Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of final passage of the Senate version of the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. This legislation is an improvement over the House-passed bill and over the President's request in many areas. However, it still vastly underfunds a number of crucial programs. I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their work to produce this bill under tight fiscal constraints. However, we can and should do better for the many Americans who depend on the programs that are funded by this important appropriations bill. I am pleased that the Senate adopted two amendments I worked on. One was an amendment I cosponsored that the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, offered, to provide much-needed funding to improve access to dental health in rural and underserved areas, and the other was an amendment I offered to increase public access to automatic external defibrillators in schools. I have worked with my colleague from Maine, Ms. Collins, for a number of years to secure funding for these important programs, and I hope to see these provisions carry through to the conference report. I regret that the Senate missed a number of opportunities to improve this bill, including by rejecting amendments that would have increased funding for a number of elementary and secondary education programs, including title I, after-school programs, and special education. Year after year, Congress and the President fail to provide the promised funding for these and other education programs as local school districts continue to struggle to make ends meet under shrinking State and local education budgets. The President's budget requests for each of the fiscal years since the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted have fallen far short of what was authorized by this law. And while Congress has improved upon these budget requests and provided funding for a number of the programs that the President proposed to cut, NCLB programs are still funded at far less than their authorized levels. Yet despite our broken promises to these school districts, we still require them to comply with a variety of Federal mandates. And during this school year, the stakes have been raised even further because the 2005-2006 school year is the first under which schools are required to implement the NCLB mandate to test students in grades three through eight in reading and math. It is past time that we hold up our end of the equation and give States and school districts the resources they need to ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed. With regard to higher education, I was proud to support the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts that would have increased the Pell Grant maximum by $200 to $4,250 per year. This would have been a good down payment on the ultimate goal of increasing the maximum to $9,000 by the 2010-2011 school year, as I proposed with Senator Collins earlier this year. While Senator Kennedy's amendment was not successful, I will continue to work toward this goal of increasing grant aid and reducing the burden of debt to keep the doors of higher education open to as many Americans as possible. While funding for other higher education programs were not as generous as I would have hoped, I was encouraged that the Appropriations Committee rejected the harmful cuts proposed in the President's budget. The President had proposed eliminating or cutting important programs that prepare disadvantaged students for college, support their successful completion of college, and provide financial assistance to help them afford higher education, such as the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, LEAP, program; TRIO programs; the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, GEAR UP; the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education program; and Perkins loans. I consistently opposed these reductions during both the budget and appropriations processes, and I am pleased that this bill preserves funding for all of these programs. Another reservation I have about this bill is its failure to adequately provide a much needed increase in funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP--an increase that would simply bring the funding level up to the fully authorized amount. Despite predictions that home energy costs this winter will increase between 30 and almost 70 percent, for the third time in a month, the Senate failed to help working families and seniors afford skyrocketing home energy costs when it defeated Senator Reed's efforts to increase LIHEAP funding. The lack of higher LIHEAP funding is greatly troubling and I will continue pursuing opportunities to help people in Wisconsin and across the country receive the assistance they need to stay safe and warm this winter. While this bill is far from perfect, I will support it, and I very much hope that the final version of this bill will provide adequate funding for the many important programs contained in it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to give three speeches on the floor so far about issues concerning the fight against terrorism globally and the relationship of the Iraq war to that struggle and that battle. Today, I come to the floor to talk about why I think we need a timeframe for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I do not mean a rigid timetable, nor do I mean a timetable that is not connected to clear and achievable benchmarks. But what we do need is a public, flexible, realistic timetable that will tell people when and how we expect to finish the military mission in Iraq. As my colleagues may know, I have suggested a target date of December 31, 2006, the end of next year, for the completion of our military mission. Today, I want to talk a little bit about why a flexible timetable for withdrawal will help make the U.S. stronger and our enemies weaker. Some have argued that a timetable is designed to appeal to the American public, that it has no relationship to our security or to our achieving policy goals in Iraq. Actually, it is just the opposite. I proposed a timeframe because I think it has everything to do with improving our national security strategy. Our fundamental national security goal must be to combat the global terrorist networks that attacked and continue to threaten the United States. An increasing number of military experts and members of the public have concluded that our military presence in Iraq is not consistent with that goal and that it is, in fact, undermining that goal. I think it has become increasingly clear that we have created a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and that the apparent indefinite presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops is often fueling, not dampening, the insurgency in that country. Melvin Laird, a former Republican Congressman from my State of Wisconsin, who was the Defense Secretary under Richard Nixon, said: We owe it to the rest of the people back home to let them know there is an exit strategy. And more important, we owe it to the Iraqi people. Our presence is what feeds the insurgency. And our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgents. GEN George Casey, the commanding general of the allied forces in Iraq, made a similar point in testimony to Congress last month. He testified that: . . . getting Iraqis into leading the counterinsurgency effort as they are capable will allow us to gradually reduce the visibility of coalition forces across Iraq and, ultimately, as conditions warrant, to begin to reduce our presence in Iraq, taking away an element that fuels the insurgency; that is, the perception of occupation. He went on to call reducing the visibility and presence of coalition forces a key element of our overall counterinsurgency strategy. Melvin Laird and General Casey know that our presence has fed this insurgence, making it easy for the insurgents to convince new recruits that we are there to stay. Mr. President, I know, you know--we all know--that is not the fault of our men and women in uniform who are serving courageously; it is the fault of the administration for sending them into battle without a clearly defined or well-thought-out mission. In February, I asked one of the top allied commanders in Iraq when I was there in the Green Zone what would happen if we suggested to the world that there is a timeframe for achieving our military mission. This is what I asked him. His response to me, which of course was off the record, was that, ``nothing would take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents more'' than providing a clear public plan and timeframe for a remaining U.S. mission. The President himself in June told the Nation that he did not support putting more troops into Iraq because, he said, ``sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever.'' Even the President has acknowledged the problem with feeding the insurgency if it appears our presence there is permanent, or ever expanding. I think that same logic applies to the President's refusal to issue a public timetable. To the extent that we do not explain what our military goals in Iraq are and when we hope to achieve them, we are playing into the hands of the insurgents. The insurgents are motivated by our presence and they feed off conspiracy theories and suspicions regarding American intentions. And, of course, our brave service-members and their families deserve some clarity about how long they are likely to remain in Iraq. The President is one of an ever-narrowing group of people who believe that a timetable works against our goals in Iraq. Military experts, people I talked to in Iraq, and the American people increasingly agree that the administration's refusal to even suggest a timetable for meeting our military goals in Iraq is feeding the insurgency. The lack of a timetable doesn't just feed the insurgency, it also discourages Iraqi ownership of their own political process. By making it clear that the U.S. will not be there indefinitely, we will help the Iraqis move toward the real political independence they need and dispel some of the cynicism about American intentions that empowers some of the more extreme elements of Iraqi society. Finally, a timetable is important because it enables us to devote more resources to the other national security issues that demand our attention. To fight the global terrorist networks that threaten the U.S., we need to focus energy and resources on countering emerging terrorist tactics, dealing with the threat of ``loose nukes,'' and repairing the damage to our Army, to name just a few urgent priorities. Drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq will allow us to focus on these priorities. It is time to make sure that our Iraq policy is advancing, not undermining, our national security goals. The administration and its allies have offered various arguments as to why they can't or won't come up with a clear plan and timeline for military success in Iraq. One argument has been that the U.S. pullouts from Somalia in the 1990s and Lebanon in the 1980s emboldened terrorists and others who oppose American interests. To pull out of Iraq without having put down the Iraqi insurgency once and for all would supposedly be another sign of American weakness. But our decisions about national security shouldn't be made based on conjecture about the ``message'' that some might perceive. No one, including the Bush administration, can know how the insurgents in Iraq might feel about the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. We do know, however, that right now we are making the insurgency stronger with our indefinite presence in Iraq, and our failure to articulate a timetable for military withdrawal. We also know that our commitment of resources--money, troops, time--to Iraq is detracting from our ability to focus on our most pressing national security goals and stretching our military to the breaking point. Terrorists will not feel particularly emboldened about us putting our Iraq policy on track so that we can focus our attention on eliminating them. The President suggests that if he issues a timetable for how long he expects U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, our enemies will think that we are weak. But without a plan to finish our military mission, our enemies will know that we have fallen into a trap and we can't figure out how to get out. That is what they will know if we do not apply some common sense to this situation. When I pressed Secretary Rice on the need for a timetable last week, she responded that ``we'd like our discussions of withdrawal and of bringing down the numbers of forces to be results-based rather than time-based.'' But of course a timetable should be results-based. As I have said over and over, any timetable needs to be flexible and needs to be tied to achievable benchmarks. The point is to have some idea of when those benchmarks, those results, can be achieved. Without such a timetable, and without clear, realistic benchmarks. we cannot hold ourselves accountable for meeting our goals. Nor can we give our troops and the American people the clarity they deserve about their mission. The Bush administration, with all these arguments, has succeeded in one thing: in intimidating people into not uttering the words ``timetable,'' or ``timeframe,'' or ``target date'' for finishing the military mission. But with the words of Republicans like Melvin Laird and military leaders like General Casey, more and more people understand that having a flexible timetable will strengthen our national security. This is not a timetable where the objective is troop withdrawal, the objective is to focus on our national security needs and the timetable is one step towards that goal. A timetable is not about domestic politics--it's about undercutting insurgency recruiting and unity, encouraging more Iraqi ownership and responsibility, and creating space for other important U.S. national security efforts. I again emphasize that the timeframe I have proposed is a flexible one--not a drop-dead date, not a deadline, not a formula for ``cut and run.'' It is linked with a call for more clarity about what we want the U.S. military to achieve in Iraq. Please note that I am only referring to a timeframe for the military mission in Iraq, not for our broader political and other missions in Iraq. We all understand that our engagement in Iraq will not end with the U.S. military mission. We will still have a great deal of tough diplomatic work to do in Iraq well after the bulk of U.S. troops leave, and probably some serious security cooperation as well. We will continue to devote resources to Iraq, without a doubt. But as it stands today, we have focused on Iraq to the exclusion of critically important national security priorities. And we have done so at great cost to the outstanding men and women of the U.S. military, and to their families. When I speak to service men and women in Wisconsin and in Iraq, and when I speak to their families, their pride in their service is evident and it is well earned. But their frustration with this open-ended commitment, with the stop-loss orders and the multiple deployments, with the extensions and the uncertainties, is equally evident, and it is very painful. We can do better by them, by insisting on clarity, by insisting on accountability, and by assuring them that we have a plan with clear and achievable goals. We must stop feeding the insurgency in Iraq, and focus on the fight against the terrorist networks that threaten the security of the American people. A timetable can make us stronger, and our enemies weaker. That is the strategy we must pursue, and I look forward to working with colleagues here in the Senate to move such a proposal forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to express my concern about avian influenza and America's preparedness for a global pandemic. While I do not want to add to people's fears about this issue, reports of the lethality of the H5N1 strain must be taken seriously and we need to make sure that we are taking appropriate measures to prepare for a possible pandemic. As we all well know, migratory birds are steadily carrying the avian flu virus from throughout Southeast Asia and Siberia to Romania, Turkey, and now Greece. International health officials predicted that this spread could happen, and it should be no surprise that this disease is taking this course. In the 20th century alone, three influenza pandemics swept throughout the world, most notably the 1918 flu pandemic, which took 500,000 lives. Our knowledge of disease and hygiene has improved dramatically since then, and our ability to ready ourselves has subsequently advanced, but our risk for a pandemic remains a danger. Scientists and public health officials throughout the world have warned that a flu pandemic will take place, have alerted governments to the possibility of pandemic through the avian flu, and have watched as little has been done to prepare for the occurrence. Despite the warnings of the inevitability of pandemic, research into influenza vaccine and therapy has been continually underfunded, as have our programs that would provide emergency health care relief in a time of crisis. Hurricane Katrina illustrated our lack of preparedness for a true disaster, and the Government's failure to quickly bring relief to our friends along the gulf coast should send a resounding message that we must better prepare for an emergency in the future. That emergency could well be the avian flu pandemic. Let us not be caught unaware. While there is no guarantee that this will occur this winter, next winter, or even the year after that, scientists tell us that it is only a matter of time, and we should use that time to build our stockpiles of vaccines and medicines, and to support global initiatives to help prevent the spread of the disease through containment strategies and alerts. Although the avian flu does not yet transmit from human to human, this type of virus is capable of rapidly mutating and becoming highly infectious among people. With the seasonal flu season approaching, the risk of a human strain emerging increases, as the opportunity for the virus to drift among species and mutate is augmented. If a pandemic ensued, the threat would obviously not be distributed evenly across the population. The young and elderly would be at most risk, as would immunocompromised people and people suffering from malnutrition and inadequate basic health services. We know this, we are aware of the problems, and we must take action to ensure the health and safety of the most vulnerable. Guaranteeing safety means taking responsibility for all of our communities' responses and plans. I am pleased that I was able to join many of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush on October 4, 2005, that urged the administration to release a finalized Pandemic Influenza Response and Preparedness Plan, which the World Health Organization has deemed essential to planning a strategy in the case of a global pandemic. I am eagerly waiting for this plan to be released, as I believe it is of extreme importance to the American people. I am also pleased that the Senate approved a measure to add $3.9 billion to the Defense Department's budget for the purchase of vaccines and medicines to treat avian flu, and I hope to see the House agree to this in conference. This was an important measure to help prepare Americans, particularly those most vulnerable, against the ravages of a fatal disease. While we do not know when or where this pandemic may develop, we must work to prepare now.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last month people from across the country converged on Washington to send a clear message to Congress in opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Sadly, yesterday's action by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee flies in the face of that grassroots movement. And on top of this, the committee failed to accept commonsense amendments that would have required that drilling in the Arctic follow the same rules as drilling in all other wildlife refuges, insisted that oil taken from the refuge stay in the hands of Americans, and guaranteed what Senators have been told all along--that 50 percent of the revenues from leases would go to the Federal Treasury, despite public suggestions by Members of the Alaska delegation that the State would sue to get 90 percent of all revenues. There is no doubt that as a nation, we face tough questions about our energy policy. Sacrificing one of America's greatest natural treasures, however, to access a supply of oil that may not last more than a year, wouldn't be available for many years to come, and would decrease gas prices by only a penny at its highest production, is simply not the answer. A responsible, well-thought-out national energy policy that moves us away from our dependence on a finite resource such as oil is the answer, and I regret that we don't have such a policy. To support our energy needs, care for our citizens, encourage a vibrant economy, and meet our stewardship responsibilities to future generations, we must take a variety of steps, including investing in American ingenuity, advancing our commitment to conservation, and increasing our use of renewable sources of fuel. As we now move from the committee's reconciliation recommendation to floor debate of the larger budget reconciliation package, I will work to make sure that we do not discard the legacy of protecting the Arctic Refuge that dates back to President Eisenhower in 1960.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to lend my strong support to the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. It is far past time that we increase the Federal minimum wage. The last time Congress voted to increase the minimum wage was 9 years ago in 1996, and the last portion of this increase went into effect 8 years ago, in 1997. Since that time, consumers have faced increased prices for everything from food to clothing to housing to childcare. And in recent months, gas prices have skyrocketed, and home heating costs are expected to follow suit this winter. And while prices have increased, the purchasing power of the current Federal minimum wage of $5.15 has decreased by nearly 20 percent. A minimum wage employee working 40 hours per week can expect to earn $10,712 per year--this is $4,500 below the poverty line for a family of three. Many minimum wage earners are struggling to provide for the basic needs of themselves and their families. They cannot make ends meet on $10,712 per year. These are hard-working Americans who deserve a fair shake and who deserve a raise. Many work more than one job, sacrificing time with their children just to scrape by. Without an increase, these workers will continue to work long hours to support their families with little hope of saving for the future when they are barely able to afford the basic necessities of the present. According to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, ``[t]he minimum wage now equals only 32 percent of the average wage for private sector, non- supervisory workers. This is the lowest share since 1949.'' In other words, the average minimum wage worker makes less than one-third of the average nonsupervisory private sector worker. I am concerned about the argument made by some who oppose this amendment that most minimum wage workers are entry-level workers in first jobs who will advance their way out of these jobs and move on to better paying jobs. While that is certainly true for some workers, about two-thirds of those who would benefit from this increase are adults, and one-third of them are the sole breadwinners for their families. I was proud to vote for the 1996-1997 increase that brought the minimum wage to its current $5.15, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, that would increase the minimum wage to $7.25. The Economic Policy Institute notes that such an increase would directly help more than 7.3 million American workers. This increase will also help the children and other dependents of these workers potentially more than 15 million people. Congress's inaction on this issue over the past several years has led to a growing grass-roots movement to increase the minimum wage at the state level. A number of States have enacted increases over the past few years, including Wisconsin. On June 1, 2005, the minimum wage for most workers in my State was increased to $5.70 per hour. The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development estimated that this increase would help between 100,000-150,000 workers in my State. While this increase represents a step forward for Wisconsin workers, more work still needs to be done to boost the purchasing power of these and other workers around our country. The amendment that we are considering today would increase the minimum wage by $1.10 to $6.25 over the next 18 months. While this modest increase will not go as far as I and many others in this body would in supporting the hard-working Americans who badly need a raise, it is a long-overdue step in the right direction. The amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, would also provide a $1.10 per hour increase in the Federal minimum wage. However, this amendment would also undermine low-income workers' struggle to break the cycle of poverty by allowing employers to deny these workers badly needed overtime pay through a so-called flex time scheme. This amendment, which is a total of 87 pages, also includes a number of other incentives for businesses that are intended to dampen the opposition of business groups to even this modest $1.10 increase in the Federal minimum wage. However, what these proposals would really do is continue the process of dismantling the 40-hour work week that was initiated with the implementation of the administration's ill-conceived overtime rule changes last year. By the Senator from Wyoming's, Mr. Enzi, own admission, the committee which he chairs, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, has not even considered many of these provisions. These provisions should not be rolled into a proposal to increase the minimum wage. The need to increase the Federal minimum wage stands on its own merit. And while I am certainly willing to consider a package of reforms for business, this is not the way to do it. Passage of such antiworker proposals should not be a condition of providing a much- needed wage increase for the lowest income Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Enzi amendment and to support American workers by voting for the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, in introducing legislation that would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our men and women in uniform as they seek to maintain a sense of normalcy here at home while their loved ones are deployed in service to our country. Our ongoing large-scale deployments in Iraq continue to demand so much from our men and women in uniform and their families. Passing this measure is the least we can do. As part of the pre-deployment process, military personnel with dependent children or other dependent family members, such as elderly parents who require care, designate a caregiver for their dependents. This person will act in the deployed personnel's place to provide care for these family members during the period of deployment. The caregiver could be a spouse, parent, sibling, or other responsible adult who is capable of caring for, and willing to care for, the dependents in question. The bill that we are introducing today, the Military Family Support Act, would create two programs to provide additional leave options for persons who have been designated as caregivers. The first program would require the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to create a program under which Federal employees who are designated as caregivers could use accrued annual or sick leave, leave bank benefits, and other leave available to them under Title 5 for purposes directly relating to or resulting from their designation as a caregiver. This bill would also require the Secretary of Labor to establish a voluntary program under which private sector companies would create similar programs for their employees and to solicit participation from private sector companies. I commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty, and I hope that companies in Wisconsin and around the country will participate in this voluntary program. In addition, our bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with an evaluation of both the OPM program and the voluntary Department of Labor program. It is my hope that this evaluation will demonstrate the utility of such a leave program for designated caregivers and that these pilot programs could then be expanded to the designated caregivers of additional deployed military personnel. This legislation builds on a measure that I introduced earlier this year, S. 798, the Military Families Leave Act. This bill would provide a similar benefit to military families by allowing eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. I also introduced this bill during the 108th Congress. Let me be clear, that the legislation we are introducing today does not amend the FMLA in any way. In fact, FMLA benefits are specifically exempted from the types of leave that can be used by designated caregivers for purposes directly related to or resulting from their caregiver responsibilities. While I believe that the FMLA could serve as the basis for providing additional leave opportunities for designated caregivers, opposition in some quarters to the original FMLA makes this a difficult proposition. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this landmark law, and I believe that the FMLA continues to provide much-needed assistance to millions of workers around the country as they seek to care for their own serious health condition or that of a family member or as they welcome the birth or adoption of a child. I will continue to support this law and efforts to ensure that the vital benefits that it provides are not eroded. I thank the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for his work on this important measure, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, in introducing legislation that would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our men and women in uniform as they seek to maintain a sense of normalcy here at home while their loved ones are deployed in service to our country. Our ongoing large-scale deployments in Iraq continue to demand so much from our men and women in uniform and their families. Passing this measure is the least we can do. As part of the pre-deployment process, military personnel with dependent children or other dependent family members, such as elderly parents who require care, designate a caregiver for their dependents. This person will act in the deployed personnel's place to provide care for these family members during the period of deployment. The caregiver could be a spouse, parent, sibling, or other responsible adult who is capable of caring for, and willing to care for, the dependents in question. The bill that we are introducing today, the Military Family Support Act, would create two programs to provide additional leave options for persons who have been designated as caregivers. The first program would require the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to create a program under which Federal employees who are designated as caregivers could use accrued annual or sick leave, leave bank benefits, and other leave available to them under Title 5 for purposes directly relating to or resulting from their designation as a caregiver. This bill would also require the Secretary of Labor to establish a voluntary program under which private sector companies would create similar programs for their employees and to solicit participation from private sector companies. I commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty, and I hope that companies in Wisconsin and around the country will participate in this voluntary program. In addition, our bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with an evaluation of both the OPM program and the voluntary Department of Labor program. It is my hope that this evaluation will demonstrate the utility of such a leave program for designated caregivers and that these pilot programs could then be expanded to the designated caregivers of additional deployed military personnel. This legislation builds on a measure that I introduced earlier this year, S. 798, the Military Families Leave Act. This bill would provide a similar benefit to military families by allowing eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. I also introduced this bill during the 108th Congress. Let me be clear, that the legislation we are introducing today does not amend the FMLA in any way. In fact, FMLA benefits are specifically exempted from the types of leave that can be used by designated caregivers for purposes directly related to or resulting from their caregiver responsibilities. While I believe that the FMLA could serve as the basis for providing additional leave opportunities for designated caregivers, opposition in some quarters to the original FMLA makes this a difficult proposition. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this landmark law, and I believe that the FMLA continues to provide much-needed assistance to millions of workers around the country as they seek to care for their own serious health condition or that of a family member or as they welcome the birth or adoption of a child. I will continue to support this law and efforts to ensure that the vital benefits that it provides are not eroded. I thank the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for his work on this important measure, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has offered. It is straightforward. It would eliminate the roughly $3,100 pay raise for Members of Congress that is currently scheduled to go into effect next January. That increase would follow on a $4,000 pay raise this year, a $3,400 pay raise in 2004, a $4,700 pay raise in 2003, a $4,900 pay raise in 2002, a $3,800 pay raise in 2001, and a $4,600 pay raise in 2000. There are a number of arguments against this scheduled pay raise. The war in Iraq continues to drain our Treasury at a rate of over $1 billion every week. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we face a massively expensive relief effort. And on top of those enormous fiscal challenges, we are up to our necks in deficit spending. We are piling up billions more in debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. At such a time, it would seem hard to justify a scheduled pay raise for Members of Congress. Nonetheless, I recognize that some do justify it. In the end, though, the most important reason I joined Senator Kyl in offering this amendment is that doing so is the only way to put this body on record with respect to our pay raise. And we should go on record on this issue. Under current law, many Americans do not realize that under current law Members of Congress can get an automatic pay raise every year without lifting a finger, unless we act to stop it. It is automatic. There is no requirement for a vote. All that is required is that we show up to cash the check. As I have noted before in discussing this matter, it is a pretty unusual thing to have the power to raise your own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. That this power is so unusual is a good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include a vote on the record. That is why this process of automatic, stealth pay raises without accountability is so questionable. It is offensive. It is wrong. I believe it also may be unconstitutional. The 27th amendment to the Constitution states: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened. That is what it says in the 27th amendment to the Constitution. I have actually introduced legislation to end this automatic pay raise system, and I hope this body will pass it at some point. But as the Senator from Arizona has made very clear, this amendment does not go that far. It simply stops the $3,100 pay raise that is scheduled for next January. I fully accept that many--even a majority-- of my colleagues may want a pay raise. But those who want a pay raise should support an open and public vote on the increase. Certainly having a vote on the record for a pay hike is better than a stealth pay raise that takes place with no action. Standing up and making the case before the voters is far better than quietly letting the pay raise take effect. I urge my colleagues to stop this backdoor pay raise and then take the next step by enacting legislation to end this practice once and for all. I thank my colleague from Arizona for joining us in this cause that I have sought to proceed with almost every year in the hopes that Congress and the Senate in particular will vote on the automatic pay raise. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend the Liberian people on their recent Presidential and parliamentary elections. News reports of people camping outside polling areas to vote, strong voter turnout, and a free and fair democratic process in Liberia are inspiring. Following a 14- year-long civil war and the regime of former Liberian leader Charles Taylor, who fled in exile in August 2003, the war-tired people of Liberia deserve our support as they work to bring about a legitimate, representative government in that country. However, Liberia's elections are not the silver bullet for stability. There remains much work to be done to build long-term stability in this country, and the U.S. has a meaningful role to play. We must remain engaged in Liberia to help rebuild and strengthen institutions. The legitimacy of government is contingent upon the public's confidence, and lasting stability depends on such steps as rooting out corruption and providing transparency in government. The Liberian people deserve our unflagging support in those endeavors. Too much is at stake to turn our back and allow Liberia to regress into a state that houses a corrupt and abusive government and further destabilizes West Africa. In looking forward, Liberians must also reconcile with the past. Years of horrible violence and conflict and the drastic decline of humanitarian conditions in the country under the regime of Charles Taylor need resolution. We also know now that Charles Taylor's desire for power and wealth extended beyond the borders of Liberia. I firmly believe that Charles Taylor is a war criminal, and I maintain that he should stand trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The U.S. and the international community have a responsibility to ensure that the circle of violence and impunity in Liberia does not continue in its nascent government. And we must continue to help the Liberian people combat corruption, because no new leadership can bring lasting change if that fundamental problem is not addressed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the Displaced Citizens Voter Protection Act. This bill is a companion measure to legislation introduced in the House by my friend Representative Artur Davis of Alabama. He has been a real advocate for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and I greatly appreciate his leadership on this issue. We are continuing to learn more about and to grapple with the myriad ways that the Hurricane Katrina disaster has affected the lives of residents of the Gulf Coast. Hundreds of thousands of people fled their homes, and are temporarily displaced. Most of these people hope to eventually return to the communities from which they were driven, and have every intention of rebuilding their lives there. As the communities in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi begin to rebuild, it is crucial that those who wish to return are able to take part in the government decisions that will have an impact on their communities and their lives. They must be able to elect the Federal leaders who will shape this recovery process. The legislation that I will introduce today will make sure that victims of Hurricane Katrina who are temporarily displaced, and who intend to return to their home States, continue to be eligible to vote in their States, and that the government takes steps to inform them of their rights in this area. It would extend the same voting protections currently available to members of the military and overseas voters to those who are displaced temporarily by Katrina. Individuals who are qualified to vote in their original place of residence, and who intend to return to that place in the near future, will be able to vote by absentee ballot for Federal elections held through 2008. Voters who intend to return to their original place of residence would be able to use the forms available online that are currently used by members of the military and other citizens who are overseas to request absentee ballots from their home State. Voters requesting an absentee ballot would be required to include an affidavit certifying that they intend to return to their home State in the near future with their ballot. The bill also directs motor vehicle authorities and voter registration agencies to take steps to notify the public that this absentee ballot option is available for Katrina victims. This legislation does not mandate where people should vote, nor does it place additional burdens on State election officials. It simply puts a mechanism in place to make sure that these voters do not lose their right to vote in elections simply because they are temporarily displaced. The challenges that we face in the wake of Katrina are many, and unfortunately there is some disagreement in Congress about how best to help those affected by this tragedy. This is different. This bill is a straightforward, simple, and direct response that will help keep the electoral process accessible for victims of Hurricane Katrina. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, although I support passage of this year's Department of Defense appropriations bill, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has not been allowed a full debate on the Defense authorization bill. It is unconscionable that the Defense authorization bill that is so critical to our men and women in uniform has been allowed to languish for over 5 months. The appropriations bill includes funds for many important items I strongly support, including vital equipment for those in uniform facing daily dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, vital defense policies are contained in the authorization bill, including policies with a direct impact on military families, such as pay and benefits. The Senate's strong bipartisan efforts to make TRICARE available for the Guard Reserve are also a part of the Defense authorization bill. I therefore urge the majority leader to bring the Defense authorization bill back to the floor so that the Senate can fulfill its obligation to our troops and to the American people. I am also frustrated that the administration continues to rely on emergency supplemental funding for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to delay even those funding requests. The administration did not even request the $50 billion ``bridge fund'' included in this bill by the Appropriations Committee even though the Pentagon will soon run out of money for the war effort. This week, Senator Byrd eloquently explained, once again, why the administration should include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the regular budget. Congress cannot budget responsibly or perform its oversight duties adequately if we continue to rely on supplemental spending bills, which essentially put the costs of war on our national tab. The Senate has insisted on three separate occasions that the administration include war costs in its budget submissions and the administration has ignored the Senate three times. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Byrd's amendment demanding accountability for the fourth time and was gratified that the Senate adopted it. I am proud that the Senate sent such a strong message to the administration about the treatment of detainees. The lack of a clear policy regarding the treatment of detainees has been confusing and counterproductive. It has left our men and women in uniform in the lurch with no clear direction about what is and is not permissible. This failure on the part of the administration has sullied our reputation as a nation, and hurt our efforts to promote democracy and human rights in the Arab and Muslim world. I was proud to vote for Senator McCain's amendment on interrogation policy because it should help to bring back some accountability to the process and restore our great Nation's reputation as the world's leading advocate for human rights. I am also pleased that the bill coins a modified version of Senator Graham's amendment, requiring that the administration report to Congress about the procedures used by the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay to determine whether individuals held there are enemy combatants. The modified amendment also makes a very important clarification, ensuring that the tribunals may not consider statements obtained with undue coercion. This bill also contains a provision I authored establishing the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, CLRC, pilot project. It became abundantly clear after the attacks of September 11, 2001, that the U.S. Government had a dearth of critical language skills. The 9/11 Commission report documented the disastrous consequences of this deficiency that, unfortunately, we still have not made enough progress in addressing 4 years after the 9/11 tragedy. CLRC is designed to address the Government's critical language shortfall by creating a pool of people with advanced language skills that the Federal Government could call on to assist when needed. The National Security Education Program completed a feasibility study of CLRC and concluded that the concept was sound and ``an important step in addressing both short- and long-term shortfalls related to language assets in the national security community.'' It also recommended that a 3-year pilot project be conducted to work out any potential problems. My amendment establishes this pilot project. I want to thank the managers of the bill for working with me to include this important measure and thank Senator Coleman for cosponsoring my amendment. I also want to thank the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for continuing to work with me in assisting the families of injured service members. I was pleased that Congress included my amendment on travel benefits for the family of injured service members in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005, P.L. 109-13. My amendment corrected a flaw in the law that unintentionally restricted the number of families of injured service members that qualify for travel assistance. Too many families were being denied help in visiting their injured loved ones because the Army had not officially listed them as ``seriously injured,'' even though these men and women have been evacuated out of the combat zone to the United State for treatment. The change in the law now ensures that families of injured service members evacuated to a U.S. hospital get at least one trip paid for so the families can quickly reunite and begin recovering from the trauma they have experienced. The family travel provision in P.L. 109-13 was sunset at the end of the 2005 fiscal year, H.J. Res. 68 continues to make this travel provision available until November 18 of this year. I was concerned that Congress may not pass the necessary legislation to make this travel benefit permanent before November 18. However, the distinguished Chairman assured me that he would continue working to extend this benefit in fiscal year 2006 until it becomes permanent through the Defense authorization process. There are provisions in this bill with which I disagree, and the Senate rejected a number of amendments that would have made this bill better. We continue to waste billions on Cold-War-era weapons systems designed to counter the Soviet Union while not fully funding the needs of the military personnel fighting our current wars. However, on balance, this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families, and that is why I support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the Displaced Citizens Voter Protection Act. This bill is a companion measure to legislation introduced in the House by my friend Representative Artur Davis of Alabama. He has been a real advocate for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and I greatly appreciate his leadership on this issue. We are continuing to learn more about and to grapple with the myriad ways that the Hurricane Katrina disaster has affected the lives of residents of the Gulf Coast. Hundreds of thousands of people fled their homes, and are temporarily displaced. Most of these people hope to eventually return to the communities from which they were driven, and have every intention of rebuilding their lives there. As the communities in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi begin to rebuild, it is crucial that those who wish to return are able to take part in the government decisions that will have an impact on their communities and their lives. They must be able to elect the Federal leaders who will shape this recovery process. The legislation that I will introduce today will make sure that victims of Hurricane Katrina who are temporarily displaced, and who intend to return to their home States, continue to be eligible to vote in their States, and that the government takes steps to inform them of their rights in this area. It would extend the same voting protections currently available to members of the military and overseas voters to those who are displaced temporarily by Katrina. Individuals who are qualified to vote in their original place of residence, and who intend to return to that place in the near future, will be able to vote by absentee ballot for Federal elections held through 2008. Voters who intend to return to their original place of residence would be able to use the forms available online that are currently used by members of the military and other citizens who are overseas to request absentee ballots from their home State. Voters requesting an absentee ballot would be required to include an affidavit certifying that they intend to return to their home State in the near future with their ballot. The bill also directs motor vehicle authorities and voter registration agencies to take steps to notify the public that this absentee ballot option is available for Katrina victims. This legislation does not mandate where people should vote, nor does it place additional burdens on State election officials. It simply puts a mechanism in place to make sure that these voters do not lose their right to vote in elections simply because they are temporarily displaced. The challenges that we face in the wake of Katrina are many, and unfortunately there is some disagreement in Congress about how best to help those affected by this tragedy. This is different. This bill is a straightforward, simple, and direct response that will help keep the electoral process accessible for victims of Hurricane Katrina. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge Roberts' impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed. I have often noted that the scrutiny that I will apply to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination and that the scrutiny to be applied to the position of Chief Justice must be the very highest. I have voted for executive branch appointments, and even for court of appeals nominees, whom I would not necessarily vote to put on the Supreme Court. Furthermore, because the Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents, I believe that anyone who sits on that Court must not have a pre-set agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the Court to do justice when other branches of Government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of all citizens. Judge Roberts came to his hearing with a record that few can top. His long record of excellence as a lawyer practicing before the Supreme Court, and his reputation as a lawyer's lawyer who has no ideological agenda, carry substantial weight. I wanted to see, however, how that record and reputation would stand up against a searching inquiry into his past statements and current views. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I was proud to play a role in that inquiry. I believe the hearing was fair and thorough and I congratulate the chairman and ranking member, and all of the members of the committee, for the seriousness with which they undertook this task. One important question I had was about Judge Roberts' views on the role of precedent and stare decisis in our legal system. A lot of the concern about this nomination stems from the fact that many important precedents seem to be hanging by a thread. In both our private meeting and in his hearing, Judge Roberts demonstrated a great respect for precedent and for the importance of stability and settled expectations. His themes of modesty and humility showed appropriate respect for the work of the Justices who have come before him. He convinced me that he will take these issues very seriously, with respect to both the constitutional right to privacy and many other issues of settled law. As I am sure every Member of the Senate noticed and expected, Judge Roberts did not expressly say how he would rule if asked to overturn Roe v. Wade. But if Judge Roberts abides by what he said about how he would approach the question of stare decisis, I think he should vote to uphold Roe. He certainly left some wiggle room, and he said he would approach the possibility of overturning a case differently if the underlying precedents themselves came into question. But it will be difficult to overrule Roe or other important precedents while remaining true to his testimony about stability and settled law, including his statement that he agrees with the outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. I know the American people will be watching him very closely on that question, and I personally will consider it a reversal of huge proportions, and a grave disappointment, if he ultimately does attempt to go down that road. I was also impressed that Judge Roberts does not seem inclined to try to rein in Congress's power under the commerce clause. He repeatedly called attention to the Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Raich as indicating that the Court is not headed inexorably in the direction it turned in the Lopez and Morrison cases limiting Congress's power. His approving references to Raich suggests to me that he will take a more moderate stance on these issues than his mentor, Chief Justice Rehnquist. His attitude seems to be if Congress does its job right, he will not stand in the way as a judge. That is, of course, cold comfort if the Court creates new hoops for Congress to jump through and applies them retroactively. I hope that Judge Roberts will recognize that Congress can pay attention to what the Court says is needed to justify legislation only if the Court gives clear advance notice of those requirements. Judge Roberts also seemed to reject a return to the Lochner era, when a majority of the Court invoked the due process and contracts clauses of the Constitution to strike down child labor and other laws it disagreed with, and the courts openly acted as a superlegislature, rejecting congressional enactments based on their own political and economic judgments. Judge Roberts disparaged the Lochner decision, saying, ``[y]ou can read that opinion today and it's quite clear that they're not interpreting the law, they're making the law.'' That is a marked contrast to many in the so-called ``Constitution in Exile'' movement, including recently confirmed DC Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Judge Roberts' determination to be a humble and modest judge should lead him to reject efforts to undermine Congress's power to address social and economic problems through national legislation. I view that as a significant commitment he has made to the Congress and to the country. Another important issue involves not so much respect for settled precedent, but rather questions that will arise in the future with respect to the application of the Bill of Rights in a time of war. The Supreme Court has already dealt with a series of cases arising from the Bush administration's conduct of the fight against terrorism, and will undoubtedly face many more during the next Chief Justice's term. Indeed, how the new Justices address these issues may well define them and the Court in history. For me, Judge Roberts' discussion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has been such an issue in the Patriot Act debate, was a defining moment in the hearing. His answers showed a gut- level understanding of the potential dangers of a court that operates entirely in secret, with no adversary process. His instincts as a lawyer, one who trusts our judicial system and its protections to yield the correct result under the rule of law, seemed to take over, and he seemed genuinely disturbed by the idea of a court without the usual protections of an open, adversary process. Here is what he said about the FISA Court to Senator DeWine: I'll be very candid. When I first learned about the FISA Court, I was surprised. It's not what we usually think of when we think of a court. We think of a place where we can go, we can watch the lawyers argue and it's subject to the glare of publicity and the judges explain their decision to the public and they can examine them. That's what we think of as a court. This is a very different and unusual institution. That was my first reaction. I appreciate the reasons that it operates the way it does, but it does seem to me that the departures from the normal judicial model that are involved there put a premium on the individuals involved. Judge Roberts' comments, and that he went out of his way to express surprise at the fact that this secret court even exists, suggests to me that he would address issues related to FISA, such as government secrecy and challenges to civil liberties, with an appropriately skeptical mindset. I was troubled when Judge Roberts refused to give a fuller answer about his view of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdi case, and I have concerns about his decision as an appeals court judge in the Hamdan case regarding military commissions. But Judge Roberts did tell me that he believes: ``The Bill of Rights doesn't change during times of war. The Bill of Rights doesn't change in times of crisis.'' I was pleased to hear him recognize this fundamental principle. I do not want to minimize the concerns that have been expressed by those who oppose the nomination. I share some of them. Many of my misgivings about this nomination stem from Judge Roberts' refusal to answer many of our reasonable questions. Not only that, he refused to acknowledge that many of the positions he took as a member of the Reagan administration team were misguided or in some cases even flat- out wrong. I do not understand why the one person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the Supreme Court has done is the person whom the American public most needs to hear from. No one on the committee asked him for a commitment on a given case or set of issues. We certainly recognize that it is possible his views might change once he is on the Court and hears the arguments and discusses the issues with his colleagues. All of those caveats would have been perfectly appropriate. But why shouldn't the committee and the public have some idea of where he stands, or at least what his instincts are, on recent controversial decisions? Although in some areas he was more forthcoming than others, Judge Roberts did not answer questions that he could and should have-- unfortunately with the full support of committee members who want to smooth his confirmation--and I think that is disrespectful of the Senate's constitutional role. In addition, the administration's refusal to respond to a reasonable, limited request for documents from the time Judge Roberts served in the Solicitor General's office did a real disservice to the country and to the nominee. My voting in favor of Judge Roberts does not endorse this refusal. In fact, if not for Judge Roberts' singular qualifications, I may have felt compelled to oppose his nomination on these grounds alone. Future nominees who refuse to answer reasonable questions or whose documents the administration--any administration--refuses to provide should not count on my approval. Also troubling was Judge Roberts' approach to the memos he wrote as a young Reagan administration lawyer. His writings from his early service in government were those of a very smart man who was at times a little too sure of himself and too dismissive of other viewpoints. I wanted to see if the Judge Roberts of 2005 had grown from the John Roberts of 1985, whose strong views often suggested a rigid ideological agenda. I wanted to see the possibility of a seasoned, wise, and just John Roberts on the Supreme Court, not just a more polished, shrewder version of his younger self. Unfortunately, he refused to disavow any of those memos, many of which laid out disturbing opinions on a variety of issues, from voting rights, to habeas corpus, to affirmative action. He refused to acknowledge that some of his tone and word choice in that era demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to minorities and women, and to the challenges they face. Instead, he took refuge in the argument that he was simply doing his job, so we are not now supposed to infer anything about his beliefs or motivations based on the memos he wrote in the 1980s. I found these arguments unpersuasive, particularly since several of these memos indicate that those were, in fact, his own personal views. And I do not understand why he felt he had to defend these 20-year-old memos. Maybe it was pride. Maybe it was a political strategy dictated by a White House that so rarely admits error. But take voting rights-- it should have been easy for Judge Roberts to say that in retrospect he was wrong about the dangers of the effects test, and that the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act that he opposed have been good for the country. Instead, he said he wasn't an expert on the Voting Rights Act and insisted on the correctness of his position. That troubles me. The John Roberts of 2005 did not have to embrace the John Roberts of 1985, but in some cases he did, all too readily. On the other hand, I am not sure that the John Roberts of 1985 would have told Senator Feinstein with respect to affirmative action that: ``A measured effort that can withstand strict scrutiny is . . . a very positive approach.'' His answers to questions on affirmative action, seemed to me, on balance, to be an encouraging sign that he will not undo the Court's current approach. Finally, I was unhappy with Judge Roberts' failure to recuse himself in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, once he realized he was being seriously considered for a Supreme Court nomination. It is also hard to believe, as Judge Roberts testified, that he does not remember precisely when the possibility of an ethics violation first came to his attention. Judge Roberts sat on a court of appeals panel that heard the appeal of a district court ruling that, if upheld, would have been a huge setback for the administration's position on military commissions and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. And he heard oral argument just 6 days after interviewing for a Supreme Court appointment with the Attorney General of the United States, who also was a major participant in the underlying legal judgment of the administration that was challenged in the case. I am troubled that Judge Roberts apparently didn't recognize at the time that there was an ethical issue. I give great weight to ethical considerations in judicial nominations. For example, when Judge Charles Pickering solicited letters of recommendation for his court of appeals nomination from lawyers practicing before him in the district court, I found that very significant, especially in combination with his actions in a cross burning case where improper ex parte contacts were alleged. But while the issue raised about Judge Roberts is serious, I do not see such a pattern with Judge Roberts, who has a long record and reputation for ethical behavior. Nor is there evidence of the egregious, almost aggressive unethical behavior that was present in the nomination of Judge Pickering. I hope that Judge Roberts now understands the concerns that I and a number of respected legal ethicists have about his participation in the Hamdan case. It is not too late for him to recuse himself and allow a new panel to hear the case. At the end of the day, I had to ask myself: What kind of Justice does this man aspire to be? An ideologue? A lawyer's lawyer? A great Supreme Court Justice like Justice Jackson, who moved comfortably from the top legal positions in the Department of Justice to a judicial position in which he was more than willing to challenge executive power? A Chief Justice who will go down in history as the leader of a sharp ideological turn to the right, or a consensus builder who is committed to the Court and its role as guarantor of basic freedoms? I have talked to a number of people who know John Roberts or to people who know people who know John Roberts. Those I have heard from directly or indirectly have seen him develop since 1985 into one of the foremost Supreme Court advocates in the Nation, whose skills and judgment are respected by lawyers from across the ideological spectrum. They don't see him as a champion of one cause, as a narrow ideologue who wants to impose his views on the country. They see him as openminded, respectful, thoughtful, devoted to the law, and truly one of the great legal minds of his time. That carries a great deal of weight with me. And it helps to overcome my frustration with Judge Roberts for not distancing himself from what he wrote in his Reagan-era memos and with the White House for refusing to release relevant documents to the committee. History has shown that control of the White House, and with it the power to shape the courts, never stays for too long with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime. This is not a matter of deference to the President's choice. It is instead a recognition that the Supreme Court should be open to the very brightest of legal minds on either side of the political spectrum. The position of Chief Justice demands the very highest scrutiny from the Senate, and the qualifications and abilities of the nominee for this position must shine through. Judge Roberts has the legal skills, the intellect, and the character to be a good Chief Justice, and I hope he fulfills that promise. I wish him well. May his service be a credit not only to the rule of law, but also to the principles of equality and freedom and justice that make this country so great.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise once again today to comment on the deeply disturbing consequences of the President's misguided policies in Iraq. I have spoken before about my grave concern that the administration's Iraq policies are actually strengthening the hand of our enemies, fueling the insurgency's recruitment of foreign fighters, and unifying elements of the insurgency that might otherwise turn on each other. But today I want to focus on a different and equally alarming issue, which is that the Bush administration's policies in Iraq are making America weaker. None of us should stand by and allow this to continue. It is shocking to me this Senate has not found the time and the energy to take up the Defense authorization bill and give that bill the full debate and attention it deserves. Our men and women in uniform and our military families continue to make real sacrifices every day in service to this country. They perform their duties with skill and honor, sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances. But the Senate has not performed its duties, and the state of the U.S. military desperately needs our attention. The administration's policies in Iraq are breaking the U.S. Army. As soldiers confront the prospect of a third tour in the extremely difficult theater of Iraq, it would be understandable if they began to wonder why all of the sacrifice undertaken by our country in wartime seems to be falling on their shoulders. It would be understandable if they and their brothers and sisters in the Marine Corps began to feel some skepticism about whether essential resources, such as adequately armored vehicles, will be there when they need them. It would be understandable if they came to greet information about deployment schedules with cynicism because reliable information has been hard to come by for our military families in recent years. And it would be understandable if they asked themselves whether their numbers will be great enough--great enough--to hold hard-won territory, and whether properly vetted translators will be available to help them distinguish friend from foe. At some point, the sense of solidarity and commitment that helps maintain strong retention rates can give way to a sense of frustration with the status quo. I fear we may be very close to that tipping point today. It is possible we may not see the men and women of the Army continue to volunteer for more of the same. It is not reasonable to expect that current retention problems will improve rather than worsen. We should not bet our national security on that kind of wishful thinking. Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering. According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending 1 of every 2 years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. In an era in which we confront a globally networked enemy, and at a time when nuclear weapons proliferation is an urgent threat, continuing on our present course is irresponsible at best. We are not just wearing out the troops; we are also wearing out equipment much faster than it is being replaced or refurbished. Days ago, the chief of the National Guard, GEN H. Steven Blum, told a group of Senate staffers that the National Guard had approximately 75 percent of the equipment it needed on 9/11, 2001. Today, the National Guard has only 34 percent of the equipment it needs. The response to Hurricane Katrina exposed some of the dangerous gaps in the Guard's communications systems. What we are asking of the Army is not sustainable, and the burden and the toll it is taking on our military families is unacceptable. This cannot go on. Many of my colleagues, often led by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, have taken stock of where we stand and have joined to support efforts to expand the size of our standing Army. But this effort, which I support, is a solution for the long term, because it depends on new recruits to address our problems. We cannot suddenly increase the numbers of experienced soldiers so essential to providing leadership in the field. It takes years to grow a new crop of such leaders. But the annual resignation rate of Army lieutenants and captains rose last year to its highest rate since the attacks of September 11, 2001. We are heading toward crisis right now. Growing the all-volunteer Army can only happen if qualified new recruits sign up for duty. But all indications suggest that at the end of this month the Army will fall thousands short--thousands short--of its annual recruiting goal. Barring some sudden and dramatic change, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve too will miss their annual targets by about 20 percent, missing their targets this year by 20 percent in terms of recruitment. GEN Peter Schoomaker, the Army's Chief of Staff, told Congress recently that 2006 ``may be the toughest recruiting environment ever.'' Too often, too many of us are reluctant to criticize the administration's policies in Iraq for fear that anything other than staying the course set by the President will somehow appear weak. But the President's course is misguided, and it is doing grave damage to our extraordinarily professional and globally admired all-volunteer U.S. Army. To stand by--to stand by--while this damage is done is not patriotic. It is not supportive. It is not tough on terrorism, nor is it strong on national security. Because I am proud of our men and women in uniform, and because I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to make this country more secure, I am convinced we must change our course. As some of my colleagues know, I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission the United States military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq, and laying out a plan and a timeframe for accomplishing that mission and subsequently bringing our troops home. It is in our interest to provide some clarity about our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely. I have tried to jump-start this discussion by proposing a date for U.S. troop withdrawal: December 31, 2006. We need to start working with a realistic set of plans and benchmarks if we are to gain control of our Iraq policy, instead of simply letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital resources for an unlimited amount of time. So this brings me to another facet of this administration's misguided approach to Iraq, another front on which our great country is growing weaker rather than stronger as a result of the administration's policy choices, and that is the tremendously serious fiscal consequences of the President's decision to put the entire Iraq war on our national tab. How much longer can the elected representatives of the American people in this Congress allow the President to rack up over $1 billion a week in new debts? This war is draining, by one estimate, $5.6 billion every month from our economy--funds that might be used to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina recover, or to help address the skyrocketing health care costs facing businesses and families, or to help pay down the enormous debt this Government has already piled up. Not only are we weakening our economy today, this costly war is undermining our Nation's economic future because none of that considerable expenditure has been offset in the budget by cuts in spending elsewhere or by revenue increases. All of it--every penny--has been added to the already massive debt that will be paid by future generations of Americans. For years now, this administration has refused to budget for the cost of our ongoing operations in Iraq that can be predicted, and has refused to make the hard choices that would be required to cover those costs. Instead--instead--the President apparently prefers to leave those tough calls to our children.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Could I do that in 2 minutes?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to finish my statement. Mr. President, in effect, we are asking future generations to pay for this war, and they will pay for it in the form of higher taxes or fewer Government benefits. They stand to inherit a weakened America, one so compromised by debt and economic crisis that the promise of opportunity for all has faded. And there is no end in sight. In addition to that, the war will leave other costly legacies. Here again, it is the members of the military and their families who will endure the most severe costs. But even if the war ended tomorrow, the Nation will continue to pay the price for decades to come. Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard estimates that over the next 45 years, the health care, disability, and other benefits due our Iraq war veterans will cost $315 billion. We owe our brave troops the services and benefits they are due. We owe it to them and to their children and to their grandchildren to guide the course of this country and this economy to ensure that we are in a position to deliver for our veterans and for all Americans. I cannot support an Iraq policy that makes our enemies stronger and our country weaker, and that is why I will not support staying the course the President has set. If Iraq were truly the solution to our national security challenges, this gamble with the future of our military and with our economy--who knows?--might make sense, if that were the case. If Iraq, rather than such strategically more significant countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were at the heart of the global fight against violent Islamic terrorism, this might make some sense. If it were true that fighting insurgents in Baghdad meant we would not have to fight them elsewhere, all the costs of this policy might well make sense. But these things are not true. Iraq is not--is not--the ``silver bullet'' in the fight against global terrorist networks. As I have argued in some detail, it is quite possible that the administration's policies in Iraq are actually strengthening the terrorists by helping them to recruit new fighters from around the world, giving those jihadists on-the-ground training in terrorism, and building new, transnational networks among our enemies. Meanwhile, the costs of staying this course indefinitely, the consequences of weakening America's military and America's economy, loom more ominously before us with each passing week. There is no leadership in simply hoping for the best. We must insist on an Iraq policy that makes sense. I yield to the Senator from California for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from California. She accurately described the way in which we got in this situation. I called it on the Senate floor, in October 2002, shifting justifications. The one we began with, the one that sold the American people, was that somehow there was a connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Most of the American people apparently believed it because the President told them so at the time of the invasion. That would have been the ultimate justification because everybody assumed the Iraq invasion had something to do with that. Ever since that myth has been exploded, the administration has been trying any way, scampering any way they can to come up with other justifications--the obviously failed attempt to suggest the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein, and then 6 to 7 months later, a year later, the President suddenly announces what he was really trying to do was to start a domino effect. We were going to fight a war that was going to create a domino effect of democracy around the world, which is a lovely ideal and notion, but nobody thought that was the justification when we voted here. I am guessing that it wouldn't have gotten one single vote if Members thought we were buying into that kind of project. The Senator is right, not only with regard to how we got into the war but also with regard to how this administration is conducting the war. It is a mixture of so many inconsistent justifications that it doesn't make sense. I had 18 town meetings in northern and central Wisconsin, some of them at very conservative areas, during the August recess. These were places where most of the people supported the Iraq war. They came to my town meetings and said: Why is this happening? Why were we given false pretenses to get into the war, and why is it that there isn't a serious plan to finish the war? Because of the failure of the administration to handle this war in any sensible way, the very people who supported the war are starting to say: Let's just leave. So the President presents us with a false choice. He says: We have to stay the course. And if you don't believe in staying the course, then you must be for cutting and running. He is causing the movement in America to simply leave Iraq because of his failure of leadership. What our resolution does--and I thank the Senator from California for her cosponsorship--is modest. It just says: Mr. President, within 30 days, could you give us a written plan that lays out the best way you want, without being bound to it, what is the plan, what is the mission, what are the benchmarks we have to achieve, by what time do you think we can achieve those benchmarks, and at what point and through what stages do you think we can begin and then complete the withdrawal of our American troops. I say to my friend through the Chair, I think her comments and her question are right on the point. I yield for another question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. The Senator has very nicely returned to the main point of what I was trying to illustrate today. We certainly agree on the problems of how we got into this war and our very troubled feelings about that and also the myriad of problems with the way the war is being conducted. But what the Senator from California has done is returned us to the main point I wanted to make today: This strategy is weakening America. I am not talking about some general sense. We are talking specifically about our military. We are talking specifically about our Army. We are talking specifically about our National Guard. Yes, we know about this in Wisconsin. We have some 10,000 Guard and Reserve. The vast majority of them have been called up for action overseas. There are serious concerns that have been reported--which, by the way, were beginning prior to 9/11--about equipment. It is to the point where my National Guard people ask me to ask the Secretary of Defense, Are we going to replenish these things for our National Guard? What is the guarantee? I received a rather weak answer, as I recall. The equipment needs are only at 34 percent for the National Guard--a dramatic decline in the last 4 years. Since 9/11, we have allowed the situation to become much worse in terms of equipment for our National Guard, whether it be for use in a foreign conflict or whether it be used to handle a terrorist situation domestically or whether it be used to help deal with one of the natural disasters that obviously can and do occur. I appreciate the Senator heightening this point. This isn't about opposing a war. This is about mistakes being made by an administration in terms of forgetting the main point of fighting terrorism and forgetting about the need for our military to be strong both internationally and to be able to help, as the National Guard must, domestically. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are currently observing National Hispanic Heritage Month, a time when many members of the Latino community and the country at large remember and celebrate the profound contributions of Hispanic culture that are woven into the great cultural fabric of America. National Hispanic Heritage Month is celebrated between September 15 and October 15, to coincide with the Independence Day anniversaries of nations throughout Latin America. In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson's proclamation of National Hispanic Heritage Month was authorized by Congress. In 1988, the recognition was expanded to a month-long celebration. America is home to nearly 41 million Latinos, including a thriving population in my home state of Wisconsin. This month, we should take the time to embrace the many important contributions throughout American history of American Latinos that affect all of our everyday lives. This month we celebrate the historic efforts of Cesar Chavez, Jaime Escalante, Roberto Hernandez, Henry Cisneros, Ellen Ochoa and Roberto Clemente, to name just a few. We celebrate their work to break down barriers and create bridges for future generations. But as we celebrate Hispanic heritage, it is also time to address the challenges that face the Hispanic community, such as access to education and health care, fair working conditions, racial profiling and, for many, an ability to keep their family together while working to become legal, permanent residents of this great country. I am a strong supporter of the SOLVE Act, introduced by Senators Kennedy and McCain, that would help keep many Latino families together while their petitions for permanent legal residency are processed. The legislation would help hard-working Hispanics and others become legalized citizens and would offer a new temporary worker program. While we work to improve the immigration system, we must enhance the education of Latino students. Many Latino students face social, economic, and language barriers that can prevent them from receiving the top-quality education they, like all American students, deserve. We must increase funding for English proficiency programs, programs to help low-income students attend college, and programs to help parents involve themselves in their children's education. It must be a priority for Congress to ensure equal education for all so the Hispanic community can continue to flourish and contribute to American culture. In closing, I express my hope that the 109th Congress begins to address these and other pressing priorities for Latinos across the country. We should not limit our celebration of National Hispanic Heritage Month to saluting the achievements of Hispanics, we also need to make sure that we act on the educational, health, labor and other needs of all Americans of Hispanic heritage.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, December 8, 2004, approximately 80 percent of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Wisconsin was designated the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Although we did not formally celebrate the new wilderness area until August 8, 2005, we have been delighting in the designation ever since December of last year. The designation of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness within the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore on August 8, 2005 was a tremendous occasion for both Wisconsin and the country. I was deeply honored to participate in the ceremony marking the creation of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. I knew Gaylord, and am proud to occupy his Senate seat. Like all of those in attendance at the dedication ceremony, including Tia Nelson, Governor Doyle, Congressman Obey, local officials, tribal chairs, and many others, I was deeply saddened that Gaylord wasn't able to be sitting among us, having passed away on July 3, 2005. However, I do believe that, because the area, the magnificent Apostles, and the wilderness designation we were celebrating were such a part of Gaylord, he was in fact there with us that day, urging us to mark the achievement and to continue his life's work of building a national conservation ethic. As we all know, while his record of achievements is long and impressive, it is Senator Nelson's passion and commitment to protecting our environment that will remain the centerpiece of his legacy. For this reason, Senator Kohl and I have submitted a resolution to bring recognition to Gaylord's unwavering efforts on behalf of the environment and to celebrate the dedication of a wilderness area rightly named in his honor. Gaylord so believed in his responsibility to the environment that he started a revolution that has inspired millions of people from across the globe. The day he created in 1970--Earth Day--has become a cause for celebration, education, and reflection for all. Simply stated, Gaylord Nelson changed the consciousness of a Nation, and quite possibly the world. He was a distinguished Governor and Senator, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a personal hero of mine. Most importantly, he was the embodiment of the principle that one person can change the world. August 8, 2005 marked the beginning of a new period for the Apostle Islands and I could not be more proud of this. In 1998, Representative Obey and I asked for a wilderness survey. Seven years later, we finally gathered to salute the awe-inspiring resource as well as the man who dedicated himself to protecting our environment, particularly those places where we humans are but humble visitors--wilderness areas. Let us not forget, however, that before we could talk about having a wilderness area within the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, we had to have a National Lakeshore. I am sure it will come as no surprise that Gaylord was essential in the effort to recognize the Apostle Islands as a national treasure. The wild and primitive nature of the Apostles and now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness has always been an attraction, not only for Wisconsin residents but for people from across the globe. At the Apostles you can find pristine old growth forests; wetlands that are home to an astounding ecological diversity; birds that travel long distances and use the islands for respite; and amphibians, which can act as indicators of the Park's environmental health. It is a truly amazing place. And people know it. In fact, just recently, the Apostles was rated the #1 National Park in the U.S. by National Geographic Traveler. The rating was based on a variety of factors, most notably environmental and ecological quality, social and cultural integrity, and the outlook for the future. We have it all in the Park--ecological and cultural resources intertwined with one another. The history of the islands is a history of people living off, and very much in balance with, the land and water surrounding them. A visit to the Apostles and the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness can be, if we let go of the trappings of modern society, an enlightening voyage that challenges us to think about those who came before us, those who will follow us, and the connections between us and the natural resources we depend on for our survival. The Ojibwae, who Wisconsinites know were the original inhabitants of the Apostles, had great respect for the resources. They believed in taking something only if they were giving something in return. The Ojibwae people understood their dependence on the environment long before many others began contemplating such a relationship. Unfortunately, as a society, we have not always heeded their example. We must be better stewards of our land, our air, and our water. Gaylord pushed us toward that goal every day of his life. And, what better way to mark the dedication of the Wilderness Area named in his honor than for each of us to dedicate ourselves to actively carrying his legacy forward. That is Gaylord's challenge for all of us. So many people supported the creation of the Lakeshore and the Wilderness area. The support has taken many forms--all of which have added to the success of our Park and the wilderness designation. I am especially grateful for the families who have donated their properties, many of which are filled with childhood and other cherished family memories, for the betterment of the whole Apostle Islands and now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Future generations whom none of us will ever know will benefit deeply from their commitment to one of Wisconsin's most treasured places. Every time I visit the Apostles and pieces of what are now the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness, I depart with a sense of inner peace and clarity. A New York Times journalist wrote about the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in 1972, saying he encountered a ``silence so intense you can hear it.'' I believe that what all those who visit the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness are bound to hear through that ``intense silence'' is Gaylord himself calling them to action.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate has approved H.R. 2744, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill providing vital funding for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies. While I may not support every provision, this bill provides important funding to support our Nation's farmers, rural communities, and conservation programs along with providing nutritious food for seniors, children and those in need. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected a number of administration proposals to reduce or eliminate important programs such as funds for research at our land-grant colleges and universities, conservation partnerships through resource conservation and development councils, and funds to combat Johne's disease in our dairy industry. All of these programs were funded at a minimum of last year's levels instead of receiving drastic cuts. After years of delay, I was encouraged that the Senate bill included funds to implement mandatory country-of-origin labeling, COOL, for meat, vegetables and fruits. Country-of-origin labeling is vitally important to enable our farmers to show their pride in the quality of their products, from ginseng to cheese to cranberries. Wisconsin farmers are proud of their work, and many consumers want to support American products--with country-of-origin labeling, both farmers and consumers benefit. I urge the Senate conferees to insist on funding COOL when they meet with the House conferees to resolve differences between the two Chambers' bills. The Senate bill included over $18 million for efforts to control and eradicate chronic wasting disease, CWD, in deer and elk. In addition to this much needed funding, I also worked with Senator Allard to include a provision that would require the Department of Agriculture to set minimum national standards for CWD control. Under the current system there are various State regulations but no set of basic procedures guiding the movement, handling, testing and permitting of captive- raised deer and elk. Our amendment, that was included as part of the bill, requires the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service to publish its uniform methods and rules concerning CWD within 90 days of enactment of the provision. With CWD being newly discovered in New York and West Virginia, it is clear that this disease requires a national response. This provision is an important step to prevent the further spread of CWD and help deer and elk farmers operate safely throughout the Nation. High fuel costs are putting a squeeze on all Americans, but our farmers are in a particularly vulnerable position. While the high fuel costs are hitting them at many levels, they have little flexibility in whether to plant and harvest their fields, pay to move their products to market or procure fertilizer and feed. More than that, they receive what the market dictates for their products, so when fuel costs double or triple and they see fuel surcharges on every one of their bills, they can't pass these costs on and receive a higher price for their milk, grain or other products. In recognition of this difficult situation, I was proud to cosponsor an amendment offered by Senator Salazar that was included in the bill as a first step to addressing this problem. The amendment requires the Department of Agriculture to study the issue and issue a report on the impact to farmers. I also submitted an amendment to the bill to require the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to conduct a study on the levels of pesticides in domestic and imported ginseng. With Wisconsin ginseng being highly prized worldwide for its quality and lack of unsafe residues, mislabeled imported ginseng, often with high levels of pesticide residues, remains a problem for our producers. This study would have investigated this issue and provided important information to focus FDA's enforcement activities on reducing the amount of unsafe ginseng being passed off as Wisconsin- or U.S.-grown and helping growers fight back against this unfair competition. I was disappointed that I was blocked from having this amendment included in the bill. Despite this setback, I will continue to fight for better enforcement to protect consumers and Wisconsin's ginseng growers.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today will help to ensure that our veterans have easy access to information about the benefits that they have earned through their service to our country. Each year, the Department of Veterans Affairs publishes an updated version of a handbook entitled, ``Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents,'' which contains useful information about benefits that are available through the VA. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites who are concerned that this useful handbook is not readily available to our veterans and to County Veterans Service Officers, CVSOs, and others who assist our veterans. It is my understanding that the Department purchases a limited number of copies of this handbook each year that some are distributed to VA regional offices, to VA health care facilities, and to State Departments of Veterans Affairs. Some of my constituents are concerned that some facilities appear to have large stockpiles of this handbook, while others only receive a very limited number. I am also told that distribution of the handbook is largely left up to regional and local VA officials. A number of Wisconsin CVSOs have informed me that they are having trouble obtaining adequate supplies of this handbook, and that they often have to rely on VA health care facilities or other sources to obtain additional copies. While I recognize that the handbook is available for download on the Department's Web site and for purchase through the Government Printing Office, GPO, many CVSOs and veterans service organizations do not have the resources to copy or purchase this handbook in large quantities. In addition, many veterans, particularly older veterans, do not have access to--or are unable to use--the Internet and it seems unreasonable to charge them $7 to purchase the handbook from GPO. Veterans who want a copy of this handbook should get one--it's that simple. This handbook serves as a tangible reminder of the benefits they earned, and it also serves as a helpful guide for CVSOs, veterans service organizations, and others who work every day to ensure that our veterans receive these benefits. One Wisconsin CVSO tells me that this handbook is very valuable in his work with veterans, some of whom have told him that they have difficulty navigating the VA Web site or easily finding information in the online copy of the handbook. Being able to point a veteran to a specific page in the handbook is an important step in helping veterans to learn about their benefits or to find the answers to many common questions that veterans may have about these benefits. Last year, in response to the concerns raised by my constituents, I asked former Secretary Principi to review the Department's policy for distributing this important handbook, including ensuring that CVSOs have access to this document. I also asked that he look into how to reallocate the supply to avoid a situation in which certain parts of the VA have surpluses while others are scrambling to get these handbooks to veterans who are requesting them. I also asked that he provide an estimate of how much it would cost to ensure that all CVSOs in the country are provided at least one case of the handbook each year and whether the Department's current annual supply of handbooks could be reallocated to achieve this goal. Finally, I requested that the Secretary provide me with information on the distribution policies of the various VA administrations with respect to providing copies of this handbook to individual veterans, including a description of the VA's policy regarding making these handbooks visibly available to individual veterans at VA facilities. In the former Secretary's response, he assured me that ``. . . due to the increased outreach efforts initiated this past year, as well as the requests for additional handbooks from external veterans service providers, I am directing my senior leadership to reevaluate their requirements for publication and distribution of the 2005 handbook. Please be assured that county veterans service officers across the nation are included in next year's distribution.'' While I was encouraged by the former Secretary's response, CVSOs around Wisconsin tell me that they received only one or two copies of the 2006 edition of the handbook. This meager supply is not sufficient to use the handbook as a reference and to provide copies to veterans who request them. The amendment that I am offering today would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees a plan to provide an adequate supply of the 2006 edition of the ``Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents'' handbook and all subsequent editions of this handbook to all county veterans service officers in the country. My amendment would also require the Secretary to work with the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, other veterans service organizations, and state departments of veterans affairs to determine what supply is adequate and to include a cost estimate for providing these handbooks to all county veterans service officers in his report. The report would be due not later than 60 days after the enactment of this bill. Some at the VA have argued that this important handbook was developed as a desk reference for VA employees, CVSOs, veterans service organizations, and others who help veterans to learn about and obtain their benefits. Former Secretary Principi's letter to me states that in 2003 ``. . . more than 1.4 million copies of the handbook were printed and distributed through the VA system. VA facilities, in turn, distributed handbooks to local veterans support agencies and organizations, responded to requests for the handbooks and used them as special events such as homeless veterans stand downs, veterans conferences, health fairs, and job fairs.'' While this handbook is indeed a helpful reference for those who work on behalf of our Nation's veterans, it is also a comprehensive and handy guide to veterans benefits that many veterans around my State have requested from their CVSOs. And it is evident from the former Secretary's response that the VA itself has made this publication available to individual veterans at a variety of events. No CVSO should have to refuse a veteran a copy of this booklet because he or she has been given an inadequate supply. No CVSO should have to tell a veteran that he or she does not have the budget to make the veteran a photocopy of the handbook or that he or she can gain access to it on the Internet or by purchasing it from GPO. I am pleased that this amendment has the support of the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers and the Wisconsin Department of the American Legion. I understand that the managers have agreed to accept my amendment, and I want to thank them for their support on this issue. I look forward to reviewing the Secretary's report.