Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the Pension Protection Act. While there are many constructive provisions in the bill, the package is deeply flawed in at least two respects. First, it will add to our already massive government debt. Thanks in large part to the expensive tax provisions that were added, the legislation will add another $66 billion over the next 10 years to the already massive debt with which we are burdening our children and grandchildren. To add insult to that injury, most of that cost stems from savings incentive provisions that overwhelmingly benefit those who least need it. The provisions that raise the contribution limits on tax-preferred savings accounts benefit only 1 in 16 households, and only 1 in 100 households with incomes under $50,000. If we want to encourage more savings, and we should, there are far better ways to do it. The second matter that raises significant concerns is the so-called red zone provision which permits pension plans to cut the vested pension benefits of workers. Allowing a worker's vested benefits to be cut is unprecedented and grossly unfair. If workers are told that they may take early retirement at a certain level of earned pension, that promise should not be broken. But under this bill, the financial future on which some families were planning can now come crashing down on them. Retirement benefits which were promised to them and on which they were relying may now be taken away. And make no mistake; if Congress permits earned benefits to be taken, they will be taken. There is a clear need for pension reform, and many of the provisions in this bill make sense. But I cannot vote for a measure that is so irresponsible for the fiscal future of our Nation and the personal economies of thousands of workers who will soon retire.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the memory of Leon Epstein, someone who contributed a great deal to the University of Wisconsin and the study of political science, and someone I was proud to know. Leon, who passed away on Tuesday, was a native Wisconsinite who gave back to our State through his dedicated work both as a scholar and an administrator at UW. Born in 1919 in Beaver Dam, he went on to study at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he earned a B.A. and then an M.A. in economics. He then spent virtually his entire academic career on the Madison campus, where for 40 years he was a beloved fixture in the political science department--a department from which I was proud to graduate. He made an impact on countless students as he taught introductory courses and supervised doctoral dissertations for four decades. Throughout his life, Leon remained dedicated to his own research and independent work. He received many prestigious fellowship grants and published six books. He was widely recognized for his book ``Political Parties in Western Democracies,'' which received the first book award from the Political Organizations and Parties Section of the American Political Science Association. He also served as president of the Midwest Political Science Association, the British Politics Group, and the American Political Science Association. Leon also held the position of dean of the College of Letters and Science from 1965 to 1969. In every capacity, Leon earned the respect and friendship of those with whom he worked. He was someone I admired, both for who he was and for the many outstanding contributions he made to the study of political science. He leaves behind a great legacy. People will study his work for many years to come. And those of us who knew him will remember a man of tremendous character who gave so much to a university and a State that he loved. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of 46 million people in the United States, and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the No. 1 issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the No. 1 issue for tens of millions of Americans. Nevertheless, the issue has been largely ignored in the Halls of Congress. We sit idle, locked in a stalemate, refusing to give this life-threatening problem its due attention. We need a way to break that deadlock, and today I am introducing a bill that will do just that--the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. I believe that health care is a fundamental right, and every American should have guaranteed health care coverage. My bill seeks to move us toward that goal in a way that I hope will be acceptable to many of my colleagues. Every day, all over our Nation, Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even change they way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical discomfort. These 46 million Americans bear the additional burden of wondering where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health care needs. When illness strikes families, the last thing they should have to think about is money, but I know that for many in our country, this is a persistent burden that causes stress and hopelessness. It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. Forty-seven percent of the uninsured avoided seeking care in 2003 due to the cost. Thirty-five percent needed care but did not get it. Thirty-seven percent did not fill a prescription because of cost. The uninsured are seven times more likely to seek care in an emergency room. They are less likely to receive preventative care because they cannot afford to see the doctor, and they are more likely to die as a result. Each year, at least 18,000 people die prematurely in this country because of uninsurance. If the uninsured had access to continuous health coverage, a reduction in mortality of 5 percent to 15 percent could be achieved. Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. More and more, employers offer sub-par benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation. I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold townhall meetings. Almost every year, the No. 1 issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These people used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in. Our country can do better, and it will. Last year, I was pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on health care reform. It requires Congress to take up and debate universal health care bills within the first 90 days of the session following enactment of the bill. This bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated--it simply requires Congress to act. Today, I am here to build on the proposal from last year. I am introducing the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot project to provide States with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement; it just provides an incentive for action, provided the States meet certain minimum coverage and low-income requirements. 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 have my own preferences, but I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system. As a former State legislator, I come to this debate appreciating the role that States are playing in coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health care problem. We are already seeing States move ahead of the Federal Government on covering the uninsured. Massachusetts recently passed into law a plan to require health insurance for all residents, and State legislators in my home State of Wisconsin, as well as Vermont, Maine, and California, are working to expand health insurance coverage in their States. The Federal Government should be encouraging these innovative initiatives, and my bill provides the mechanism for this goal to be realized. This legislation harnesses the talent and ingenuity of Americans to come up with new solutions. This approach takes advantage of America's greatest resources--the mind power and creativity of the American people--to move our country toward the goal of a working health care system with universal coverage. With help from the Federal Government, States will be able to try new ways of covering all their residents, and our political logjam around health care will begin to loosen. Under my proposal, States can be creative in the State resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State can use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to the approval of the newly created Health Care Reform Task Force, which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This task force will be responsible for choosing viable State projects and ensuring that the projects are effective. The Task Force will also help the States develop projects, and will continue a dialog with the States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and Federal Governments. The task force is also charged with making sure that the State plans meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act bases affordability on income. Another provision in this legislation requires that the States contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. States that can afford to provide more are encouraged to, but in order to ensure the financial viability of the bill and to ensure State buy- in, this matching requirement provides a starting point. Other than these requirements, the States largely have flexibility to design a plan that works best for their respective residents. The possibilities for reform are wide open. One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The bill doesn't avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be made if we are going to pay for health care reform. One of the offsets in the bill was proposed by the Congressional Budget Office: an increase in the flat rebate paid by drug manufacturers for Medicaid prescription drugs. Currently, Medicaid recoups a portion of its drug spending through a rebate paid by the manufacturer. The savings mechanism would set a flat rebate, and provide funding for the States' health care reform projects. Additional funding for the bill comes from the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to auction the radio spectrum and the authority of Customs and Border Protection to collect multiple different conveyance and passenger user fees through fiscal year 2016. My bill proposes similar extensions of these established authorities. Also, my bill proposes to both simplify and reduce the federal subsidy of airline passenger screening costs by replacing the current variable fee, which is capped at five dollars per one-way trip, with a flat five dollar fee. This proposal is similar to one in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget and would decrease federal subsidies to about thirty percent of passenger security costs, without reducing aviation security spending. I also pay for this bill with an offset modeled on legislation introduced in the House by my good friend and fellow Wisconsinite Tom Petri and in the Senate by the senior Senator from Massachusetts that seeks to save money by encouraging higher education institutions to shift from private lenders to the direct loan program, which is most cost-effective for taxpayers. Currently, the Federal Government subsidizes private lenders for the loans they issue to students and this offset would end the current taxpayer-funded subsidies while increasing financial aid to students. We can say that it is time to move toward universal coverage, but it is empty rhetoric without a feasible plan. I believe that this is the way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is providing a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of health care costs. It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis. We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet, there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That is an injustice, and it is one we can and must address. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality. I urge my colleagues to support the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of 46 million people in the United States, and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the No. 1 issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the No. 1 issue for tens of millions of Americans. Nevertheless, the issue has been largely ignored in the Halls of Congress. We sit idle, locked in a stalemate, refusing to give this life-threatening problem its due attention. We need a way to break that deadlock, and today I am introducing a bill that will do just that--the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. I believe that health care is a fundamental right, and every American should have guaranteed health care coverage. My bill seeks to move us toward that goal in a way that I hope will be acceptable to many of my colleagues. Every day, all over our Nation, Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even change they way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical discomfort. These 46 million Americans bear the additional burden of wondering where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health care needs. When illness strikes families, the last thing they should have to think about is money, but I know that for many in our country, this is a persistent burden that causes stress and hopelessness. It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. Forty-seven percent of the uninsured avoided seeking care in 2003 due to the cost. Thirty-five percent needed care but did not get it. Thirty-seven percent did not fill a prescription because of cost. The uninsured are seven times more likely to seek care in an emergency room. They are less likely to receive preventative care because they cannot afford to see the doctor, and they are more likely to die as a result. Each year, at least 18,000 people die prematurely in this country because of uninsurance. If the uninsured had access to continuous health coverage, a reduction in mortality of 5 percent to 15 percent could be achieved. Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. More and more, employers offer sub-par benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation. I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold townhall meetings. Almost every year, the No. 1 issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These people used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in. Our country can do better, and it will. Last year, I was pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on health care reform. It requires Congress to take up and debate universal health care bills within the first 90 days of the session following enactment of the bill. This bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated--it simply requires Congress to act. Today, I am here to build on the proposal from last year. I am introducing the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot project to provide States with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement; it just provides an incentive for action, provided the States meet certain minimum coverage and low-income requirements. 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 have my own preferences, but I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system. As a former State legislator, I come to this debate appreciating the role that States are playing in coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health care problem. We are already seeing States move ahead of the Federal Government on covering the uninsured. Massachusetts recently passed into law a plan to require health insurance for all residents, and State legislators in my home State of Wisconsin, as well as Vermont, Maine, and California, are working to expand health insurance coverage in their States. The Federal Government should be encouraging these innovative initiatives, and my bill provides the mechanism for this goal to be realized. This legislation harnesses the talent and ingenuity of Americans to come up with new solutions. This approach takes advantage of America's greatest resources--the mind power and creativity of the American people--to move our country toward the goal of a working health care system with universal coverage. With help from the Federal Government, States will be able to try new ways of covering all their residents, and our political logjam around health care will begin to loosen. Under my proposal, States can be creative in the State resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State can use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to the approval of the newly created Health Care Reform Task Force, which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This task force will be responsible for choosing viable State projects and ensuring that the projects are effective. The Task Force will also help the States develop projects, and will continue a dialog with the States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and Federal Governments. The task force is also charged with making sure that the State plans meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act bases affordability on income. Another provision in this legislation requires that the States contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. States that can afford to provide more are encouraged to, but in order to ensure the financial viability of the bill and to ensure State buy- in, this matching requirement provides a starting point. Other than these requirements, the States largely have flexibility to design a plan that works best for their respective residents. The possibilities for reform are wide open. One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The bill doesn't avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be made if we are going to pay for health care reform. One of the offsets in the bill was proposed by the Congressional Budget Office: an increase in the flat rebate paid by drug manufacturers for Medicaid prescription drugs. Currently, Medicaid recoups a portion of its drug spending through a rebate paid by the manufacturer. The savings mechanism would set a flat rebate, and provide funding for the States' health care reform projects. Additional funding for the bill comes from the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to auction the radio spectrum and the authority of Customs and Border Protection to collect multiple different conveyance and passenger user fees through fiscal year 2016. My bill proposes similar extensions of these established authorities. Also, my bill proposes to both simplify and reduce the federal subsidy of airline passenger screening costs by replacing the current variable fee, which is capped at five dollars per one-way trip, with a flat five dollar fee. This proposal is similar to one in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget and would decrease federal subsidies to about thirty percent of passenger security costs, without reducing aviation security spending. I also pay for this bill with an offset modeled on legislation introduced in the House by my good friend and fellow Wisconsinite Tom Petri and in the Senate by the senior Senator from Massachusetts that seeks to save money by encouraging higher education institutions to shift from private lenders to the direct loan program, which is most cost-effective for taxpayers. Currently, the Federal Government subsidizes private lenders for the loans they issue to students and this offset would end the current taxpayer-funded subsidies while increasing financial aid to students. We can say that it is time to move toward universal coverage, but it is empty rhetoric without a feasible plan. I believe that this is the way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is providing a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of health care costs. It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis. We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet, there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That is an injustice, and it is one we can and must address. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality. I urge my colleagues to support the State-Based Health Care Reform Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, once again, this body has missed a chance to pass responsible, effective legislation responding to the very real and very pressing energy needs of this country. While there may be pieces of S. 3711 that have merit, I did not support cloture and I will not vote in favor of the final bill. I voted to allow the Senate to consider S. 3711 in the hope that we might have a serious discussion of the bill, including debating and voting on amendments to improve it. While the bill only addresses one part of our energy needs, it could have provided an opportunity for the Senate to finally address a broad range of energy issues. Unfortunately, Senators were prevented from offering amendments, so there was no opportunity to address, for example, efficiency, conservation, renewable fuels, or even global warming. The result is another missed opportunity to pass the comprehensive energy legislation that our constituents are looking for. In addition to opposing the flawed process for consideration of S. 3711, I have grave concerns about the fiscal implications of the legislation. This bill will redirect billions of dollars in Federal revenues to just four States. While I agree that we have a responsibility to ensure that Federal dollars are going to important activities like protecting and restoring coastal wetlands, I do not believe that doing so requires creation of a new entitlement for a handful of States. If enacted, S. 3711 will have massive long-term and negative consequences. For example, in 2017, the loss to the taxpayers of the country is estimated to be over $590 million a year, jumping to over $1.2 billion per year in 2022. Adding it all up, you get a total likely loss of over $170 billion over 60 years. I am not prepared to support such a massive drain on the Federal Treasury for the benefit of a few States and I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 3711.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce a bill to repair and strengthen the Presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2006 will ensure that this system that has served our country so well for over a generation will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The Presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election, too. In the last election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the Presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but took the general election grant. It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is becoming less viable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out because their opponents are opting out will increase until the system collapses from disuse. This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by both participants in the system and experts on the presidential election financing process. First and most important, it eliminates the State-by-State spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1. One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit. The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit. This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive Presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This had led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow any gap to be more than adequately filled. Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law. The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our Presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting on July 1 of the year preceding the election, 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grant for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grant is released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart. The bill will also end the political parties' use of soft money for their conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement. I will also ask that a copy of the bill itself be printed in the Record, following my statement. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, with the country looking forward to the first Presidential election since 1952 where both the incumbent President and the sitting Vice-President are not running, this is a perfect time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. Each party will have numerous candidates in the primaries, and no party can claim it will be helped or hurt by these changes. Fixing the Presidential public financing system will cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $360 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill caps taxpayer subsidies for promotion of agricultural products, including some brand-name goods, by limiting the Market Access Program to $100 million per year. Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small investment to make to protect the health of our democracy and integrity of our Presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act now to preserve the crown jewel of the Watergate reforms and ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce a bill to repair and strengthen the Presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2006 will ensure that this system that has served our country so well for over a generation will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The Presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election, too. In the last election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the Presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but took the general election grant. It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries is becoming less viable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out because their opponents are opting out will increase until the system collapses from disuse. This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by both participants in the system and experts on the presidential election financing process. First and most important, it eliminates the State-by-State spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1. One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit. The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit. This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive Presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This had led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow any gap to be more than adequately filled. Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law. The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our Presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting on July 1 of the year preceding the election, 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grant for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grant is released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart. The bill will also end the political parties' use of soft money for their conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement. I will also ask that a copy of the bill itself be printed in the Record, following my statement. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, with the country looking forward to the first Presidential election since 1952 where both the incumbent President and the sitting Vice-President are not running, this is a perfect time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. Each party will have numerous candidates in the primaries, and no party can claim it will be helped or hurt by these changes. Fixing the Presidential public financing system will cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $360 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill caps taxpayer subsidies for promotion of agricultural products, including some brand-name goods, by limiting the Market Access Program to $100 million per year. Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small investment to make to protect the health of our democracy and integrity of our Presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act now to preserve the crown jewel of the Watergate reforms and ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote ``no'' on the nomination of Jerome M. Holmes to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and I would like to take a minute to explain why I reached this decision. This is an important nomination and should receive close scrutiny. Judges on the court of appeals have enormous influence on the law. Whereas decisions of district courts--a position Mr. Holmes has never held--are subject to appellate review, the decisions of the courts of appeals are in almost all cases final, as the Supreme Court agrees to hear only a very small percentage of the cases on which its views are sought. I believe in certain longstanding touchstones of the qualifications needed for judicial nominees: legal competence, fairness, and the ability to approach issues with an open mind. We sometimes short-hand these qualities into a single phrase--a judicial temperament. In evaluating a nominee's judicial temperament, our goal is to have an evenhanded judiciary that hears the case before it and applies the law fairly and uniformly, rather than letting strong personal convictions override the facts or the law. We do this for a simple but fundamental reason, namely, that we want a highly qualified and independent judiciary that can command the respect and admiration of the American people. In the nomination of Mr. Holmes, we have a nominee to one of our highest courts who has never served as a judge before. President Bush originally nominated Mr. Holmes to be a Federal district judge in Oklahoma earlier this year. Prior to this nomination, Mr. Holmes had been an assistant U.S. attorney in Oklahoma and in private practice. The Judiciary Committee was ready to consider that initial nomination-- to determine the merits of Mr. Holmes serving in his first judicial position as a Federal district judge, a position with substantial responsibility. But for some reason Mr. Holmes' nomination was upgraded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Placing a nominee with no judicial experience on an appellate court makes it hard to evaluate the nominee's judicial temperament--his capacity to be fair and impartial. With no judicial record to illuminate his views, we are left only with Mr. Holmes' words as a window into his judicial temperament. Those words are troubling and could lead a reasonable person to question his objectivity and temperament. After the Supreme Court's nuanced affirmative action ruling, Grutter v. Bollinger, Mr. Holmes derided the Court for missing the ``opportunity to drive the final nail in the coffin of affirmative action,'' and complained that ``[t]he court did not go far enough: Affirmative action is still alive.'' He has referred to scholarship programs targeted at minority children as ``morally offensive.'' He has called African-Americans leaders, on various occasions, ``ideologically bankrupt'' and suggested that their opposition to school vouchers is insincere. In a letter to a publication, Mr. Holmes flippantly dismissed a doctor's complaint that his colleagues had ``negative reactions to his dreadlocks'' as ``naive.'' He has even gone so far as to claim that efforts to address racial bias in jury selection actually harm the criminal justice system. Mr. Holmes has even dismissed problems with the administration of the death penalty. In a 2004 speech, he said: ``The statement society is sending--that certain conduct and the perpetrators of it deserve to die is not materially diminished by the fact that in the implementation of the death penalty mistakes are made.'' In response to my written questions regarding whether executing an innocent person was an acceptable mistake, Mr. Holmes responded by saying that ``the criminal justice system should be administered in a manner that eliminates mistakes--to the extent it is humanly possible--and yields accurate outcomes.'' I do not think this is an acceptable answer to a fairly simple question. His statements suggest a rather cavalier approach to a very significant issue in contemporary criminal law. Mr. Holmes' dismissive comments about affirmative action, school vouchers, and the death penalty were not offhand remarks, or impassioned advocacy on behalf of a client. Nonetheless, Mr. Holmes, of course, urges us to set his earlier statements aside, and look to his assurances of his future impartiality as a judge. But Mr. Holmes did little to actually address the concerns of many members of the Judiciary Committee. Rather than discuss his previous comments openly and candidly--and take the opportunity to show why those comments might not reflect his actual thinking--he provided stock and unconvincing answers that he considers racism to be a ``negative influence'' in society and that he would follow Supreme Court precedent. Mr. Holmes' actions in connection with his membership in the Men's Dinner Club of Oklahoma also suggest, rather than candor, a strategy of simple image control. Mr. Holmes, having been a member of this club that excludes women from membership, resigned from its membership on February 2, 2006 just 2 weeks prior to his initial nomination to be a district court judge. Mr. Holmes has defended this institution as, to his knowledge, not ``practicing invidious discrimination.'' So what accounts for his resignation? His explanation--that ``some might perceive the Men's Dinner Club as an improper organization''--suggests not a principled decision but a pure political and image calculation. Clearly, Mr. Holmes wishes to make this nomination as palatable as possible--and we should therefore take his assurances and stock answers with a grain of salt. Mr. President, I am saddened that President Bush has once again proposed a judicial nomination that I cannot support, especially because Mr. Holmes would be the first African American to serve on the Tenth Circuit. But he has never served as a judge either on the Federal or State level--and his statements on a broad range of topics suggest concerns about his ability to provide impartial justice. And, by failing to explain his statements and views with candor, he missed a chance to show the Judiciary Committee that he has the deliberative and impartial reasoning needed to serve on an appellate court. We want a judiciary that the American people respect and admire as impartial. With no judicial record to examine and a history of troubling statements, Mr. Holmes has not shown that he will apply the law fairly. I will therefore vote ``no.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot support the Child Custody Protection Act. First, I object to the decision to bring this bill directly to the floor, circumventing the Senate's committee process. I remember when this bill came before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 105th Congress. We held a hearing, debated and voted on amendments, and even issued a committee report with minority views. Mr. President, that was in 1998; surely, the factual basis of this legislation has changed since then. I do not see why the Leadership feels that this bill no longer deserves the serious consideration that it received eight years ago. In addition, this bill is an overreach of Federal power that comes at the expense of the health and safety of young women. The notion that one State may not impose its laws outside its territorial boundaries is a core federalist principle, and I believe this bill might very well violate the Constitution if enacted. States should retain their right to enact and implement appropriate policies within their territorial boundaries. The Child Custody Protection Act would preempt these rights by allowing the laws of certain States to essentially trump the laws in other States. In an ideal world, all young women who face this difficult decision would be able to turn to their parents. But we do not live in an ideal world, and the reality is that there are young women who feel they cannot turn to a parent out of fear of physical or mental abuse, getting kicked out of the house, or worse. This bill would deny these young women the ability to turn to another trusted adult for help. Many national medical and public-health organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association have expressed grave concern about mandatory parental consent laws for these reasons. Our focus in the Senate should be on ensuring that unintended pregnancies do not happen in the first place. For these reasons, I intend to continue my work in the Senate to ensure that all women have access to the best information and reproductive health services available. If we do that, abortions will become even more rare, as well as staying safe and legal.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by reports in the press that the Islamic courts in Somalia are advancing on the internationally recognized Transitional Federal Government, TFG, and are apparently ignoring recently signed cease-fire agreements. It is imperative that the Islamic courts recognize the TFG as the official governing body of Somalia and that it abide by the cease fire agreed to on June 22, 2006, in Khartoum. The Islamic courts must work in good faith to strengthen the TFG and actively commit to the development of a more inclusive and representative government of Somalia. For this to happen, the international community, including the United States, needs to be fully engaged. The United States, in particular, must develop a comprehensive strategy for Somalia that utilizes all facets of its power and capabilities and must ramp up its diplomatic efforts throughout the region and the international community to bring this crisis to an end. Unfortunately, it can't do that if it doesn't have the resources or the people in place to deal effectively with the complexity of this problem. The U.S. Government needs to appoint a senior envoy for Somalia to pull together a strategy and to engage full time with international and regional partners in addressing this crisis. It also needs more staff and more resources to work with to help execute this strategy and to contribute to international efforts to bring about lasting peace throughout the region. The administration should work closely with Congress to identify what additional resources are needed for Somalia, given the recent escalation of tension there. That said, it is important to realize that efforts to both establish long-term peace and to eradicate terrorist networks and safe havens in Somalia are complimentary. The U.S. Government must recognize that long-term stability in Somalia is our best weapon against terrorist networks, extremist organizations, and the conditions that allow them to seek safe haven there. We must look at poverty reduction programs, economic development efforts, support for democratic institutions, anticorruption efforts, and education as the core elements of a new Somalia strategy. As we learned in Afghanistan, we cannot ignore the conditions that breed extremist and terrorist organizations. Accordingly, it is essential to recognize that any attempt to address instability in Somalia must address a range of root causes or facilitating conditions: a weak and dysfunctional central government, extreme poverty, corruption, conflict, disease, and drought. It is imperative that the U.S. Government begin playing a leadership role in helping stabilize Somalia and the region and that it do so immediately. We need a comprehensive approach to engaging with regional actors, the international community, and the U.N. to find a permanent solution to this crisis. Such an approach will contribute to stability throughout the Horn of Africa and to our national security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I, too, rise today to speak in support of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of and to have participated in the hearings held by the Judiciary Committee on this incredibly significant legislation. The Voting Rights Act may very well be the most important piece of Federal legislation ever passed, for without a meaningful chance to vote, there can be no equality before the law, no equal access to justice, no equal opportunity in the workplace or to share in the benefits and burdens of citizenship. Brave Americans risked their very lives in marches and demonstrations to pass this historic legislation. The electoral process in this country has improved significantly as a result of the Voting Rights Act. This success is evident in the increased participation in elections by minority voters and in the enhanced ability of minority voters to elect candidates of their choice. There is no doubt that progress has been made. But I think that Ted Shaw, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, put it best when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that: The Voting Rights Act was drafted to rid the country of racial discrimination--not simply to reduce racial discrimination in voting to what some view as a tolerable level. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, you can take it from me that the committee has done due diligence in examining this issue. But you do not have to take it from me, of course. The extensive record the committee has compiled powerfully demonstrates the importance of the reauthorizing legislation before us today. Even in recent election cycles, Americans continue to be disenfranchised by discriminatory redistricting plans, through the denial of voting materials they are entitled to under the law, and through changes to election procedures that disadvantage minority candidates and voters, among other things. It is also worth noting that just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court recognized that discriminatory redistricting plans are not simply a vestige of the past--finding a purposeful effort to dilute the voting power of over 100,000 Latino Americans. It is clear to me that we have come a long way from the bridge in Selma, AL, but we have not come far enough. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has been instrumental in bringing about the dramatic improvements in voting rights and representation for minorities in covered areas. Keeping it in place, with a reasonable bailout provision, is the best way to be sure we do not lose the progress that has taken place. Let me just say in response to some comments that were made during the Judiciary Committee's hearings that all Members of Congress, regardless of whether they are in a covered or noncovered jurisdiction and regardless of their political affiliation, have an interest in ensuring the continued effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act. As Federal legislators, we have a responsibility to address and eliminate discrimination wherever it is found. The integrity of our elections and of our very democracy depends on it. Let's not falter now. Let's not stop or turn back the clock but, rather, build on the extraordinary success of this legislation and reaffirm the promise that all citizens, no matter what the color of their skin, can participate fully and equally in the electoral process. We must reauthorize the expiring provisions of the act. We must ensure that section 5 can continue to serve as a powerful deterrent to violations in areas of the country with a history of systemic discrimination at the polls. We must also reauthorize section 203, which has empowered many voters with limited English proficiency to participate in our democratic process. It is also important that the Senate restore the original understanding of the act with respect to the opportunity-to-elect standard and to election procedures with discriminatory intent. There is much more work to do in terms of eradicating discrimination from our elections process, and reauthorizing and strengthening the Voting Rights Act is, of course, a step in the right direction. I will vote in favor of H.R. 9, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Section 5 of the bill, which deals with Georgia v. Ashcroft and the Bossier II case, is extremely important. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, I concur with the discussion of this provision by the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kumar Garg, a legal intern with my Judiciary Committee staff, be accorded floor privileges during the debate on H.R. 9.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, before yielding to the Senator from Vermont, I will offer the amendment, if there is no objection. I have an amendment at the desk numbered 4681 regarding independent peer review.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up a modified version of the amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I offer this independent peer review amendment on behalf of myself, Senators McCain, Carper, Lieberman, and Collins. As we all know, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, through their leadership of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, have done an extensive investigation into all aspects of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I applaud their leadership and am proud they are cosponsoring this amendment, as I think it is a testament to the importance of implementing the changes included in this amendment. Additionally, Senator Jeffords has consistently pushed, through his position as ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for many of the provisions of this amendment. I publicly thank him for all his attention to this matter. Finally, Senator Carper has seen the need for an independent peer review amendment through both his Homeland Security Committee membership and his EPW Committee membership, and I appreciate his support in moving this issue forward. Before I explain exactly what my amendment does, let me take a few minutes to talk about what various Government reports have said about the Corps' study process, as these reports have been the basis of my efforts over the last 6 years. More than a decade of reports from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Army inspector general, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and other independent experts have revealed a pattern of stunning flaws in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project planning and implementation and urged substantial changes to the Corps' project planning process. Most recently, in June of this year, a report entitled ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System Draft Final Report on the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force'' acknowledged that the New Orleans levees failed catastrophically during Hurricane Katrina because of poor design and flawed construction. In planning the system, the Corps did not take into account poor soil quality and failed to account for the sinking of land which caused sections to be as much as 2 feet lower than other sections. Breaches in four New Orleans canals were caused by foundation failures that were ``not considered in the original design.'' The system was designed to protect against a relatively low-strength hurricane, and the Corps did not respond to repeated warnings from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that a stronger hurricane should have been the standard. The Corps also did not reexamine the heights of the levees after it had been warned about significant subsidence. In discussing this report, the Corps' chief of engineers acknowledged that the agency must change, telling reporters that ``words alone will not restore trust in the Corps.'' Also, in June of this year, a report issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers, ``Project Engineering Peer Review Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,'' recommends that Congress enact legislation to mandate external, independent peer reviews for all major Corps projects that would include reviews of the feasibility report, subsequent design and engineering reports, the project plans, and specifications and construction. Reviews should be carried out by experts who have no connection to the Corps, to the local project sponsor, or to the particular project contract. In May of this year, we got ``A Nation Still Unprepared,'' a report that resulted from the excellent work of my friend from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and a cosponsor of our independent peer review amendment, and Senator Joe Lieberman, ranking member of the committee, and another cosponsor of our amendment. That report recommends independent peer review of levee systems that protect population centers throughout the country. I don't know if Senator Collins or Senator Lieberman will have time to elaborate more on the thorough investigation their committee conducted and on their key findings and recommendations, but the report in many ways speaks volumes on its own. One of the most striking reports, conducted by R.B. Seed in May of this year, ``Investigation of the Performance of the New Orleans Flood Protection Systems and Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, Draft Final Report,'' finds that the catastrophic failure of the New Orleans regional flood protection system was the result of ``engineering lapses, poor judgments, and efforts to reduce costs at the expense of system reliability.'' The Corps failed to design the system with appropriate safety standards, failed to adequately address the complex geology of the region, failed to provide adequate design oversight, and engaged in ``a persistent pattern of attempts to reduce costs of constructed works at the price of corollary reduction in safety and reliability.'' These failings led to the ``single most costly catastrophic failure of an engineered system in history'' that caused the deaths of more than 1,290 people and some $100 to $150 billion in damages to the greater New Orleans area. I could go on, and I will. I want my colleagues to know what is at stake. In March 2006, the Government Accountability Office testified that ``the Corps' track record of providing reliable information that can be used by decision makers . . . is spotty, at best.'' Four recent Corps studies examined by GAO were ``fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.'' These studies ``did not provide a reasonable basis for decisionmaking.'' The recurring problems ``clearly indicate that the Corps' planning and project management processes cannot ensure that national priorities are appropriately established across the hundreds of civil works projects that are competing for scarce federal resources.'' Problems at the agency are ``systemic in nature and therefore prevalent throughout the Corps' Civil Works portfolio'' so that effectively addressing these issues ``may require a more global and comprehensive revamping of the Corps' planning and project management processes rather than a piecemeal approach.'' I commend to my coleagues this damning testimony before the House Energy and Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform by Ann Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO. In March of 2006, the American Society of Civil Engineers External Review Panel for the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force letter to the Corps' chief of engineers found that decisions made during the original design phase led to the failure of the 17th Street canal floodwall in New Orleans and are representative of ``an overall pattern of engineering judgment inconsistent with that required for critical structures.'' These problems pose ``significant implications for the current and future safety offered by levees, floodwalls and control structures in New Orleans, and perhaps elsewhere.'' The External Review Panel recommends a number of immediate actions to improve Corps planning for ``levees and floodwalls in New Orleans and perhaps everywhere else in the nation,'' including external peer review of the Corps' design process for critical life safety structures. In September 2005, the GAO issued a report which backs up our call for prioritization. ``Army Corps of Engineers, Improved Planning and Financial Management Should Replace Reliance on Reprogramming Actions to Manage Project Funds'' finds that the Corps' excessive use of reprogramming funds is being used as a substitute for an effective priority-setting system for the civil works program and as a substitute for sound fiscal and project management. In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Corps reprogrammed funds over 7,000 times and moved over $2.1 billion among projects within the investigations and constructions account. In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued a report, ``An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.'' This report recommends that the National Ocean Council review and recommend changes to the Corps' civil works program to ensure valid, peer-reviewed cost-benefit analyses of coastal projects; provide greater transparency to the public; enforce requirements for mitigating the impacts of coastal projects; and coordinate such projects with broader coastal planning efforts. The report also recommends that Congress modify its current authorization and funding processes to encourage the Corps to monitor outcomes from past projects and study the cumulative and regional impacts of its activities within coastal watersheds and ecosystems. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences issued a slew of reports: The ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Planning: A New Opportunity for Service'' recommends modernizing the Corps's authorities, planning approaches, and guidelines to better match contemporary water resources management challenges. ``Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning'' recommends needed changes to ensure effective use of the adaptive management by the Corps for its civil works projects. ``River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'' describes the challenges to water resources planning at the scale of river basins and coastal systems and recommends needed changes to the Corps' current planning practices. ``Analytical Methods and Approaches for Water Resources Planning'' recommends needed changes to the Corps' ``Principles and Guidelines'' in planning guidance policies. In May 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission's ``America's Living Oceans, Charting a Course for Sea Change, A Report to the Nation, Recommendations for a New Ocean Policy'' recommends enactment of ``substantial reforms'' of the Corps, including legislation to ensure that Corps projects are environmentally and economically sound and reflect national priorities. The Pew report recommends development of uniform standards for Corps participation in shoreline restoration projects and transformation of the Corps over the long term into a strong and reliable force for environmental restoration. The report also recommends that Congress direct the Corps and other Federal agencies to develop a comprehensive floodplain management policy that emphasizes nonstructural control measures. In May 2002, the GAO found in its report ``Scientific Panel's Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Guidance'' that the Corps has proposed no mitigation for almost 70 percent of its projects. And for those few projects where the Corps does perform mitigation, 80 percent of the time it does not carry out the mitigation concurrently with project construction. In response to language that was included in the WRDA 2000 bill, the National Academy of Sciences, in ``Review Procedures for Water Resources Planning'' issued in 2002, recommends creation of a formalized process to independently review costly or controversial Corps projects. And in one of the most disturbing of the numerous reports on the Corps and the problems endemic in this agency, in November 2000, the Department of the Army Inspector General issued a report entitled ``Investigation of Allegations Against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Involving Manipulation of Studies Related to the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Systems.'' Their report found that the Corps deceptively and intentionally manipulated data in an attempt to justify a $1.2 billion expansion of locks on the upper Mississippi River and that the Corps has an institutional bias for constructing costly, large-scale structural projects. Back in 1999--yes, 7 years ago--the National Academy of Sciences, in their report titled ``New Directions in Water Resources Planning for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'' recommends key changes to the Corps' planning process and examines the length of time and cost of Corps studies in comparison with similar studies carried out by the private sector. Twelve years ago, in June of 1994, the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee report, ``Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management Into the 21st Century,'' a Report to the Administration Floodplain Management Task Force--often referred to as the Galloway Report after the report's primary author, BG Gerald Galloway-- recommends changes to the Nation's water resources policies based on lessons learned from the great Midwest Flood of 1993, including modernizing the Corps' Principles and Guidelines, requiring the Corps to give full consideration to nonstructural flood damage reduction alternatives, requiring periodic reviews of completed Corps projects, adopting floodplain management guidelines that would minimize impacts to floodplains land reduce vulnerabilities to population centers and critical infrastructure, and reinstituting the Water Resources Council to facilitate improvement in Federal water resources planning. Lastly, but certainly not least, in 1994 that very busy National Academy of Sciences issued yet another scathing report, ``Restoring and Protecting Marine Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology,'' which finds, among other things, that the Corps and all Federal agencies with responsibility for marine habitat management should revise their policies and procedures to increase use of restoration technologies; take into account which natural functions can be restored or facilitated; improve coordination concerning marine resources; include environmental and economic benefits derived from nonstrucural measures in benefit/cost ratios of marine habitat projects; and examine the feasibility of improving economic incentives for marine habitat restoration. It has been a long recitation of these reports, but it is an amazing record. Over 12 years of analysis on how we can improve the Corps of Engineers. During that time, WRDA bills passed in 1996, 1999, and 2000, with the only reform coming in the NAS study I got included in the 2000 bill. That is why today is the day to implement the knowledge we have from all of this expert consideration of the Corps. Today is the day for action. With that history in mind, let me describe what our independent peer review amendment does: No. 1, it requires independent review of projects that are costly, controversial, or critical to public safety. Under my amendment Corps project planning will be independently reviewed if the project costs more than $40 million, a Governor requests a review, a Federal agency finds the project will have a significant adverse impact, or the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial; No. 2, it ensures truly independent review panels by implementing National Academy of Sciences criteria about who would be eligible to provide expert review; No. 3, if implements the recommendation of the 2002 National Academy of Sciences report on peer review that said that independent reviewers should be given the flexibility to bring important issues to the attention of decisionmakers; No. 4, it includes strict deadlines for reviews. Reviews are subject to a strict timeline that requires independent review panels to complete the review 180 days after being impaneled or 90 days following the close of public comment, whichever provides the most time. This timeline balances the need to not delay the planning process with the need to ensure that the panel will be able to review the full draft study and to consider any relevant public comments; and No. 5, it implements recommendations from the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee's Katrina report by requiring review of the more detailed technical design and construction work for Corps flood control projects where failure could jeopardize the public safety. In a nutshell, that is what the amendment does. Mr. President, when you have worked on an issue as long as I have worked on Corps reform, you are likely to hear your intentions mischaracterized. I wish to address at some point today some of the myths out there about what we are trying to do here. At this point, I inquire whether my cosponsor, the Senator from Arizona, is interested in addressing this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to respond to a couple of arguments in the debate. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Presiding Officer. I heard the comment from some of my colleagues on the other side offering the alternative amendment that somehow this independent peer review will create a bureaucracy. I find that a little ironic because to me the definition of ``bureaucracy'' is an agency, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, that has $68 billion in authorized projects that apparently would take 35 years to build if everything was done in a sort of rational manner. That is how long it would take. It is sort of the definition of a bureaucracy that has gone awry, where there are not priorities, where there isn't clarity, where there really isn't any sense of what is more important than something else or what situation is more dangerous than another situation, what is more threatening to people's lives than another situation. The notion that an independent peer review would not be binding, to have experts give us guidance as to what is more important as opposed to what is less important to fix or change, to me, is the opposite of bureaucracy. It is bringing rationality and a good government approach to what is currently a very troubled and in-need-of-reform bureaucracy. I certainly expected the other side would try to raise the notion that somehow our amendment, our new system of independent review, would lead to more litigation. Of course, that is a standard argument against everything, and sometimes it is true, but here it is not. The judicial deference provision makes it clear that the Corps must give serious consideration and review to an independent panel's findings. Unless that happens, independent review will just be another box to be checked off in project planning and will not result in better and safer projects. The Corps, unfortunately, has a history of ignoring independent panel recommendations, even when those panels have been hand picked by the Corps, and that is unacceptable. To ensure the independent review process is meaningful and produces real improvements for project planning, the amendment gives the recommendations of a panel equal deference with the Corps's recommendation in any judicial proceeding regarding the project in question if the Corps rejects the expert panel's finding without good cause. That is what it does, and that is all it does. It provides an alternative view that the Corps can consider, but there is the key point. The judicial deference provision clearly does not--does not-- create any new cause of action. It does not create a new basis for somebody to litigate. So it is false that somehow this creates the opportunity for new litigation. It does not even anticipate that projects subject to independent review will ever be involved in litigation at all. It simply notes that where there is judicial review of a project where the Corps did not follow an independent panel's findings, the Corps will need to explain that decision to the court. The Corps would then be given ample opportunity to demonstrate to the court that it has rejected an expert panel finding for a valid reason, good cause--not a difficult judicial standard to meet. If the Corps cannot do so, the court will give equal consideration to both the panel and the Corps's recommendations. So just as the argument that we are creating somehow a new bureaucracy is just the opposite of the fact, there is no basis, no validity whatsoever to the notion that this creates some new legal cause of action that didn't exist before. I have two more points with regard to independence. I have heard the manager of the bill and the Senator from Missouri indicate that they are for some kind of independent review and that their alternative provides for it. But, of course, it is only in the most narrow of circumstances, only in projects that are over $100 million. That is essentially wiping out independent review on almost every single project. Our view is this probably involves, maybe on average of less than one project a year that would receive that kind of independent review. We compromised to make sure that our figure would be acceptable to the body. We started with $25 million and went up as high as $41 million. But $100 million essentially makes a mockery of the whole idea of independent review because it would only apply in the most rare cases. Finally, of course, the argument is, apart from the notion that somehow this creates new litigation, which is not the case, somehow this will cause things to take longer in terms of approving projects and reviewing projects. That also is incorrect. The Senator from Missouri is incorrect about our amendment and the timing of review. To quote from page 8: Panels may be established as early in the planning process as deemed appropriate by the director of independent review. So this whole idea that he indicated of somehow waiting until the eighth grade for somebody who needs help in the first grade--I heard that analogy--is not true. The Director has the power to do this whenever he deems this appropriate. He has that discretion. He has that flexibility, so it is not some kind of a locked-in delay at the end of the process review. I encourage my colleagues to read the text of the bill on each of these points which I think will bear out the validity of the arguments I made. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself some additional time. When you have worked on an issue as long as I have worked on Corps reform, sometimes people don't always understand your intentions and maybe, in some cases, mischaracterize them. But I am astonished at the extent to which my opponents, those who like the status quo, those who benefit from the status quo, are saying about the Feingold-McCain-Lieberman-Carper-Jeffords-Collins Independent Peer Review Amendment. If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify some of the myths I have heard and set the record straight. Myth No. 1: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review amendment will delay project construction. This just is not true. Our amendment will not delay projects. We agree, projects do take some time. That's why we were very sensitive to ensure that independent peer review of Army Corps feasibility studies overlays with the existing process. Furthermore, our amendment includes strict deadlines for the panel to report and, if they fail to report in the allotted time, the Chief of Engineers is directed to proceed with planning. In fact, the Inhofe-Bond amendment uses some of the same timing criteria. Independent review will ensure that communities will actually get the projects they are being told they will get. The independent review can start as early in the process as deemed appropriate, and for projects costing more than $40 million, must end within 90 days after the close of the public comment period. Under the most ideal circumstances the Corps takes 11 to 12 months from the close of the public comment period to the time it issues a Chief's report for a project. And under current law, the Corps must take into account all the public and agency comment submitted during the public comment period. For large and controversial projects the time from draft feasibility study to final Chief's report takes much longer. So the independent review of feasibility studies in our amendment, which balances the absolute need to allow for a thorough review with the need to move forward in a timely fashion, fits well within the current timelines and will not delay project planning. The Nation will get better projects under this amendment. Myth No. 2: The Feingold-McCain amendment will require reviews of too many projects. Mr. President, the $40 million review trigger in our amendment will, on average, subject about five projects a year to independent review. This is a highly valuable use of resources. And, I believe it will promote better and more efficient studies for Corps projects throughout all of the Corps' 38 domestic districts. Just this March, the GAO testified to the House Committee on Government Reform that: GAO's recent reviews of four Corps civil works projects and actions found that the planning studies conducted by the Corps . . . were fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data. GAO went on to note that the planning studies: did not provide a reasonable basis for decision-making. Later in its report, GAO even says: The Corps' track record for providing reliable information that can be used by decision makers . . . is spotty, at best. This is simply unacceptable for a Federal agency and it should get the attention of every Member of this body. Given the Corps' track record, we really should be requiring reviews of all studies until the agency improves its record. The $40 million trigger, however, is a reasonable and appropriate compromise that will sweep in the largest and costliest Corps projects. The other triggers will ensure that any less costly projects that could be very problematic do not fall through the cracks in the study process. We must be able to rely on the integrity of Corps project studies and their recommendations to Congress. And unfortunately, right now we cannot. Myth No. 3: The Feingold-McCain amendment will increase project costs. Independenter peer review is a critical taxpayer investment. The country cannot afford to have costly mistakes like the levee failures in the aftermath of Katrina. The Corps, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Academy of Sciences have all said that faulty design and construction by the Corps resulted in the levee failures. We cannot afford any more examples like what we saw in New Orleans. We also cannot afford to build projects based on economic or engineering errors. We have tight water resource budgets, thus we must spend every dime wisely and judiciously. I believe, and my cosponsors agree, independent peer review will help us do that. Myth No. 4: The Feingold-McCain amendment will open the door to more litigation. The Corps must give serious consideration and review to an independent peer review panel's findings. Without that hook, the concept is useless. We do not want independent review to be just another box to be checked off in project planning, for I think we can all agree that doing so will not yield better or safer projects. The Corps unfortunately has a history of ignoring independent panel recommendations, even when those panels have been hand picked by the Corps. This can happen no longer. To ensure that the independent review process is meaningful and produces real improvements to project planning, the amendment gives the recommendations of an independent peer review panel equal deference with the Corps' recommendations in any judicial proceeding regarding the project in question if the Corps rejects the expert panel's findings without good cause. The judicial deference provision clearly does not create any new cause of action, and it does not even anticipate that projects subject to independent review will ever be involved in litigation at all. It simply notes that where there is judicial review of a project where the Corps did not follow an independent panel's findings, the Corps will need to explain that decision to the court. The Corps would then be given ample opportunity to demonstrate to the court that it has rejected an expert panel's findings for a valid reason. If the Corps cannot do so, the court will give equal consideration to both the panel's and the Corps' recommendations. Myth No. 5: The Feingold-McCain independent peer review will apply to all projects, even those that are already authorized. The independent peer review of Corps studies applies to projects as they enter the feasibility stage, not after authorization, at which point the Chief's report is already complete. However, my amendment will ensure that flood control projects whose failure could endanger people and communities will be properly designed and constructed with adequate review. If such a project is in the post authorization design phase or construction phase it will receive the benefit of the safety assurance review required by the amendment. This comes directly from the recommendations of the Senate Homeland Security Committee's Katrina report, and I am sure my colleagues will agree that we need to make sure key flood control projects are designed and built properly. Myth No. 6: The Feingold-McCain amendment will create a whole new layer of bureaucracy. The amendment does not create a bureaucracy; it establishes a workable system to address a very real problem--poorly planned and designed projects that put people at risk, unnecessarily damage the environment and waste taxpayer dollars. I would like to address one final myth, and that is that the Inhofe- Bond amendment would create a system of true independent project review. Their amendment makes the Chief of Engineers the final arbiter of whether an independent review will happen at all. This is like puttingy the fox in charge of the henhouse. The Corps gets to select the reviewers, and there are no criteria at all for ensuring independence of those reviewers. Review is not independent if the Corps has control over whether, how, and who will review projects. As you can see, the naysayers want to keep saying no, but we need to move beyond this game and start implementing policy that has a real chance of improving a broken system, protecting lives and property, and restoring integrity to a Federal agency charged with providing the first line of defense against storms, charged with protecting and restoring some of our most precious natural resources and charged with providing efficient commerce. Let me say a bit about what editorials from across the country have said. It has been just an overwhelming response. They are from communities large and small, but they all have the same message: Congress must reform the Corps. I don't have every editorial ever written about a need for a change in the Corps. I do have a good number. I ask unanimous consent they be printed following my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me ask again, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, continuing the debate, I appreciate the Senator mentioning my home State of Wisconsin. I think that is an opportunity to quote from one of the leading newspapers in our State, the Wisconsin State Journal. It in the past has not always agreed with me on this issue. But they have come down strongly this year, and I would like to read what they said. The title of the editorial is ``Protect taxpayers from boondoggles,'' and I am going to read it in its entirety. If the United States is to rein in the billions of dollars misspent on pork-barrel projects each year, a top priority should be reforming the way the Army Corps of Engineers does business. That's why Congress should pass the Army Corps reforms proposed by Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz. The Feingold-McCain proposal would improve the public's ability to make sure limited federal resources are spent on cost-effective projects for flood control, navigation, environmental protection and related goals, rather than on boondoggles. At stake is how the Corps spends its $12-billion-a-year budget, which includes nearly $5 billion for civil works projects, from levees to canals to coastal restoration. Analyses of last year's hurricane disaster in New Orleans helped to expose costly, even deadly flaws in how the Corps decides where to spend the public's money. For example, before the flooding from Hurricane Katrina breached the levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Corps had begun a $748 million project at that exact spot. The project, however, was not flood control but rather a new lock for the canal. The lock, favored by local politicians, was supposed to accommodate barge traffic. Barge traffic on the canal, however, was decreasing. The New Orleans experience highlighted the Corps' long history of mutual back-scratching with members of Congress: The Corps caters to pet projects, even if their costs far outweigh the benefits, and Congress in return makes sure the Corps gets a big fat budget all at the expense of fiscal responsibility and long-term water resource strategy. The Feingold-McCain proposal would modernize the Corps' cost-benefit analysis to make it more about project merit and less about political influence. One provision would require independent review of any project estimated to cost more than $40 million, requested by a governor, determined to have significant adverse impact, or judged by the secretary of the Army to be controversial. Another provision would require a cabinet-level committee to work with the secretary of the Army to annually establish a list of water source project priorities to give Congress guidance. Wisconsin taxpayers would benefit if Congress limits the influence of pork-barrel politics in the Army Corps of Engineers. So would Corps projects affecting the state, from the modernization of the Mississippi River's lock-and-dam system to efforts to keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes. The State's congressional delegation should support the Feingold-McCain reforms. I could go on. There are more editorials coming online every day. These editorials are coming from States that have projects in this bill, projects that would be subject to the prioritization amendment, projects that would be subject to the independent peer review amendment. These editorials are coming from small States and large cities. Yet they still support reform. And I believe that is because any State that might be the non- Federal cosponsor of a project should want these reforms to ensure that their investment is a wise one. As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned some of the groups that support his position, let me also briefly touch on the amazing support for our independent review amendment. There are letters of support from all of the following groups and individuals: League of Conservation Voters; Taxpayers for Common Sense; American Rivers; National Taxpayers Union; National Wildlife Federation; Environmental Defense; the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Association of State Floodplain Managers; Republicans for Environmental Protection; Defenders of Wildlife; Louisiana Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club; the Garden Club of America; Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Earthjustice; the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; the Isaak Walton League of America; World Wildlife Fund; Friends of the Earth; The John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; a letter from G. Paul Kemp, a professor at Louisiana State University and a member of the Louisiana Forensics Team investigating the Corps' engineering failures; more Great Lakes groups than I can describe here, including Great Lakes United, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Lake Erie Region Conservancy, the Ohio Environmental Council, Environment Michigan, and the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy; Columbia River Fisherman's Protective Union and Columbia Riverkeeper; Environment Maine; National Audubon Society; and finally, a letter that is signed by over 120 grassroots groups from across the country that supports our stand-alone bill, from which today's Feingold and McCain amendments come. The States represented on the letter are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and, of course, Wisconsin. I ask unanimous consent that several of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to start off by making a general statement about the amendments we are going to offer, and I assume that time will come off the time of the amendment I will offer, the amendment on independent peer review. Is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will make a few remarks, and then I would like to turn to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, my friend, Senator Jeffords, for a few remarks. Then after he has talked, I will offer the amendment. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider two tremendously important amendments to the Water Resources Development Act. Those amendments are the Feingold-McCain-Carper-Lieberman-Jeffords-Collins independent peer review amendment and the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman- Feinstein prioritization amendment. As many know, I have tried to work for a long time to modernize the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that this Federal agency is best situated to serve our great Nation. I have worked alongside Senator McCain in these efforts, and I thank him for his dedication to helping me bring attention to the need for congressional leadership to address what many have noted as fundamental problems with the Corps. I want to be clear about my intentions with the amendments we will offer this morning, as well as our other efforts involving the Corps. We just want to get this agency back on track to serve the interests of all Americans. That is what it is about, period. As many have noted over the past few days, I have been trying to bring up this issue for quite some time. In fact, I have waited 6 long years to come down to the floor of the Senate to push for meaningful reform of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Back in 2000, during debate on final passage of the last enacted WRDA, the former chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the current ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, my friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, made a commitment to me to address the issues that plagued the Corps. At that time I sought to offer an amendment to WRDA 2000 to create an independent peer review process for the Army Corps. In response to my amendment, the bill managers adopted language to authorize the National Academy of Sciences to study peer review. This study has long been complete, and the final recommendation was clear. In a 2002 report-- Review Procedures for Water Resources Planning--the National Academy of Sciences recommended creation of a formalized process to independently review costly or controversial Corps projects. Four years later, and with Corps reform bills in the 106th, 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses, we are still trying to enact such a mechanism. I would just like to note that I am pleased to see my friend involved in this issue, particularly given the role he played in 2000. My only hope is, after 6 years of work on this issue, we can go home tonight knowing we did right by the taxpayers, by the citizens of our country who rely on sound Corps projects to protect their families, their property, and the natural systems they want to protect for future generations. Yes, Corps reform has been a work in progress. In 2001, I introduced a stand-alone bill to modernize the Corps. Later that Congress, I cosponsored a bill with Senator Smith from New Hampshire, Senator Daschle of South Dakota, Senator Ensign of Nevada, and Senator McCain, the senior Senator from Arizona. In March 2004 I introduced another stand-alone Corps reform bill along with Senator Daschle and Senator McCain. Then in the spring of 2005, Senator McCain and I offered another bill detailing the changes we hoped to see in the agency. And, finally, this spring we introduced another stand-alone bill. What these efforts have been about is restoring credibility and accountability to this Federal agency that has been rocked by scandal, overextended to the tune of a 35-year backlog, and constrained by a gloomy fiscal picture. We can do that today. We can restore credibility and accountability to the Corps by passing the amendments that my friend, the Senator from Arizona, and I will be offering. Some have said I have an ax to grind with the Corps. That is not true. The reason I am dedicated to improving this embattled agency is that I care about the Corps, and I want it to succeed. My home State of Wisconsin and numerous other States across our country rely on the Corps. From the Great Lakes to the Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental restoration, flood control, and many other valuable services. I want to improve the way this agency operates, so that not only Wisconsinites but all Americans--particularly those who help pay for Corps projects either through their Federal tax dollars or, in many cases, through taxes they pay at a local level as part of a non-Federal cost-sharing arrangement--can rest easy knowing that their flood control projects are not going to fail them, their ecosystem restoration projects are going to protect our environmental treasures, and their navigation projects are based on sound economics and reliable traffic projections. Much of the work that has gone into reforming the Corps was done before our Nation saw a major U.S. city laid to waste. When Hurricane Katrina rocked New Orleans, none of us imagined the horrors that would ensue. None of us imagined that much of the flooding--much of the flooding--that occurred could have possibly been prevented had some of the reforms we will be discussing today been in place decades ago. Despite every wish to the contrary, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina exposed serious problems that this body will be addressing for years to come. Many have stood on this floor and in their States and talked about what must be done to responsibly move forward in a post- Katrina landscape. And many of those discussions have, of course, centered, appropriately, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I am here to say that if you were outraged by FEMA's poor response, like me, then you should be equally outraged by problems with the Corps and the process that has determined where limited Federal resources are spent. While any hurricane that makes landfall will leave some level of destruction behind, the country has been shocked to learn that there were engineering flaws in the New Orleans levees, and that important information was ignored by the Corps. According to one of the independent reviewers looking into what happened with the levee failures, the causes of the failures ``are firmly founded in organizational and institutional failures that are primarily focused in the Corps of Engineers.'' Now, I had the chance to visit New Orleans a little over a week ago, and I can attest that the sentiment toward the Corps is anything but cordial. There is a lot of anger toward the Corps down there, and we have a responsibility in Congress to address it. Additionally, following the hurricane, we have faced questions from our constituents about where the Corps was spending its limited budget and why. We have a responsibility to address those legitimate concerns, too. The Times-Picayune of New Orleans recently said the following: Efforts to reform the agency, the Corps, are critical for this state [meaning Louisiana, of course] which--after the levee failures during Hurricane Katrina--could serve as the poster child [the poster child] for the Corps' shortcomings. The best chance for changing the way the Corps operates is through reforms sought by Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold. And finally, Unfortunately, not everyone in Congress is interested in changing the way the Corps does business. The McCain-Feingold amendments face opposition and a rival set of measures by the main authors of the water resources bill, Sens. James Inhofe and Kit Bond. What those Senators offer as reform is meaningless, however . . . Sham reform won't do anything to restore confidence in the Corps and the Congress must do better. I agree that this body must do better than sham reform. Today Senator McCain and I will be offering amendments that we believe are the minimum changes this body must accept as we look to the future and reflect on the past. I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in demonstrating that the Senate can respond to over 10 years of Government reports--from the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and even the Army Inspector General--on the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and provide the leadership to move the Army Corps into the 21st century. I want to publicly recognize the EPW Committee chairman and ranking member, Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, as well as the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman and ranking member, Senators Bonds and Baucus. Late this spring those offices approached Senator McCain and me and indicated a willingness to talk about some of our interest with respect to the Corps. From those discussions came real compromise on both sides. The result is that the underlying WRDA bill does include significant language to ensure periodic updating of the principles and guidelines that form the foundation of every Corps project but which have not been updated since 1983. The language also includes a minimum mitigation standard for Corps civil works projects. The Corps' track record on mitigation suggests that the Nation would be better served through the standard described in the underlying bill. As WRDA moves through conference, I look forward to the EPW Committee standing by the language we agreed on and included in the underlying bill in sections 2006 and 2008 so that it is included in any bill that comes out of Congress. I will now give some of my time on the amendment to my friend, a distinguished leader in this area, the Senator from Vermont.