Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to repeal unwarranted and inappropriate ``sweeteners'' that were added to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the days before final passage of the bill. These ``sweeteners'' are unjustifiable and only detract from our collective goal of putting America's health care system on a better and more sustainable path. They also undermine public confidence in the legislative process and in elected representatives in Congress. In some cases, there are valid policy or fairness reasons why certain states or interests may receive seemingly different treatment. But several provisions were included in the health reform bill that create, rather than diminish, inequity. This legislation would repeal four provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions are not supported by policy rationales and do not address any inequity in current policy. Simply put, they are intended to provide an undeserved windfall to specific states. This legislation also amends one provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing increased Medicaid assistance to States recovering from natural disaster. Because there is some justification for Louisiana receiving additional help to cope with the continued aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, my legislation leaves this provision intact, but it decreases the amount of assistance available. I was pleased to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That law will strengthen America's health care system and reduce the national deficit and the five changes to the law that I am proposing would help us better meet those goals.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to recognize the 40th anniversary of Earth Day and to remember the man who founded Earth Day, the late Wisconsin Governor and Senator Gaylord Nelson. Before he was the founder of Earth Day, and one of the Nation's greatest conservationists, he was a son of Wisconsin. He was a young boy growing up in the town of Clear Lake, WI, amid the great natural beauty of our State. When asked how he developed his lifelong interest and dedication to the environment, Nelson would say ``by osmosis'' while growing up in Clear Lake, WI. He reflected the very best of our State from the beginning, building on Wisconsin's long tradition of environmental conservation. Our State passed landmark forest and waterpower conservation acts during the progressive era and lays claim not only to Gaylord Nelson but to other giants of the conservation movement such as Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and Sigurd Olson. All of them were inspired, as Nelson was, by the beautiful Wisconsin wilderness. The natural beauty of our State charted the course of Nelson's life, from the shores of Clear Lake to the banks of the Potomac, where he changed the way we think about our planet and changed the law to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe. There are few Members of this body, past or present, who have left such a valuable legacy. So I am proud to help celebrate that legacy with a resolution in the House and Senate celebrating the 40th anniversary of Earth Day and its founder. As we look ahead to the many challenges we face, we can draw strength from the example Gaylord set for us all. He drove tremendous change and, with Earth Day, created a new momentum that has been critical to so many efforts to protect the health of our environment. Gaylord also understood the connection between the two great Wisconsin traditions of fiscal responsibility and conservation. Too often, a Federal program that is wasting taxpayer dollars is also laying waste to our air, our water or our public lands. The Nation's outdated mining laws are a perfect example. These laws allow the mining companies to mine on our public lands for next to nothing and leave behind an environmental mess for taxpayers to clean up. Gaylord fought to change those laws, and when I was elected to the Senate, he asked me to take up this fight and I have. I have made it part of my Control Spending Now Act, legislation to cut the deficit by about $\1/2\ trillion over the next 10 years. If we scrap these outdated mining laws, we can save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and protect the public lands that belong to the American people. They do not belong to the mining companies. I am also working on another environmental issue that has a special connection to Gaylord Nelson; that is, clean water. The man from Clear Lake did so much for clear, clean water everywhere, including being a champion of the Clean Water Act. Today, the Clean Water Act is under threat because two recent Supreme Court decisions have jeopardized its protections. Those decisions put nearly 20 million acres of wetlands habitat and more than 50 percent of our stream miles in the lower 48 States at risk. These waters could now become polluted or wiped out altogether unless Congress takes action. I am working to see that Congress stands up to the special interests that want to roll back the Clean Water Act's protections and ensure that these bodies of water can continue to provide drinking water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and support for industry and agriculture for generations of Wisconsinites to come. So I have joined with Minnesota Representative Jim Oberstar to introduce the Clean Water Restoration Act. This bill is designed to accomplish one basic and important goal: ensure that the Clean Water Act of 1972 stays in place. There are no new regulations in our legislation, only a return to the original intent of the Clean Water Act, which has protected our waters for more than 35 years. Gaylord Nelson and others have done so much to protect the health of our waters, and we owe it to them and to ourselves to carry that legacy forward. That is what I seek to do in the Senate with the Clean Water Restoration Act. We face many other challenges as well. Of course, climate change looms largest of all. We need to address the serious problem of climate change and do so without unfairly hurting Wisconsin, which relies on coal for much of its energy needs. If we do this right, we have an opportunity to pass legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create energy jobs here in America. We can help American businesses gain a competitive advantage developing new renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. The desire to protect our air, our water, and our planet will bring people together tomorrow, all around the world. They will talk about global issues we face and the local environmental issues in their communities that they want to address. They will organize, mobilize, and galvanize new momentum for change. That is exactly what Gaylord Nelson intended. He knew the power of people coming together and what that could mean for the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the national parks and public lands we all cherish. He knew that these natural resources connect us all and that Earth Day would bring us together to protect them. I am so grateful to have known Gaylord Nelson, and I am proud of the legacy he left behind. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, we remember the man from Clear Lake who came to this body inspired by the beautiful Wisconsin landscape of his childhood and in the end made a better world for us all. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Vermont for his kind words, for his remembering Gaylord Nelson, and, of course, for the incredible legacy of his own for the environment, coming from one of the most beautiful States in this country, Vermont. I thank him.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to repeal unwarranted and inappropriate ``sweeteners'' that were added to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the days before final passage of the bill. These ``sweeteners'' are unjustifiable and only detract from our collective goal of putting America's health care system on a better and more sustainable path. They also undermine public confidence in the legislative process and in elected representatives in Congress. In some cases, there are valid policy or fairness reasons why certain states or interests may receive seemingly different treatment. But several provisions were included in the health reform bill that create, rather than diminish, inequity. This legislation would repeal four provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions are not supported by policy rationales and do not address any inequity in current policy. Simply put, they are intended to provide an undeserved windfall to specific states. This legislation also amends one provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing increased Medicaid assistance to States recovering from natural disaster. Because there is some justification for Louisiana receiving additional help to cope with the continued aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, my legislation leaves this provision intact, but it decreases the amount of assistance available. I was pleased to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That law will strengthen America's health care system and reduce the national deficit and the five changes to the law that I am proposing would help us better meet those goals.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, it is vitally important that we extend COBRA and unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who continue to find themselves out of work in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. At the same time, we should work to offset the cost of this additional funding through cuts in other Federal spending instead of passing this debt on to future generations. That is why I opposed efforts to table three amendments by Senator Coburn that would have offset the additional spending, and was disappointed those amendments were all defeated. In fact, amendment No. 3727 even included two provisions from my Control Spending Now Act, a proposal to cut the deficit by around $\1/2\ trillion over the next 10 years. While I fully supported the majority of the cuts in this amendment, I did have reservations about a few of the proposals. In particular, I had serious concerns about the idea of consolidating all federal job training programs. While the amendment would not have cut funding to any of these important job training programs, many of these job training programs serve specific populations of Americans, such as dislocated workers or young adults, and are carefully tailored to serve the unique needs of those workers. Nonetheless, the principle of taking steps to balance our Nation's checkbook is one I fully support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would require the President to establish a flexible timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Rep. McGovern and Rep. Jones are also introducing companion legislation in the House. This bicameral, bipartisan legislation would make clear our timeframe and our intention to focus on a global counterterrorism strategy that is essential to our efforts to combat al Qaeda. As we were reminded again by the nearly successful attack on Christmas day, al Qaeda is an agile enemy with affiliates operating and recruiting around the world. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year will not help us deter or thwart attacks by al Qaeda's increasingly dangerous regional affiliates, nor will it eliminate al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan. The costly, military-centric, nation-building campaign currently underway in Afghanistan is unsustainable, unrealistic and unnecessary for our counterterrorism goals. This bill would require the President to set a timetable for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan and identify any variables that would require an extension of that timetable. While I am disappointed by his decision to expand our military involvement in Afghanistan, I commend the President for setting a start-date for redeployment, namely July 2011. Our allies have stated that it has helped ``focus the minds'' of our partners in Afghanistan and around the world. Having a start date is essential, but alone it is insufficient--it should be accompanied by an end date, too. The President should convey to the American and Afghan people how long he anticipates it will take to complete his military objectives. So long as our large-scale military presence remains open-ended, al Qaeda will have a valuable recruiting tool and our partners in Afghanistan will have an incentive to take the back seat, leaving U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers on the hook. As our own ambassador to Afghanistan has reportedly stated, sending more troops for an indefinite period of time will only increase Afghan dependency upon the international community, exacerbate misconceptions about why we are there and further enable Afghan leadership to shun responsibility. I do not know what led the ambassador to ultimately endorse the open-ended commitment of additional troops, but I believe his concerns remain valid today. Indeed, President Karzai's recent statements before a variety of audiences only raise more questions about his willingness to take the necessary steps to address corruption and security. This bill does not itself set a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Rather, it requires the President to set a timeline by which the redeployment of U.S. troops will be completed and to identify what variables, if any, would warrant the alteration of that timeline. While the President has set detailed objectives and metrics for Afghanistan, many of our objectives are dependent upon the conduct of officials in the Afghan and Pakistani governments, both of which have been unreliable partners for many years. We must make clear to our partners in both countries that our support is not unconditional and that we will not continue to bear the burden of our current military deployment indefinitely. Some of my colleagues have suggested that we should give the President's new strategy in Afghanistan a ``chance'' to succeed. After over eight years of war, after so many lost lives and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, I think we need to ask ourselves instead to consider whether an open-ended military presence makes sense. To me, that answer is clearly ``No.'' We will be putting at risk the lives of 100,000 U.S. troops and spending tens of billions of dollars on a military effort that is neither necessary for the national security imperative of pursuing al Qaeda's global network, nor likely to succeed in remaking the situation on the ground in Afghanistan to a meaningful extent. Addressing the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world must be our top national security priority. The attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day serves as a reminder that we have not put adequate resources into this priority, especially in safe havens such as Yemen. We are spending in Yemen only a tiny of a fraction of what we are spending in Afghanistan even though, according to the President's top terrorism advisor, ``al Qaeda has several hundred members in Yemen.'' We need major adjustments in our global counter-terrorism strategy if we hope to defeat our enemy. Rather than investing a disproportionate amount of our resources in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda has a minimal presence, we need to shift resources to the urgent need of pursuing al Qaeda's global network. We do not need to maintain a massive military presence in Afghanistan in order to prevent al Qaeda from having freedom of movement in that country. Instead, we need a sustainable counter-terrorism strategy for the region that will also enable us to target any members of al Qaeda that make the mistake of returning. Drawing down U.S. troops from Afghanistan and better investing some of the billions needed to support them there would allow us to increase our ability to pursue al Qaeda as it continues to establish footholds in other locations around the world. I also continue to be concerned that our massive military presence in Afghanistan has a destabilizing effect, both there and in Pakistan, and that our current strategy is overly dependent on actions by these two partners that have often proved unreliable. As our own ambassador reportedly noted, the last time we substantially increased forces in Afghanistan, namely the deployment of 33,000 additional troops in 2008 and 2009, overall violence and instability increased. Our troop presence in Afghanistan has also provoked greater militancy. The reality is, our presence has driven militants across the border into Pakistan, and may be driving militant groups which normally have tense relationships closer together, compromising our ability to divide al Qaeda from its hosts in Pakistan. Furthermore, our current military strategy is unlikely to succeed in the face of the ongoing safe haven in Pakistan. The Director of National Intelligence recently testified that unless the Taliban's safe haven in Pakistan ``. . . is greatly diminished, the Taliban insurgency can survive defeats in Afghanistan.'' He went on to state that ``Islamabad has maintained relationships with other Taliban-associated groups that support and conduct operations against U.S. and ISAF forces in Afghanistan.'' Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, any gains from sending additional U.S. forces may be fleeting. Some have argued that we must pursue an open-ended military campaign in Afghanistan if only to prevent instability in Afghanistan from spreading into Pakistan. I, too, am concerned about instability in Pakistan, but I strongly disagree that sending troops to Afghanistan has helped or will improve the situation. According to our intelligence community, instability in Pakistan is driven primarily by poor governance and lack of socioeconomic reform in Pakistan. Even if we increase stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan remains at risk if these issues are not addressed. We must convey to those in Pakistan who support reform that they have our long-term support. That doesn't mean spending many billions of dollars for several years on military operations in Afghanistan. It means making a sustainable commitment to reforms in Pakistan. We have to be realistic about our goals in Afghanistan. Without a legitimate Afghan partner, our tactical victories will likely be squandered. We may build outposts throughout Helmand and Kandahar but this has little meaning if we are unable to distinguish friend from foe and the Taliban is able to maintain shadow structures throughout the region. It does no good to ``clear'' an area of insurgents to be held by the Afghan police if the police are perceived to be corrupt or unreliable. Nor can military operations address the sense of alienation among the population in the South. Indeed, such operations may actually undermine long-term stability as they contribute, despite our best efforts, to civilian casualties. In regards to casualties from operations related to things like checkpoints and convoys, for example, Gen. McChrystal recently acknowledged that ``[w]e've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none ha[ve] proven to have been a real threat to the force.'' This only reinforces the image of the United States as a hostile, occupying force. Rather than spending $100 billion in Afghanistan in one year, primarily on military operations, it would be far better to make a sustainable commitment to this country. Long-term, gradual change is far more realistic than attempts to radically transform Afghan society at the point of a gun, especially when we have lost the support of key sections of the population. We must also prioritize efforts to promote the rule of law. Without the rule of law, our development efforts are vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse and will further feed into the corruption that is alienating the population from the government. Indeed, Secretary Clinton has testified that ``siphoning off contractual money from the international community . . . [is] a major source of funding for the Taliban.'' For too long, we have prioritized short term security goals at the expense of the rule of law. We have prioritized quantity over quality in the Afghan National Security Forces. We have compromised the state's monopoly over the use of violence by partnering with--in Gen. McChrystal's words--``polarizing and predatory'' powerbrokers. We have turned a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuses. If we get serious about these issues, it will do more to stabilize the situation than anything we can accomplish by conducting military operations. After so many years in which our military efforts have been shortchanged by the focus on Iraq, we cannot simply turn back the clock and assume that what may have been achievable militarily in Afghanistan years ago is still achievable today. Even if my colleagues support the President's strategy in Afghanistan, they should acknowledge the need to set a goal for when it should be brought to a close. While I have serious doubts about the wisdom of the current approach, as I have explained, and about pursuing an expansive nation-building agenda in the face of the economic problems facing our own country and the rising casualty rates in Afghanistan, this bill does not dictate a particular strategy for Afghanistan. Rather, it simply requires the President to inform the American people about how long his military strategy is expected to take. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would require the President to establish a flexible timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Rep. McGovern and Rep. Jones are also introducing companion legislation in the House. This bicameral, bipartisan legislation would make clear our timeframe and our intention to focus on a global counterterrorism strategy that is essential to our efforts to combat al Qaeda. As we were reminded again by the nearly successful attack on Christmas day, al Qaeda is an agile enemy with affiliates operating and recruiting around the world. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year will not help us deter or thwart attacks by al Qaeda's increasingly dangerous regional affiliates, nor will it eliminate al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan. The costly, military-centric, nation-building campaign currently underway in Afghanistan is unsustainable, unrealistic and unnecessary for our counterterrorism goals. This bill would require the President to set a timetable for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan and identify any variables that would require an extension of that timetable. While I am disappointed by his decision to expand our military involvement in Afghanistan, I commend the President for setting a start-date for redeployment, namely July 2011. Our allies have stated that it has helped ``focus the minds'' of our partners in Afghanistan and around the world. Having a start date is essential, but alone it is insufficient--it should be accompanied by an end date, too. The President should convey to the American and Afghan people how long he anticipates it will take to complete his military objectives. So long as our large-scale military presence remains open-ended, al Qaeda will have a valuable recruiting tool and our partners in Afghanistan will have an incentive to take the back seat, leaving U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers on the hook. As our own ambassador to Afghanistan has reportedly stated, sending more troops for an indefinite period of time will only increase Afghan dependency upon the international community, exacerbate misconceptions about why we are there and further enable Afghan leadership to shun responsibility. I do not know what led the ambassador to ultimately endorse the open-ended commitment of additional troops, but I believe his concerns remain valid today. Indeed, President Karzai's recent statements before a variety of audiences only raise more questions about his willingness to take the necessary steps to address corruption and security. This bill does not itself set a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Rather, it requires the President to set a timeline by which the redeployment of U.S. troops will be completed and to identify what variables, if any, would warrant the alteration of that timeline. While the President has set detailed objectives and metrics for Afghanistan, many of our objectives are dependent upon the conduct of officials in the Afghan and Pakistani governments, both of which have been unreliable partners for many years. We must make clear to our partners in both countries that our support is not unconditional and that we will not continue to bear the burden of our current military deployment indefinitely. Some of my colleagues have suggested that we should give the President's new strategy in Afghanistan a ``chance'' to succeed. After over eight years of war, after so many lost lives and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, I think we need to ask ourselves instead to consider whether an open-ended military presence makes sense. To me, that answer is clearly ``No.'' We will be putting at risk the lives of 100,000 U.S. troops and spending tens of billions of dollars on a military effort that is neither necessary for the national security imperative of pursuing al Qaeda's global network, nor likely to succeed in remaking the situation on the ground in Afghanistan to a meaningful extent. Addressing the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world must be our top national security priority. The attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day serves as a reminder that we have not put adequate resources into this priority, especially in safe havens such as Yemen. We are spending in Yemen only a tiny of a fraction of what we are spending in Afghanistan even though, according to the President's top terrorism advisor, ``al Qaeda has several hundred members in Yemen.'' We need major adjustments in our global counter-terrorism strategy if we hope to defeat our enemy. Rather than investing a disproportionate amount of our resources in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda has a minimal presence, we need to shift resources to the urgent need of pursuing al Qaeda's global network. We do not need to maintain a massive military presence in Afghanistan in order to prevent al Qaeda from having freedom of movement in that country. Instead, we need a sustainable counter-terrorism strategy for the region that will also enable us to target any members of al Qaeda that make the mistake of returning. Drawing down U.S. troops from Afghanistan and better investing some of the billions needed to support them there would allow us to increase our ability to pursue al Qaeda as it continues to establish footholds in other locations around the world. I also continue to be concerned that our massive military presence in Afghanistan has a destabilizing effect, both there and in Pakistan, and that our current strategy is overly dependent on actions by these two partners that have often proved unreliable. As our own ambassador reportedly noted, the last time we substantially increased forces in Afghanistan, namely the deployment of 33,000 additional troops in 2008 and 2009, overall violence and instability increased. Our troop presence in Afghanistan has also provoked greater militancy. The reality is, our presence has driven militants across the border into Pakistan, and may be driving militant groups which normally have tense relationships closer together, compromising our ability to divide al Qaeda from its hosts in Pakistan. Furthermore, our current military strategy is unlikely to succeed in the face of the ongoing safe haven in Pakistan. The Director of National Intelligence recently testified that unless the Taliban's safe haven in Pakistan ``. . . is greatly diminished, the Taliban insurgency can survive defeats in Afghanistan.'' He went on to state that ``Islamabad has maintained relationships with other Taliban-associated groups that support and conduct operations against U.S. and ISAF forces in Afghanistan.'' Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, any gains from sending additional U.S. forces may be fleeting. Some have argued that we must pursue an open-ended military campaign in Afghanistan if only to prevent instability in Afghanistan from spreading into Pakistan. I, too, am concerned about instability in Pakistan, but I strongly disagree that sending troops to Afghanistan has helped or will improve the situation. According to our intelligence community, instability in Pakistan is driven primarily by poor governance and lack of socioeconomic reform in Pakistan. Even if we increase stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan remains at risk if these issues are not addressed. We must convey to those in Pakistan who support reform that they have our long-term support. That doesn't mean spending many billions of dollars for several years on military operations in Afghanistan. It means making a sustainable commitment to reforms in Pakistan. We have to be realistic about our goals in Afghanistan. Without a legitimate Afghan partner, our tactical victories will likely be squandered. We may build outposts throughout Helmand and Kandahar but this has little meaning if we are unable to distinguish friend from foe and the Taliban is able to maintain shadow structures throughout the region. It does no good to ``clear'' an area of insurgents to be held by the Afghan police if the police are perceived to be corrupt or unreliable. Nor can military operations address the sense of alienation among the population in the South. Indeed, such operations may actually undermine long-term stability as they contribute, despite our best efforts, to civilian casualties. In regards to casualties from operations related to things like checkpoints and convoys, for example, Gen. McChrystal recently acknowledged that ``[w]e've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none ha[ve] proven to have been a real threat to the force.'' This only reinforces the image of the United States as a hostile, occupying force. Rather than spending $100 billion in Afghanistan in one year, primarily on military operations, it would be far better to make a sustainable commitment to this country. Long-term, gradual change is far more realistic than attempts to radically transform Afghan society at the point of a gun, especially when we have lost the support of key sections of the population. We must also prioritize efforts to promote the rule of law. Without the rule of law, our development efforts are vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse and will further feed into the corruption that is alienating the population from the government. Indeed, Secretary Clinton has testified that ``siphoning off contractual money from the international community . . . [is] a major source of funding for the Taliban.'' For too long, we have prioritized short term security goals at the expense of the rule of law. We have prioritized quantity over quality in the Afghan National Security Forces. We have compromised the state's monopoly over the use of violence by partnering with--in Gen. McChrystal's words--``polarizing and predatory'' powerbrokers. We have turned a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuses. If we get serious about these issues, it will do more to stabilize the situation than anything we can accomplish by conducting military operations. After so many years in which our military efforts have been shortchanged by the focus on Iraq, we cannot simply turn back the clock and assume that what may have been achievable militarily in Afghanistan years ago is still achievable today. Even if my colleagues support the President's strategy in Afghanistan, they should acknowledge the need to set a goal for when it should be brought to a close. While I have serious doubts about the wisdom of the current approach, as I have explained, and about pursuing an expansive nation-building agenda in the face of the economic problems facing our own country and the rising casualty rates in Afghanistan, this bill does not dictate a particular strategy for Afghanistan. Rather, it simply requires the President to inform the American people about how long his military strategy is expected to take. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate has considered dozens of amendments and motions to the reconciliation bill this week. The vast majority of these proposals were flawed, either because they would have undermined the important consumer, business and taxpayer protections in the health care reform bill signed into law Tuesday, or because they were not offset and thus would have reduced the savings in the reconciliation bill. Some of these proposals, however, did have merit. In particular, amendment No. 3564 by Senator Grassley would have clarified that all congressional employees, as well as certain other Federal employees, must receive their health insurance through the new health insurance exchanges. The health care reform bill already requires ``Members of Congress and congressional staff'' to receive care through the exchanges, but I support efforts to remove any ambiguity about who is covered. Another amendment by Senator Grassley, No. 3569, would have slightly increased reimbursements for rural physicians in Wisconsin, building on important provisions in the new law. And I strongly support efforts to remove the unjustified ``sweeteners'' that remain in the health care reform law; unfortunately, the amendment offered by Senator McCain, No. 3570, to remove those provisions also would have eliminated provisions that were entirely legitimate. Two other amendments addressed legitimate concerns that Congress is already working to address. I am a cosponsor of legislation to clarify that coverage provided by TRICARE will be treated as minimum essential coverage under the health care reform bill. The amendment offered by Senator Burr, No. 3652, addressed this topic. Similarly, the chairman of the Veterans Committee is already seeking a legislative fix to protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans, as Senator Coburn proposed to do, No. 3700. However, all of these amendments and motions--even the more appealing sounding ones--had the same purpose: to delay and obstruct reconciliation legislation that will fill the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, make coverage more affordable and in other ways improve the new health care reform law. I opposed these efforts to undermine health care reform, and I will continue fighting to ensure Wisconsinites get the affordable and dependable coverage they deserve.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to the University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point Pointers men's basketball team on capturing their third national title after their exciting win in the 2010 NCAA Division III Basketball Championship. The Pointers' hard work year-round has made them widely respected, and this achievement has made many Wisconsinites and Pointers fans very proud. The team's perseverance and commitment to excellence throughout the season were on display during their journey to this year's title game, where guts and determination produced a thrilling game from start to finish. Despite being down by 10 points in the second half, the Pointers came back and defeated Williams College 78-73 to win the title and finish the year with a record of 29-4. These remarkable student-athletes, as well as Coach Bob Semling and his coaching staff, have continued the Pointers' winning tradition and admirably represented Wisconsin at the very highest levels of athletic competition. The Pointers represent the best of Wisconsin's competitive spirit. Congratulations once again to the University of Wisconsin-- Stevens Point community, and Head Coach Bob Semling, Assistant Coaches Lance Randall and J.R. Blount, and the student athletes of the 2010 NCAA Division III Champions Pointers basketball team.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, for far too long, my constituents have been at the mercy of the health insurance industry which has dictated how and whether they get health care coverage. Wisconsinites have been denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, dropped from coverage because they made too many claims, or simply forced to pay through the nose for skyrocketing premiums. Those days are now coming to an end thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We have taken an important step with the enactment of that bill, but as you know, our work is not done. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not perfect, and Congress must be committed to strengthening and adjusting this law as necessary in the years to come. The first step, of course, is for the Senate to pass the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which the Senate is now debating. This bill will strengthen our health care reform law to ensure that health insurance is even more affordable for working families and that seniors actually pay less for prescription drug coverage. Taken together with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, this bill would help Wisconsinites purchase good, affordable health insurance and health care. As a result, this year children will no longer be denied coverage for preexisting conditions, insurance companies will no longer drop Americans because they are sick, young Americans can remain on their parents' coverage longer, and the Medicare doughnut hole that shortchanges seniors will begin to be filled. Then, over the next 4 years, States will prepare to set up health insurance exchanges for individuals and small businesses to purchase more affordable health insurance. As a result, an estimated 541,000 Wisconsinites who are uninsured and 320,000 Wisconsinites who have individual market insurance will gain access to affordable coverage. As many as 358,000 Wisconsinites are expected to qualify for premium tax credits to help them purchase health care coverage. Experts believe this reform effort will lower premiums in the nongroup market by 14 to 20 percent for the same benefits--premium savings of $1,540 to $2,200 for a family in Wisconsin. Now, this is real savings. According to the nonpartisan experts at CBO, over the next 10 years, our national deficit will decrease by $143 billion and up to $1.2 trillion in the following 10 years. Those savings come from a number of cost containment provisions, including one which I strongly support that will begin to reimburse physicians based on the quality of care they provide rather than on the quantity of care. This movement toward value-based health care purchasing is one that is already seeing great success in hospitals and medical groups around my State of Wisconsin. I was so pleased to work with our nationally recognized medical centers around Wisconsin on these successful efforts. Health reform also means more choice, more affordability, and more protections for Wisconsin businesses. Over 77,400 small businesses throughout the State of Wisconsin are eligible now for tax credits starting this year to help purchase health insurance for business owners and their employees. No longer will small businesses be vulnerable to insurance practices of raising rates on a year-to-year basis due to an employee falling ill. I visit all 72 counties in Wisconsin every year, and I always hear about the burden of health care costs on small businesses. So many Wisconsinites are discouraged from striking out on their own to start a small business or to expand it because they can't afford or couldn't get health insurance on their own. This bill will help those Wisconsinites start businesses and create jobs by providing the affordability and protections of the large insurance group market to small business owners. Reform also means better and more affordable health care for Wisconsin's seniors. The bill we are debating will build upon improvements made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by closing the Medicare Part D prescription drug doughnut hole by 2020. Beginning this year already seniors who reach the doughnut hole will receive a $250 rebate, with more and more assistance available each year until the doughnut hole is ultimately closed. Seniors will also be guaranteed an annual wellness visit and no cost sharing on preventive care visits to their physician. Of course, we know this reconciliation bill is not just about health care. It also ends unjustified subsidies for private banks and lenders to issue Federal student loans. By transferring the authority to make all Federal student loans over to the existing Federal Direct Loan Program effective July 1 of this year, we will save approximately $61 billion over 10 years. The savings will in part be used to help ensure that students do not see a reduction in their Pell grant awards next year, providing much needed assistance to Wisconsin's low-income and middle-income students when they need it the most. Historic health care reform is now the law of the land. But we have to do more, and passing this bill is the next step.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the PRECAUTION Act--the Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal Activity Using Tailored Interventions in Our Neighborhoods Act. It is a long name, but it stands for an important principle--that it is better to invest in precautionary measures now than it is to pay the costs of crime--both in dollars and lives--later on. I am pleased that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, will again join me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. The Federal Government has three important roles to play in fighting crime. First, the Federal Government should develop and disseminate knowledge to state and local officials regarding the newest and most effective law enforcement techniques and strategies. Second, the Federal Government should provide financial support for innovations that our State and local partners cannot afford to fund on their own. With that funding, it should also provide guidance, training, and technical assistance to implement those innovations. Third, the Federal Government can help to create and maintain effective partnerships among agencies at all levels of government, partnerships that are crafted to address specific law enforcement challenges. The PRECAUTION Act is designed to support all three of these important roles. It creates a national commission to wade through the sea of information on crime prevention and intervention strategies currently available to identify those programs that are most ready for replication around the country. Over-taxed law enforcement officials need a simple, accessible resource to turn to that recommends a few, top-tier crime prevention and intervention programs. They need a resource that will single out those existing programs that are truly ``evidence-based'' programs that are proven by scientifically reliable evidence to be effective. The commission created by the PRECAUTION Act will provide just such a report--written in plain language and focused on pragmatic implementation issues--approximately a year and a half after the bill is enacted. In the course of holding hearings and writing this first report, the commission will also identify some types of prevention and intervention strategies that are promising but need further research and development before they are ready for further implementation. The National Institute of Justice then will administer a grant program that will fund pilot projects in these identified areas. The commission will follow closely the progress of these pilot projects, and at the end of the three-year grant program, it will publish a second report, providing a detailed discussion of each pilot project and its effectiveness. This second report will include detailed implementation information and will discuss both the successes and failures of the projects funded by the grants. There is particular urgency for this bill as State and Federal budget shortfalls continue and State and local law enforcement are forced to do more with fewer resources. There is no doubt that money is tight, which makes it all the more important that innovative and cost- effective law enforcement strategies that benefit both public safety and the government bottom line are being used in our communities. To help accomplish this, the Federal Government must work in concert with State and local law enforcement, with the non-profit criminal justice community, and with other branches of State and Federal Government. While we have an obligation to provide leadership and support, we do not have the right to unilaterally take control from the State and local officials on the ground. With these partnerships in place we can invest our resources in crime-fighting measures, confident that they will work. Sometimes, small and careful advances are the ones that yield the most benefit. The PRECAUTION Act answers a call by police chiefs and mayors from more than 50 cities around the country during a national conference hosted by the Police Executive Research Forum in 2006. According to a report on the event from the Forum, these law enforcement leaders agreed that while there is a desperate need for the law enforcement community to focus on violent crime, ``other municipal agencies and social services organizations--including schools, mental health, public health, courts, corrections, and conflict management groups--need to be brought together to partner toward the common goal of reducing violent crime.'' In the hearings held by the PRECAUTION Act commission, these voices will all be heard. In the reports filed by the commission, these perspectives will be acknowledged. In the pilot projects administered by the National Institute of Justice, these partnerships will be developed and fostered. The Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted the need for cost saving measures when it held a hearing entitled ``Encouraging Innovative and Cost-Effective Crime Reduction Strategies.'' Chief of Police Michael Schirling of Burlington, Vermont, in response to a question I asked him in conjunction with the hearing, said of the PRECAUTION Act that it would be: [A] useful tool for law enforcement that could, if properly implemented, result in long-term cost savings not only for law enforcement, but also for communities as a whole. The manner in which creative initiatives would be studied to validate their effectiveness and then added to a resource library of new ideas seems like a prudent approach to spreading important concepts and ideas to improve the criminal justice system in a meaningful way. The PRECAUTION Act, though very modest in scope, is an important supplement to the essential financial support the Federal Government provides to our State and local law enforcement partners through programs such as the Byrne Justice Assistance grants and the COPS grants. When State and local law enforcement receive Federal support for policing, they have difficult decisions to make on how to spend those Federal dollars. We all know that prevention and intervention are integral components of any comprehensive law enforcement plan. The PRECAUTION Act not only highlights the importance of these components, but will also help to single out some of the best, most effective forms of prevention and intervention programs. At the same time, it will help to develop additional, cutting-edge strategies that are supported by solid scientific evidence of their effectiveness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the PRECAUTION Act--the Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal Activity Using Tailored Interventions in Our Neighborhoods Act. It is a long name, but it stands for an important principle--that it is better to invest in precautionary measures now than it is to pay the costs of crime--both in dollars and lives--later on. I am pleased that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, will again join me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. The Federal Government has three important roles to play in fighting crime. First, the Federal Government should develop and disseminate knowledge to state and local officials regarding the newest and most effective law enforcement techniques and strategies. Second, the Federal Government should provide financial support for innovations that our State and local partners cannot afford to fund on their own. With that funding, it should also provide guidance, training, and technical assistance to implement those innovations. Third, the Federal Government can help to create and maintain effective partnerships among agencies at all levels of government, partnerships that are crafted to address specific law enforcement challenges. The PRECAUTION Act is designed to support all three of these important roles. It creates a national commission to wade through the sea of information on crime prevention and intervention strategies currently available to identify those programs that are most ready for replication around the country. Over-taxed law enforcement officials need a simple, accessible resource to turn to that recommends a few, top-tier crime prevention and intervention programs. They need a resource that will single out those existing programs that are truly ``evidence-based'' programs that are proven by scientifically reliable evidence to be effective. The commission created by the PRECAUTION Act will provide just such a report--written in plain language and focused on pragmatic implementation issues--approximately a year and a half after the bill is enacted. In the course of holding hearings and writing this first report, the commission will also identify some types of prevention and intervention strategies that are promising but need further research and development before they are ready for further implementation. The National Institute of Justice then will administer a grant program that will fund pilot projects in these identified areas. The commission will follow closely the progress of these pilot projects, and at the end of the three-year grant program, it will publish a second report, providing a detailed discussion of each pilot project and its effectiveness. This second report will include detailed implementation information and will discuss both the successes and failures of the projects funded by the grants. There is particular urgency for this bill as State and Federal budget shortfalls continue and State and local law enforcement are forced to do more with fewer resources. There is no doubt that money is tight, which makes it all the more important that innovative and cost- effective law enforcement strategies that benefit both public safety and the government bottom line are being used in our communities. To help accomplish this, the Federal Government must work in concert with State and local law enforcement, with the non-profit criminal justice community, and with other branches of State and Federal Government. While we have an obligation to provide leadership and support, we do not have the right to unilaterally take control from the State and local officials on the ground. With these partnerships in place we can invest our resources in crime-fighting measures, confident that they will work. Sometimes, small and careful advances are the ones that yield the most benefit. The PRECAUTION Act answers a call by police chiefs and mayors from more than 50 cities around the country during a national conference hosted by the Police Executive Research Forum in 2006. According to a report on the event from the Forum, these law enforcement leaders agreed that while there is a desperate need for the law enforcement community to focus on violent crime, ``other municipal agencies and social services organizations--including schools, mental health, public health, courts, corrections, and conflict management groups--need to be brought together to partner toward the common goal of reducing violent crime.'' In the hearings held by the PRECAUTION Act commission, these voices will all be heard. In the reports filed by the commission, these perspectives will be acknowledged. In the pilot projects administered by the National Institute of Justice, these partnerships will be developed and fostered. The Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted the need for cost saving measures when it held a hearing entitled ``Encouraging Innovative and Cost-Effective Crime Reduction Strategies.'' Chief of Police Michael Schirling of Burlington, Vermont, in response to a question I asked him in conjunction with the hearing, said of the PRECAUTION Act that it would be: [A] useful tool for law enforcement that could, if properly implemented, result in long-term cost savings not only for law enforcement, but also for communities as a whole. The manner in which creative initiatives would be studied to validate their effectiveness and then added to a resource library of new ideas seems like a prudent approach to spreading important concepts and ideas to improve the criminal justice system in a meaningful way. The PRECAUTION Act, though very modest in scope, is an important supplement to the essential financial support the Federal Government provides to our State and local law enforcement partners through programs such as the Byrne Justice Assistance grants and the COPS grants. When State and local law enforcement receive Federal support for policing, they have difficult decisions to make on how to spend those Federal dollars. We all know that prevention and intervention are integral components of any comprehensive law enforcement plan. The PRECAUTION Act not only highlights the importance of these components, but will also help to single out some of the best, most effective forms of prevention and intervention programs. At the same time, it will help to develop additional, cutting-edge strategies that are supported by solid scientific evidence of their effectiveness. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the body will consider two amendments today that propose to limit some discretionary spending. Regrettably, both amendments contain significant flaws, and I will oppose both of them for that reason. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, propose to limit some discretionary spending over the next 5 fiscal years. However, those limits include a giant loophole, as the proposal includes a complete exemption for spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The proposal in no way requires that such funding be offset, or be subject to the usual supermajority thresholds that the Senate imposes on spending beyond that for which the body budgets. Under the amendment, spending on those wars is completely unrestrained, and would be added right onto the government's budget deficits. This is not a small matter. To date, spending for those wars has totaled roughly $1 trillion and not one cent has been paid for. The cost of those wars has been added directly to our budget deficits, swelling our already mountainous public debt, and increasing the burden we are leaving our children and grandchildren to bear. The question of whether these wars are in the best interest of our national security is, of course, a primary concern. Having made the decision to pursue that course, though, we should not just shove the cost off on future generations. But that is just what this amendment would do. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, and the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, also limits discretionary spending, but it, too, carves out a loophole for the spending on these wars. While it doesn't provide the unlimited exception included in the Sessions-McCaskill proposal, it still permits another $150 billion to be spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over the next 3 years without having to be offset. Beyond the matter of pushing the cost of these wars on to our children and grandchildren, the war-spending exceptions included in these two amendments invite continued budget gaming that has been a byproduct of the supplemental spending requests submitted on behalf of war spending. Those supplemental bills have been used as a way to boost defense spending unrelated to the wars, circumventing the budget caps Congress has set as part of annual budget resolutions. Both of these amendments risk inducing more of the same. I support establishing discretionary spending limits in law, and have done so in the past. But we should do so in a way that does not provide a massive escape hatch for hundreds of billions in discretionary spending.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I remember Anthony Brown, a Madison activist who served in many important roles, including as director of Madison's Equal Opportunities Commission. Sadly, Anthony passed away on March 13. His passing is a terrible loss for his family and friends, and for the community he loved. Anthony was so dedicated to making Madison a better place, and a more just community for everyone. That showed through in everything he did, including his tenure at Madison's Equal Opportunities Commission and his work at the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority. Anthony's service to the community was legendary. He served on many boards, and made contributions in countless other ways. One of those contributions was his mentoring of young people, something he felt there needed to be much more of in the community. He also pushed for more opportunities for people of color in the news media in Madison, knowing what a valuable perspective they would bring to news coverage in the city. Again and again, Anthony stood up for justice and equality. He enriched this community with his work, and I am very grateful for all he did over so many years. Anthony had so many wonderful qualities; he was tireless, he was persistent, and above all he was an optimist. He was always positive, even in the face of very tough challenges, including the challenges he faced with his own health. That optimism is one of the many wonderful things I will remember him for. Today my thoughts are with Anthony's family, and with everyone lucky enough to have known him. He will be deeply missed, but his work will continue to have a positive impact on Madison and the State of Wisconsin for many years to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Feingold-Coburn-Sherrod Brown- McCain-McCaskill amendment rescinds any earmarks that have sat on the shelf at the Department of Transportation for more than 10 years without more than 10 percent of it being obligated or spent. It also requires a report by the OMB on how many of these old, unspent earmarks are at all Federal agencies. This would save an estimated $626 million in the first year and more down the road as other unused earmarks hit the 10-year milestone. I know many Senators support transportation spending to create jobs and deal with crumbling infrastructure, as do I. But these unused and often unwanted earmarks do nothing to create jobs and fix roads. The Bush administration supported the amendment, and the Obama administration and Chairwomen Boxer and Murray support the amendment. I hope it is adopted easily.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the remarks of Senator Gregg, I be recognized.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 3470.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment, along with Senators Coburn and Sherrod Brown, to make a small but necessary step toward addressing the growing problem of Federal deficits. This is the second time in as many weeks that we are offering this amendment, and I hope we will be able to have a vote and get it accepted on the FAA reauthorization bill. The underlying bill we are considering reauthorizes many vitally important programs, including investments in our aviation infrastructure and the long overdue modernization of air traffic control. While I support many of these investments, I think it is also critically important that we take a close look at where our spending can be cut as we try to address the looming deficit. Of course, my amendment won't come close to solving this whole looming problem, but it will make a dent as we try to get our financial house in order and make the tough choices to avoid burdening future generations with debt. There is no single or easy solution to the massive deficits we face, but one thing we should be doing is taking a hard look at the Federal budget for wasteful or unnecessary spending. Hard-working American families have to make these kinds of decisions every week to make ends meet, whether skipping dinners out, making do with old clothes instead of buying new ones, or finding new ways to trim their grocery bill. People are looking at everything in their household budget to cut back in tough times, and the Congress should be doing the same things, looking to save the taxpayers' money everywhere we can. What I am trying to do here is a proposal to get rid of old, unwanted transportation earmarks that would save about $600 million right away and perhaps a few billion dollars over time. It won't eliminate the Federal deficit on its own, but it is real money, in places such as Racine or Fond du Lac, WI, where I recently held townhall meetings. It is one step on a path that is going to have to involve many additional cuts. I have put together a number of proposals for where we should begin tightening our belt, including the one for this amendment, in a piece of legislation I introduced last fall called the Control Spending Now Act. The combined bill would cut the Federal deficit by about $\1/2\ trillion over 10 years. This amendment, my bipartisan amendment here with Senators Coburn and Brown of Ohio, would build off of a proposal put forward in President George W. Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal to rescind $626 million in highway earmarks that were over a decade old and still had less than 10 percent of the funding utilized. When Transportation Weekly did an analysis of these earmarks at the time, they found that over 60 percent of the funding--$389 million--was in 152 earmarks that had no funding spent or obligated from them. These clearly are either unwanted or a low priority for the designated recipients. This is nothing against transportation funding either, of course. I fully realize the need for reinvestment in our crumbling infrastructure and its potential for job creation in hard-hit segments such as construction. But hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in an account untouched at the Department of Transportation does nothing to address our infrastructure needs or put people back to work. I have tried to build on President Bush's concept a little and my amendment expands this rescission to all transportation earmarks that are over 10 years old with unobligated balances of more than 90 percent. At a hearing before the Budget Committee 2 weeks ago, I asked Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood about these unwanted and unspent earmarks, and whether he supported my proposal to rescind them. Secretary LaHood responded: The answer is yes, we are supportive of your proposal, and we have identified significant millions of dollars worth of earmarks. So at the suggestion of the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have also included a provision to allow the Secretary of Transportation to delay a rescission if the project is expected to be obligated within the next 12 months. I know there are sometimes extenuating circumstances and delays that pop up, and this seemed like a good way to deal with these situations while still ensuring that the intention to eliminate unwanted and low-priority projects was retained. I also hope this will help alleviate concerns and ensure that the potential for extenuating circumstances is not used as a reason to somehow oppose our amendment. It is unclear exactly how many hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars would be saved by this proposal being expanded to other transportation earmarks in addition to the previous estimate of $626 million that would be rescinded from unwanted highway earmarks in the first year. This proposal would also be permanent, so there would likely be additional savings as the unwanted earmarks in the most recent highway bill reach their 10-year anniversary. I think this is a very modest proposal, going after the lowest of the low-hanging fruit and would support going even further and make it cover all Federal agencies. But with the uncertainty about how many of these unwanted and unspent earmarks there might be across the whole Federal Government, our amendment instead requires an annual report by the OMB to collect information from each agency and include recommendations on whether these other unobligated earmarks should be rescinded. As you can see, this is a proposal with bipartisan support both in the Senate and from the past administration and this current administration. This shouldn't be a hard decision and I hope we have strong support here in the Senate. This is simply about instituting a good government principle of returning unused funds to the Treasury, and it shouldn't be controversial. If we can't agree to take old earmarks that no one wants and use the money to pay down the deficit, then how are we ever going to get our fiscal house in order? Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of Senators Ensign and Brown of Ohio, the Senate then stand in recess until 2 p.m. today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Doris Haddock, who passed away on March 9. Doris was an extraordinary American who showed all of us the meaning of dedication and conviction. Known to so many of her admirers as Granny D, Doris walked across the country, from California to Washington DC, to push for passage of the McCain-Feingold bill. That coast-to-coast trek would be a tremendous accomplishment at any age, to be sure, but Doris did it in her 90th year. I had the pleasure of meeting Doris and walking with her through Nashville, TN, many months into her trip. As we walked together through the streets of Nashville, shouts of ``Go, Granny Go'' came from every corner--from drivers in their cars, pedestrians on the sidewalk and construction workers on the job. It was an honor to walk alongside her on her incredible journey, where she endured so much--intense desert heat, bone-chilling cold, and uncertainty about where she would find shelter along the way. Yet she walked all that way, and as she did she inspired countless Americans to stand up for our democracy. She truly had the courage of her convictions, and that is something she proved with every step she took. I will always be proud to have had Doris's support for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Doris and Americans like her made all the difference as we worked to ban soft money and curb the power of wealthy interests in our democracy. And it turned out that with her walk across the country, Doris was just getting started. She continued to work as a dedicated activist, wrote books and, at age 94, ran for the Senate in her home state of New Hampshire. Her energy and determination, at an age that most of us can only hope to reach, were truly incredible. After I sent Doris a letter on her 100th birthday in January, I received a very kind note from her in response. In it she said that she was ``working on plans for the future,'' which I thought was an absolutely wonderful thing to say at such an advanced age. Doris was very unhappy with the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case, and that was going to be a focus of her formidable energy going forward. After a century, Doris seemed to be just getting started, and that was one of the many wonderful qualities that brought her so many fans and admirers. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision allowing corporate cash to flood our elections, we will remember her efforts as we fight to ensure all Americans are heard on election day, not just the rich and powerful. My thoughts today are with Doris's family, and all who were lucky enough to know her. Our country is a better place because Doris Haddock was constantly working on plans for the future, and on ways to build a better future for our country. I am personally deeply grateful for her many efforts, and I am proud to pay tribute to her memory today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of our administration's efforts to negotiate a follow- on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START. Our negotiating team in Vienna is currently working with the Russian delegation to finalize this agreement, and I look forward to reviewing the treaty when it is submitted to the Senate. The United States and Russia maintain over 90 percent of the world's approximately 23,000 nuclear weapons. Each of these weapons has the capacity to destroy an entire city; collectively, they can destroy the world. The mere existence of these weapons creates the risk of a nuclear accident, unauthorized use, and theft by a terrorist group. The size and structure of the American and Russian nuclear arsenals reflect an antiquated Cold War mindset that we must move beyond. It is in the national security interest of the United States to reach an agreement with Russia to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and ensure that strong verification and transparency measures remain in effect. This is the core purpose and focus of the START follow-on agreement. The START follow-on agreement is an important component of our efforts to work with Russia and other international partners to collectively address the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. These dangers include the vulnerability of nuclear material to theft by terrorists, as well as the risk of nuclear proliferation by other countries. Ratification of a START follow-on agreement would also be a clear signal that the United States is upholding our obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. It would reaffirm our leadership on nonproliferation issues and demonstrate, as the President has advocated, that we are serious about moving towards a world without nuclear weapons while maintaining a reliable deterrent for so long as it is needed. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity; without a demonstrated effort to fulfilling our nonproliferation responsibilities through a new START agreement, it will be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to secure the international support needed to address the urgent security threats posed by the spread of nuclear weapons. The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States concluded that ``terrorist use of a nuclear weapon against the United States or its friends and allies is more likely than deliberate use by a state.'' Our priority, therefore, should be to work together with Russia to reduce the size and vulnerability of our nuclear arsenals, and ensure that proper security and surveillance safeguards are in place. Unfortunately, today Russia continues to possess huge stores of nuclear materials that are inadequately secured and which, if stolen by terrorists, could be used to destroy an American city. The size of our own nuclear arsenal is also unsustainable, both from a security and cost perspective, and should be tailored to the new 21st century threats we face. The reductions required by the START follow-on agreement will not adversely affect our national security. The United States could pursue much deeper reductions in the size of our arsenal and still have more weapons that we would ever need. In fact, it is precisely the size of our nuclear arsenal and complex that makes them vulnerable to exploitation by terrorists. There is no longer any compelling national security reason to maintain or expand the size of our nuclear stockpile. Nor is there any reason to continue to develop new nuclear weapon technologies or warheads. Our brightest experts have concluded that we no longer need new nuclear weapons in order to maintain a credible deterrent. A recent report from the independent JASON Defense Advisory Group concluded that, as a result of our nuclear laboratories' successful life-extension programs, the lifetimes of our nuclear warheads can be extended for decades. I am encouraged that efforts to negotiate a START follow-on agreement have bipartisan support among national security experts. Notably, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, headed by former Defense Secretaries William Perry and James Schlesinger, endorsed a follow-on agreement to START. Similarly, Secretary Perry joined with former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn and former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz to pen an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for the extension of the key provisions of START and further reductions in our nuclear stockpile. In conclusion, I commend the administration for its efforts to reinvigorate the nonproliferation regime by negotiating a follow-on to the START treaty. We must act now to address the spread of nuclear weapons and materials, which is one of the gravest dangers facing the United States. In a time of terrorism and of rising international concern about Iran's nuclear program, international cooperation remains key to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The START follow-on agreement is an essential step towards that goal, and towards a world without nuclear weapons.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing legislation to reduce the number of presidential political appointees. Specifically, the bill caps the number of political appointees at 2,000. When I previously introduced this legislation, the Congressional Budget Office estimates it would save $382 million over the next 5 years and over $872 over the next 10 years. The bill is based on recommendations of a number of distinguished panels, including the 1996 Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process. The Task Force findings, which are still very relevant today, are part of a long line of recommendations that we reduce the number of political appointees in the Executive Branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in CBO's annual publication Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options, and it was one of the central recommendations of the National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman and current economic advisor to President Obama, Paul Volcker. This proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of former Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review, which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.'' Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 and 2003 Volcker Commission reports, which argued the growing number of presidential appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of the executive branch.'' The first Volcker Commission recommended limiting the number of political appointees to 2,000, as this legislation does. It is essential that any administration be able to implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place. Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But as the Volcker Commissions noted, the great increase in the number of political appointees in recent years has not made government more effective or more responsive to political leadership. Between 1980 and 2008 the ranks of political appointees rose by more than 27 percent whereas between that same period, excluding the defense sector, the civilian workforce remained consistent at about 1.1 to 1.2 million. In recommending a cap on political appointees, the 1989 and 2003 Volcker Commission reports noted that the large number of presidential appointees simply cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. The 1989 Commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries accountable.'' Adding organizational layers of political appointees can also restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce bureaucratic impediments. In commenting on this problem, author Paul Light noted, ``As this sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines from them.'' Light added that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job effectively. . .'' The Volcker Commission also asserted that this thickening barrier of temporary appointees between the President and career officials can undermine development of a proficient civil service by discouraging talented individuals from remaining in government service or even pursuing a career in government in the first place. Former Attorney General Elliot Richardson put it well when he noted: But a White House personnel assistant sees the position of deputy assistant secretary as a fourth-echelon slot. In his eyes that makes it an ideal reward for a fourth-echelon political type--a campaign advance man, or a regional political organizer. For a senior civil servant, it's irksome to see a position one has spent 20-30 years preparing for pre-empted by an outsider who doesn't know the difference between an audit exception and an authorizing bill. The 2003 Volcker Commission report identified another problem aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees, namely the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of positions. As the Commission reported, both President Bush and President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before their leadership teams were fully in place. The Commission noted that on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more than eight months after the inauguration, one-sixth of an entire presidential term. By contrast, the report noted that in the presidential transition of 1960, Kennedy appointees were confirmed, on average, 2\1/2\ months after the inauguration. In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental effect on potential appointees. The 2003 Volcker Commission reported that, ``Potential appointees sometimes decline to enter government service when confronted by this process. Others drop out along the way. But the principal impact of the modern appointments process is the delay it imposes on the staffing of new administrations.'' The Clinton administration made modest reductions in the number of political appointees but the numbers have steadily increased in the past decade. As we scour the Federal budget for wasteful or unnecessary spending, we can't overlook spending that many in Washington may well wish to retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction is not simply to support measures that impact someone else. By reducing the number of political appointees, we can ensure a sufficient number remain to implement the policies of any administration without burdening the Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political jobs. Reducing the Federal deficit and balancing the budget is something that has been central to my Senate career, from the 82 point plan I brought to the Senate in 1993 to my most recent Control Spending Now Act, which would cut the deficit by around $500 billion. The legislation I am introducing today reflects one of the points included on the original 82 point plan calling for streamlining various Federal agencies and reducing agency overhead costs, and it will be added to my Control Spending Now Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in reducing the deficit and reforming government.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good friend the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing legislation to reduce the number of presidential political appointees. Specifically, the bill caps the number of political appointees at 2,000. When I previously introduced this legislation, the Congressional Budget Office estimates it would save $382 million over the next 5 years and over $872 over the next 10 years. The bill is based on recommendations of a number of distinguished panels, including the 1996 Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on the Presidential Appointment Process. The Task Force findings, which are still very relevant today, are part of a long line of recommendations that we reduce the number of political appointees in the Executive Branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in CBO's annual publication Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options, and it was one of the central recommendations of the National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman and current economic advisor to President Obama, Paul Volcker. This proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of former Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review, which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.'' Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 and 2003 Volcker Commission reports, which argued the growing number of presidential appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of the executive branch.'' The first Volcker Commission recommended limiting the number of political appointees to 2,000, as this legislation does. It is essential that any administration be able to implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place. Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But as the Volcker Commissions noted, the great increase in the number of political appointees in recent years has not made government more effective or more responsive to political leadership. Between 1980 and 2008 the ranks of political appointees rose by more than 27 percent whereas between that same period, excluding the defense sector, the civilian workforce remained consistent at about 1.1 to 1.2 million. In recommending a cap on political appointees, the 1989 and 2003 Volcker Commission reports noted that the large number of presidential appointees simply cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. The 1989 Commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries accountable.'' Adding organizational layers of political appointees can also restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce bureaucratic impediments. In commenting on this problem, author Paul Light noted, ``As this sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines from them.'' Light added that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job effectively. . .'' The Volcker Commission also asserted that this thickening barrier of temporary appointees between the President and career officials can undermine development of a proficient civil service by discouraging talented individuals from remaining in government service or even pursuing a career in government in the first place. Former Attorney General Elliot Richardson put it well when he noted: But a White House personnel assistant sees the position of deputy assistant secretary as a fourth-echelon slot. In his eyes that makes it an ideal reward for a fourth-echelon political type--a campaign advance man, or a regional political organizer. For a senior civil servant, it's irksome to see a position one has spent 20-30 years preparing for pre-empted by an outsider who doesn't know the difference between an audit exception and an authorizing bill. The 2003 Volcker Commission report identified another problem aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees, namely the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of positions. As the Commission reported, both President Bush and President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before their leadership teams were fully in place. The Commission noted that on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more than eight months after the inauguration, one-sixth of an entire presidential term. By contrast, the report noted that in the presidential transition of 1960, Kennedy appointees were confirmed, on average, 2\1/2\ months after the inauguration. In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental effect on potential appointees. The 2003 Volcker Commission reported that, ``Potential appointees sometimes decline to enter government service when confronted by this process. Others drop out along the way. But the principal impact of the modern appointments process is the delay it imposes on the staffing of new administrations.'' The Clinton administration made modest reductions in the number of political appointees but the numbers have steadily increased in the past decade. As we scour the Federal budget for wasteful or unnecessary spending, we can't overlook spending that many in Washington may well wish to retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction is not simply to support measures that impact someone else. By reducing the number of political appointees, we can ensure a sufficient number remain to implement the policies of any administration without burdening the Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political jobs. Reducing the Federal deficit and balancing the budget is something that has been central to my Senate career, from the 82 point plan I brought to the Senate in 1993 to my most recent Control Spending Now Act, which would cut the deficit by around $500 billion. The legislation I am introducing today reflects one of the points included on the original 82 point plan calling for streamlining various Federal agencies and reducing agency overhead costs, and it will be added to my Control Spending Now Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in reducing the deficit and reforming government.