, Association of State Wetland Managers, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has the backing of a committed and diverse coalition. The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 can be broadly divided into five parts: ensuring sound projects and responsible spending, valuing our natural resources, focusing our resources, identifying vulnerabilities, and updating the Army Corps of Engineer's planning guidelines. To ensure that Corps water resources projects are sound, the bill requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over $40 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected state, those which the head of a federal agency has determined may lead to a significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review should not increase the length of time required for project planning but would protect the public--both those in the vicinity of massive projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects. The Director of Independent Review can also require independent review of the technical designs and construction of flood damage reduction projects to ensure public safety and welfare. The independent review provision is identical to that supported by a majority of my colleagues last Congress and included in the Senate-passed WRDA. We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help buffer communities from storms, filter contaminants out of our water, support vibrant economies, and provide vital fish and wildlife habitat. Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 brings the Corps' 1986 mitigation standards into line with their regulatory program by requiring Corps water resources projects to meet the same mitigation standard that is required of all private citizens and other entities under the Clean Water Act. Where States have adopted stronger mitigation standards, the Corps must meet those standards. I feel very strongly that the Federal government should be able to live up to this requirement. Unfortunately, all too often, the Corps has not completed required mitigation. This legislation will make sure that mitigation is completed, that the true costs of mitigation are accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public is able to track the progress of mitigation projects. Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal Register for the public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill, comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing public transparency in decision making--both needed and reasonable improvements to the status quo. Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources Council to identify and report to Congress on the nation's vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements to the nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such action, the legislation specifies that the Administration will submit a response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90 days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage reduction programs, languish like others before it. The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the Corps' principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the Corps' planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars. Updating the project planning process should involve consideration of a variety of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and the same discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple steps such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project costs and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project should move forward. Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects, while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress ensuring that the Corps sought ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for actual reform is stronger than ever. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can better contribute to our environment and our economy--without wasting taxpayer dollars or endangering public safety. I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future Corps projects produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities, and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the Corps the tools it needs to do a better job and focuses the attention of Congress on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the environment deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, which was introduced today by Senator Dodd. It amends the deeply flawed Military Commissions Act of 2006 to restore basic due process rights and to ensure that no person is subject to indefinite detention without charge based on the sole discretion of the President. Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. This administration has for too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country. Last year, the President agreed to consult with Congress on the makeup of military commissions only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan decision. Congress should have taken that opportunity to pass legislation that would allow these trials to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, would have had the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic, constitutional system of government is not a hindrance but a source of strength in fighting those who attacked us. Instead, we passed the Military Commissions Act, legislation that violates the basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity for them to challenge their detention in court. And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. The checks and balances of our system of government and the fundamental fairness of the American people and legal system are among our greatest strengths in the fight against terrorism. I was deeply disappointed that Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act. The day that bill became law was a stain on our Nation's history. It is time to undo the harm caused by that legislation. The Restoring the Constitution Act amends the Military Commissions Act to remedy its most serious flaws, and I am pleased to support it. First of all, this legislation would restore the great writ of habeas corpus, to ensure that detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere-- people who have been held for years but have not been tried or even charged with any crime--have the ability to challenge their detention in court. Senator Dodd's bill would repeal the habeas stripping provisions of both the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act. Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions. Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress last year, habeas corpus ``safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy--ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.'' The Military Commissions Act fundamentally altered that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it eliminated the right of habeas corpus. Under the Military Commissions Act, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial, without due process, without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law. That is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation. Under the Dodd bill, we would not have to wait. We would restore the right to habeas corpus now. We can provide a lawful system of military commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice, without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government. Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular--the writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy combatants. Unless it can be said with absolute certainty that every person detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained--and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case-- then we should make sure that people can't simply be locked up forever, without court review, based on someone slapping a ``terrorist'' label on them. We must return to the great writ. We must be true to our Nation's proud traditions and principles by restoring the writ of habeas corpus, by making clear that we do not permit our government to pick people up off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them indefinitely without court review. That is not what America is about. But the Restoring the Constitution Act does far more than restore habeas corpus. It also addresses who can be subject to trial by military commission. The Military Commissions Act was justified as necessary to allow our government to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Yet if you look at the fine print of that legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much broader than that. It would permit trial by military commission not just for those accused of planning the September 11 attacks, but also individuals, including legal permanent residents of this country, who are alleged to have ``purposefully and materially supported hostilities'' against the United States or its allies. This is extremely broad. And by including hostilities not only against the United States but also against its allies, the Military Commissions Act allows the U.S. to hold and try by military commission individuals who have never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any action against the United States. Not only that, but the Military Commissions Act would also define as an unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission, anyone who ``has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.'' This essentially grants a blank check to the executive branch to decide entirely on its own who can be tried by military commission. Senator Dodd's bill makes clear that the President cannot unilaterally decide who is eligible for trial by military commission. Under the Dodd bill, in order to be tried by military commission, an individual must have directly participated in hostilities against the United States in a zone of active combat, or have been involved in the September 11 attacks, and cannot be a lawful enemy combatant. Senator Dodd's bill also addresses the structure and process of the military commissions themselves. It ensures that these military commission procedures hew closely to the long-established military system of justice, as recommended by countless witnesses at congressional hearings last summer. Some examples of the ways in which the Dodd bill improves the military commission procedures include: It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through torture or coercion. It ensures that any evidence seized within the United States without a search warrant cannot be introduced as evidence. It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the existing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by military commissions, rather than the newly created ``Court of Military Commission Review,'' whose members would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense. And it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act to determine the constitutionally of its provisions before anyone is tried by military commission, so that we will not face even more delays in the future. Many of these provisions were included in the bill passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2006, but then stripped out or altered in backroom negotiations with the Administration. The bill also improves changes to the War Crimes Act and emphasizes the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions. In sum, Senator Dodd's legislation addresses many of the most troubling and legally suspect provisions of the Military Commissions Act. Congress would be wise to make these changes now, rather than wait around while the Military Commissions Act is subject to further legal challenge, and another 4 or 5 years are squandered while cases work their way through the courts again. In closing let me quote John Ashcroft. According to the New York Times, at a private meeting of high-level officials in 2003 about the military commission structure, then-Attorney General Ashcroft said: ``Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst killers in U.S. history. But at least we had fair procedures for him.'' How sad that Congress passed legislation about which the same cannot be said. We can and must undo this mistake.