Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment that the majority leader has decided to postpone further action on this year's Defense authorization bill. This is an extremely important piece of legislation that deserves the Senate's full and careful consideration right away. I have several worthy amendments to the bill, as do many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. We have an obligation to our men and women in uniform and to the American people to thoroughly debate these important amendments and come up with the best legislation possible for our Nation's security. If cloture is invoked on this bill prematurely, the Senate will not have been able to take up many of the essential amendments on which the Senate should be spending time, addressing such issues as pay and benefits for military personnel, nonproliferation, and our detention policies. I am therefore hopeful that the Senate will reject attempts to cut off debate on this bill prematurely. Unfortunately, rather than allowing debate and action on the Defense authorization bill to continue, the majority leader has decided to move to a special interest bill instead. I am hopeful, however, that the Senate will soon be able to go back to working on a bill that is so important to our national security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Thomas C. Dorr to be Under Secretary for Rural Development and a member of the Commodity Credit Corporation board at the Department of Agriculture, USDA. The position at USDA to which Mr. Dorr has been nominated is highly influential in the continued development of rural America, holding the unique responsibility of coordinating Federal assistance to rural areas of the Nation. Many people, when they think of rural America, may think of small towns, miles of rivers and streams, and perhaps farm fields. But rural Wisconsin is also characterized by communities in need of firefighting equipment, seniors who need access to affordable healthcare services, and low-income families in need of a home. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development programs and services can help individuals, families, and communities address these and other concerns, which is why the office of Under Secretary for Rural Development is so important. I have deep concerns regarding Mr. Dorr's comments and opinions about the future of rural America, particularly in light of his nomination to this important post. I disagree with Mr. Dorr's promotion of large corporate farms and his vision of the future of agriculture. Nevertheless, when it comes to confirming presidential nominees for positions advising the President, I will act in accordance with what I feel is the proper constitutional role of the Senate. I believe that the Senate should allow a President to appoint people to advise him who share his philosophy and principles. My approach to judicial nominations, of course, is different--nominees for lifetime positions in the judicial branch warrant particularly close scrutiny. My objections to this nomination are not simply based on the nominee's views, however. I also have strong reservations about Mr. Dorr's public comments on issues of race and ethnicity and I am troubled by Mr. Dorr's apparent and admitted abuse of the Government's farm programs. While I acknowledge Mr. Dorr's recent apology, his insensitive remarks and ethical record are not compatible with the important position to which he has been nominated, and I will oppose his nomination.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the transcript from Senator Gaylord Nelson's memorial service in Madison, WI, be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to add my thoughts to the debate on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. First, I want to preface my remarks by applauding the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for their work on this important bill. They worked within very difficult constraints and had to make incredibly difficult tradeoffs in deciding where to place our homeland security spending priorities. The fight against terrorism is our number one priority and this appropriations bill is a key component in that fight. We have been debating this important bill in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in London. Those horrible attacks served as yet another reminder of the importance of working with our allies to defeat terrorist networks. This tragic event also reminds us of how much we rely on our first responders and the employees of the Department of Homeland Security to keep us safe. I want to thank these brave men and women who work daily to protect this Nation. They are on the front lines of the fight against terrorism. They are the ones who are called on to stop and respond to any future attack upon our Nation. This bill includes important resources these brave men and women need to perform their critical tasks. I was pleased that the Senate adopted my amendment requiring the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on its use of data-mining in fiscal year 2006. This amendment will provide the American people with critical information about the use of and plans for data-mining technology and the way highly personal information, like credit reports, travel records and other personal information, may be obtained and used by our Government. This amendment will not stop any data-mining--it simply requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on any data-mining programs it is using or developing and how these programs implicate the civil liberties and privacy of all Americans. With complete information, the American people will be able to make considered judgments about which programs should and should not go forward. I was also pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment that I cosponsored that was offered by Senator Voinovich. This amendment increases funding for Emergency Management Performance Grants, EMPG, by $10 million to $190 million, which is $20 million more than requested by the President. The EMPG program is crucial in assisting State and local officials in preparing for all-hazards emergencies. The program provides emergency managers with the resources they need to increase coordination and planning so that if an emergency occurs, State and local officials will respond much more efficiently and effectively. Although this boost in funding does not fully address the $264 million shortfall identified last year by the National Emergency Management Association, it is an important step in the right direction. Unfortunately, not all of our first responder programs fared as well. Many, including firefighter grants and State homeland security grants, were significantly cut. This bill also has less funding for transit security than last year's Senate bill and bipartisan efforts to increase that funding to levels authorized by the Senate last year unfortunately failed. Although I am very disappointed with the major cuts to first responder programs and the failure to increase transit funding, I believe this bill accomplishes a lot within the budgetary constraints in which it operates. It goes a long way towards improving our border security and to combating the multitude of evolving threats faced by our Nation. However, I regret that it does not go far enough. Let me explain. I strongly agree with the distinguished chairman when he said that Congress must decide on the budget priorities within the context of a reasonable budget for national defense and homeland security. We must answer the question: Do our national security budget priorities most effectively address the threats we face? I believe that this homeland security bill does a reasonably good job within its limited budget allocation. However, within the broader context of our overall national security spending, our priorities are abysmally out of touch with reality. For example, we continue to spend $8 billion to $10 billion a year on an unproven missile defense system. Those figures suggest that this troubled program is almost twice as important to our Nation's security as Customs and Border Protection, three times more important than the entire Transportation Security Administration, and three times more important than the combined funding for our first responders, ports, transit, and rail security. It is time to take a broader view when it comes to our national security budget priorities and make the tradeoffs that must be made. I supported several amendments that would have added funding for critical security needs not fully addressed in this bill. I must point out again this year that I do not take lightly my decision to vote in favor of spending more money. Fiscal responsibility is one of my highest priorities and I constantly look for ways to limit government spending. I am honored that the Concord Coalition and others have recognized me for my efforts in this regard. Although fiscal responsibility remains one of my top priorities, it is imperative that we provide the resources needed to combat terrorism. I voted for this bill because it provides funding for many important security needs. However, our Nation's vulnerabilities demand more and I will continue to work to ensure that our vital homeland security needs are met. Stopping Gun Violence Through Public Awareness

Mr FEINGOLD

Mr FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2005. This bill builds on similar legislation that was introduced in the House by Representatives Marty Meehan and Rahm Emmanuel. I have long believed that to truly serve our constituents well, we must reduce the impact of big money on the legislative process. I have devoted a great deal of time over the years to reforming our campaign finance laws. With the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002, we took several important, and I believe successful, steps to reduce the influence of special interests and return some measure of power to the American people. But campaign contributions are only part of the story. In fact, during recent election cycles, the amount spent on lobbying members of Congress once they are elected has been more than double the amount spent on getting them elected in the first place. Yet lobbyists and the lobbying industry remain partly in the shadows, even after the significant improvements to the disclosure laws enacted in 1995. Ten years later, the weaknesses of that law have become apparent, as have the weaknesses in the congressional gift rules that we passed around the same time. Recent scandals involving lobbyists have made very clear that if this body is to be responsive to the people, not just a narrow set of special interests, we must strengthen the disclosure rules governing the lobbying industry and close loopholes in the gift rules. The lobbying industry continues to grow at a startling rate. According to the Center for Public Integrity, over three billion dollars were spent on lobbying in 2004, nearly double the amount spent just six years earlier. This dramatic increase in lobbying expenditures has led to an equally dramatic growth in the number of registered lobbyists. A story in the Washington Post from June of this year reports that there are currently more than 34,750 registered lobbyists, which represents a 100% increase from 2000. Not surprisingly, a few powerful industries account for much of this growth. In the last six years, the pharmaceutical industry alone has spent over three quarters of a billion dollars on lobbying, enough to finance over 3,000 professional lobbyists. The insurance industry is not far behind. During this same period, insurance companies spent over 600 million dollars and employed over 2,000 lobbyists. Despite the growing presence of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, and despite the improvements made in the 1995 law, regulation of the lobbying industry remains inadequate. The Senate office in charge of overseeing lobbying disclosure reports employs fewer than 20 people, and the equivalent House office employs fewer than 35. Compare these numbers to the Federal Election Commission, which many people believe is itself understaffed, but which has a staff of nearly 400 to oversee and enforce campaign finance laws. Given these numbers, it should not come as a shock that oversight of the booming lobbying industry is not what we would like it to be. In the past six years alone, over 300 individuals and companies lobbied without registering first. One in five lobbying companies failed to file required disclosure forms. And the Center for Public Integrity reports that over 14,000 disclosure documents that should have been filed are not available, including documents relating to 49 of the top 50 lobbying firms. When the disclosure requirements are not enforced, it can only be expected that they and other rules relating to lobbying will not be followed. In the last six months, we have seen a number of stories in the press detailing the increasingly cozy relationship between lobbyists and certain members of Congress. We have seen stories of lobbyists funding international junkets for members, their families, and their staff, which include days on famous golf courses and nights in luxurious resorts. We have seen stories of members and their staff accepting lavish gifts and expensive meals from lobbyists. And we haves seen stories of lobbyists providing members with free access to their companies' or clients' corporate jets so that they can fly in comfort from fundraiser to fundraiser. But the enticements offered by lobbyists are not all quite so exotic indeed, many lobbyists merely offer plum positions in their K Street offices. According to a 2005 report, more than 2200 former federal government employees were registered as federal lobbyists between 1998 and 2004. Of those, more then 200 were former members of Congress. In fact, Public Citizen reports that nearly half of all members returning to the private sector accept positions in the lobbying industry. For congressional employees, the prospect of receiving lobbying positions, which often pay several times more than their current jobs, can easily create conflicts of interest and may affect the decisions they make in their official capacity. The problems with oversight of the lobbying industry are systemic and they are troubling. Even the minimal disclosure requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act are often ignored because lobbyists know they will not be penalized. The revolving door between the Hill and K Street spins faster than ever. And flaws in the gift rules are allowing handouts from lobbyists to rapidly increase the influence of special interests at the expense of the average citizen. I am told that it is not uncommon for lobbyists to perch themselves at the end of a bar and buy drinks for any congressional staffer who comes by. This is permissible under the Senate's current gift rules, and it shouldn't be. Lobbyists complain about pressure--if not outright blatant requests-- from Members and congressional staff to pay for their food and drinks. Clearly, there is plenty of blame to go around. My bill addresses these concerns in four ways. First, my bill makes the lobbying process more transparent by enhancing the specificity, frequency, and accessibility of lobbying disclosure reports. The bill would require these periodic reports filed by lobbyists to identify the members of Congress with whom they met, divulge all past senior-level legislative or executive branch employment, and separate out and report the amount of money spent on grassroots lobbying efforts. Lobbyists would have to file these reports on a quarterly, rather than a semiannual, basis. And the bill would require the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House to make these reports available in a searchable database that would allow the public to gather information on lobbyists quickly and efficiently. The bill also requires the disclosure of entities that contribute large sums of money to lobbying coalitions. And it doubles the civil penalty for knowingly failing to file lobbying reports or filing false information. Second, this bill should slow the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying industry. It establishes a two-year waiting period for members, senior staff, and senior executive personnel to participate in lobbying. During this cooling-off period, members and senior executive personnel would be prohibited from engaging in all lobbying activities, including developing strategy for or directing a lobbying campaign. Staff would be forbidden from making direct contact with any members or staff who work in the House of Congress that used to employ them, rather than just the former employing office, as the law now requires. The revolving door provisions in my bill would also require members of Congress to publicly disclose their intent to seek outside employment if a conflict of interest exists. They prohibit members of Congress from taking official actions to influence the employment decisions of outside entities on the basis of partisan affiliation. And they affirm that no member should take official action based on the prospect for personal gain. The bill also prohibits registered lobbyists from taking advantage of special advantages such as gym membership, floor privileges, or access to certain areas of the Capitol that are offered to former Members of Congress. Third, my bill addresses the growing problem of privately funded travel and lobbyist gifts. Before sponsoring a trip for a member or staff, an organization must certify that the trip was not financed or organized by a registered lobbyist and that lobbyists will not participate in or attend the trip. After returning from the trip, the Member or staff must provide a detailed itinerary and description of expenses. My bill also creates a complete ban on lobbyists providing gifts to members and staff and on members accepting gifts from registered lobbyists. Those who file false certifications or fail to observe these rules will be subject to stiff penalties. Finally, the bill seeks to strengthen oversight of lobbying disclosure. A GAO report showing the old lobbying law passed in the 1940s was largely ignored and rarely enforced was an important impetus to passing the Lobbying Disclosure Act in 1995. The bill requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress twice annually on the state of the enforcement of the rules. These reports will help us determine if further improvements in the laws are necessary. These measures are not crafted as a knee-jerk response to the recent spate of troubling revelations about the relationships between certain members of Congress and the lobbying industry. Instead, this bill addresses systemic problems with the rules governing lobbyists. It has been a decade since the Lobbying Disclosure Act and new gift rules were passed and we now know that some of these rules are no longer sufficient to regulate a growing and evolving lobbying industry. It is now time for us to act again. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr FEINGOLD

Mr FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act of 2005. This bill builds on similar legislation that was introduced in the House by Representatives Marty Meehan and Rahm Emmanuel. I have long believed that to truly serve our constituents well, we must reduce the impact of big money on the legislative process. I have devoted a great deal of time over the years to reforming our campaign finance laws. With the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002, we took several important, and I believe successful, steps to reduce the influence of special interests and return some measure of power to the American people. But campaign contributions are only part of the story. In fact, during recent election cycles, the amount spent on lobbying members of Congress once they are elected has been more than double the amount spent on getting them elected in the first place. Yet lobbyists and the lobbying industry remain partly in the shadows, even after the significant improvements to the disclosure laws enacted in 1995. Ten years later, the weaknesses of that law have become apparent, as have the weaknesses in the congressional gift rules that we passed around the same time. Recent scandals involving lobbyists have made very clear that if this body is to be responsive to the people, not just a narrow set of special interests, we must strengthen the disclosure rules governing the lobbying industry and close loopholes in the gift rules. The lobbying industry continues to grow at a startling rate. According to the Center for Public Integrity, over three billion dollars were spent on lobbying in 2004, nearly double the amount spent just six years earlier. This dramatic increase in lobbying expenditures has led to an equally dramatic growth in the number of registered lobbyists. A story in the Washington Post from June of this year reports that there are currently more than 34,750 registered lobbyists, which represents a 100% increase from 2000. Not surprisingly, a few powerful industries account for much of this growth. In the last six years, the pharmaceutical industry alone has spent over three quarters of a billion dollars on lobbying, enough to finance over 3,000 professional lobbyists. The insurance industry is not far behind. During this same period, insurance companies spent over 600 million dollars and employed over 2,000 lobbyists. Despite the growing presence of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, and despite the improvements made in the 1995 law, regulation of the lobbying industry remains inadequate. The Senate office in charge of overseeing lobbying disclosure reports employs fewer than 20 people, and the equivalent House office employs fewer than 35. Compare these numbers to the Federal Election Commission, which many people believe is itself understaffed, but which has a staff of nearly 400 to oversee and enforce campaign finance laws. Given these numbers, it should not come as a shock that oversight of the booming lobbying industry is not what we would like it to be. In the past six years alone, over 300 individuals and companies lobbied without registering first. One in five lobbying companies failed to file required disclosure forms. And the Center for Public Integrity reports that over 14,000 disclosure documents that should have been filed are not available, including documents relating to 49 of the top 50 lobbying firms. When the disclosure requirements are not enforced, it can only be expected that they and other rules relating to lobbying will not be followed. In the last six months, we have seen a number of stories in the press detailing the increasingly cozy relationship between lobbyists and certain members of Congress. We have seen stories of lobbyists funding international junkets for members, their families, and their staff, which include days on famous golf courses and nights in luxurious resorts. We have seen stories of members and their staff accepting lavish gifts and expensive meals from lobbyists. And we haves seen stories of lobbyists providing members with free access to their companies' or clients' corporate jets so that they can fly in comfort from fundraiser to fundraiser. But the enticements offered by lobbyists are not all quite so exotic indeed, many lobbyists merely offer plum positions in their K Street offices. According to a 2005 report, more than 2200 former federal government employees were registered as federal lobbyists between 1998 and 2004. Of those, more then 200 were former members of Congress. In fact, Public Citizen reports that nearly half of all members returning to the private sector accept positions in the lobbying industry. For congressional employees, the prospect of receiving lobbying positions, which often pay several times more than their current jobs, can easily create conflicts of interest and may affect the decisions they make in their official capacity. The problems with oversight of the lobbying industry are systemic and they are troubling. Even the minimal disclosure requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act are often ignored because lobbyists know they will not be penalized. The revolving door between the Hill and K Street spins faster than ever. And flaws in the gift rules are allowing handouts from lobbyists to rapidly increase the influence of special interests at the expense of the average citizen. I am told that it is not uncommon for lobbyists to perch themselves at the end of a bar and buy drinks for any congressional staffer who comes by. This is permissible under the Senate's current gift rules, and it shouldn't be. Lobbyists complain about pressure--if not outright blatant requests-- from Members and congressional staff to pay for their food and drinks. Clearly, there is plenty of blame to go around. My bill addresses these concerns in four ways. First, my bill makes the lobbying process more transparent by enhancing the specificity, frequency, and accessibility of lobbying disclosure reports. The bill would require these periodic reports filed by lobbyists to identify the members of Congress with whom they met, divulge all past senior-level legislative or executive branch employment, and separate out and report the amount of money spent on grassroots lobbying efforts. Lobbyists would have to file these reports on a quarterly, rather than a semiannual, basis. And the bill would require the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House to make these reports available in a searchable database that would allow the public to gather information on lobbyists quickly and efficiently. The bill also requires the disclosure of entities that contribute large sums of money to lobbying coalitions. And it doubles the civil penalty for knowingly failing to file lobbying reports or filing false information. Second, this bill should slow the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying industry. It establishes a two-year waiting period for members, senior staff, and senior executive personnel to participate in lobbying. During this cooling-off period, members and senior executive personnel would be prohibited from engaging in all lobbying activities, including developing strategy for or directing a lobbying campaign. Staff would be forbidden from making direct contact with any members or staff who work in the House of Congress that used to employ them, rather than just the former employing office, as the law now requires. The revolving door provisions in my bill would also require members of Congress to publicly disclose their intent to seek outside employment if a conflict of interest exists. They prohibit members of Congress from taking official actions to influence the employment decisions of outside entities on the basis of partisan affiliation. And they affirm that no member should take official action based on the prospect for personal gain. The bill also prohibits registered lobbyists from taking advantage of special advantages such as gym membership, floor privileges, or access to certain areas of the Capitol that are offered to former Members of Congress. Third, my bill addresses the growing problem of privately funded travel and lobbyist gifts. Before sponsoring a trip for a member or staff, an organization must certify that the trip was not financed or organized by a registered lobbyist and that lobbyists will not participate in or attend the trip. After returning from the trip, the Member or staff must provide a detailed itinerary and description of expenses. My bill also creates a complete ban on lobbyists providing gifts to members and staff and on members accepting gifts from registered lobbyists. Those who file false certifications or fail to observe these rules will be subject to stiff penalties. Finally, the bill seeks to strengthen oversight of lobbying disclosure. A GAO report showing the old lobbying law passed in the 1940s was largely ignored and rarely enforced was an important impetus to passing the Lobbying Disclosure Act in 1995. The bill requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress twice annually on the state of the enforcement of the rules. These reports will help us determine if further improvements in the laws are necessary. These measures are not crafted as a knee-jerk response to the recent spate of troubling revelations about the relationships between certain members of Congress and the lobbying industry. Instead, this bill addresses systemic problems with the rules governing lobbyists. It has been a decade since the Lobbying Disclosure Act and new gift rules were passed and we now know that some of these rules are no longer sufficient to regulate a growing and evolving lobbying industry. It is now time for us to act again. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, later this year the Senate may again consider reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Opportunity and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act. This law ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and created our current Federal welfare program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. I supported the legislation that created TANF because I believed that the welfare system was failing recipients and their families and that we needed to do better. Now, almost nine years later, poverty levels are again on the rise and it is clear that improvements need to be made to the TANF program in order to achieve the goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and moving recipients into well-paying, sustainable jobs. As we all know, each State's welfare program is different, and the implementation of these programs often varies from provider to provider and from county to county. While we encouraged State-level innovation with the 1996 law and should continue to encourage it with our reauthorization legislation, we should also ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients. I am deeply concerned that a client who applies for or receives benefits in one part of Wisconsin may not be getting the same treatment as another applicant or client in a different part of my State. The bill that I introduce today, the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act, would improve Federal fair treatment and due process protections for applicants to and clients of State TANF programs by addressing gaps in current law in three areas: access to translation services and English as a Second Language education programs, sanction notification and due process protections, and data collection and analysis. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. In order for low-income parents whose primary language is not English to understand their rights with respect to availability of benefits, to comply with Federal and State TANF program rules, and to move from welfare to work, we should ensure that translation services and English as a Second Language classes are available. My bill would require States to provide interpretation and translation services to low-income parents who do not speak English, and provides that the standards currently used in the food stamp program would be used to determine when the requirement to provide such services would be triggered for TANF-funded programs. States would also be required to advise adults who lack English proficiency of available programs in the community to help them learn English, and to allow individuals who elect to enroll in such programs to participate in them. Individuals who participate in such activities on a satisfactory basis would be considered to be engaged in work activities and these activities would be counted towards the work participation rates. If we are not only to reduce the welfare rolls but to reduce poverty and to ensure that low-income parents find sustainable jobs, we must ensure that these parents have access to education and training, including ESL classes, and that this training counts toward the work requirement. I support efforts to expand the number of activities that TANF clients are permitted to count as work, and my bill would add ESL classes to that list. In addition, I am concerned about reports of unfair sanctioning and case closures across the country. We should make every effort to minimize discrimination in the application of sanctions and the termination of benefits. My bill would require that, prior to imposing a sanction, States inform individuals of the reasons for the sanction and what individuals may do to come into compliance with program rules to avoid the sanction. It also would stipulate that sanctions may not continue after individuals have come into compliance with program rules, and that individuals be informed of all other services and benefits for which they may be eligible during the period of the sanction, and of their rights under applicable State and Federal laws. Finally, this bill would require States to perform enhanced data collection and analysis so that we can get a better picture of the people who apply for and receive TANF benefits and those who leave the welfare rolls. I share the concern that has been expressed by a number of my constituents regarding the lack of comprehensive, uniform data about State welfare programs, including information on those who apply for benefits and those who have left the welfare rolls. My bill would require States to collect and manage data in a uniform way; to disaggregate the data based on a larger number of subgroups, including race, ethnicity/national origin, gender, primary language, and educational level of recipient; to include information on work participation and about applicants who are diverted to other programs; and to track clients whose cases are closed. In addition, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services would be required to include a comprehensive analysis broken down by these same data groups in its annual report on the TANF program. The Department would also be required to perform a longitudinal study of program outcomes that includes data on applicants for assistance, families that receive assistance, and families that leave assistance during the period of the study. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be required to protect the privacy of individuals and families applying for or receiving assistance under State TANF programs when data on such individuals and families is publicly disclosed by the Secretary. These enhanced requirements are not meant to impose an additional burden on the States. Rather, they are intended to measure the success of the program in a more comprehensive and transparent manner. This legislation is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Nation's oldest and most diverse civil rights coalition. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, later this year the Senate may again consider reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Opportunity and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act. This law ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and created our current Federal welfare program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. I supported the legislation that created TANF because I believed that the welfare system was failing recipients and their families and that we needed to do better. Now, almost nine years later, poverty levels are again on the rise and it is clear that improvements need to be made to the TANF program in order to achieve the goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and moving recipients into well-paying, sustainable jobs. As we all know, each State's welfare program is different, and the implementation of these programs often varies from provider to provider and from county to county. While we encouraged State-level innovation with the 1996 law and should continue to encourage it with our reauthorization legislation, we should also ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients. I am deeply concerned that a client who applies for or receives benefits in one part of Wisconsin may not be getting the same treatment as another applicant or client in a different part of my State. The bill that I introduce today, the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act, would improve Federal fair treatment and due process protections for applicants to and clients of State TANF programs by addressing gaps in current law in three areas: access to translation services and English as a Second Language education programs, sanction notification and due process protections, and data collection and analysis. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. In order for low-income parents whose primary language is not English to understand their rights with respect to availability of benefits, to comply with Federal and State TANF program rules, and to move from welfare to work, we should ensure that translation services and English as a Second Language classes are available. My bill would require States to provide interpretation and translation services to low-income parents who do not speak English, and provides that the standards currently used in the food stamp program would be used to determine when the requirement to provide such services would be triggered for TANF-funded programs. States would also be required to advise adults who lack English proficiency of available programs in the community to help them learn English, and to allow individuals who elect to enroll in such programs to participate in them. Individuals who participate in such activities on a satisfactory basis would be considered to be engaged in work activities and these activities would be counted towards the work participation rates. If we are not only to reduce the welfare rolls but to reduce poverty and to ensure that low-income parents find sustainable jobs, we must ensure that these parents have access to education and training, including ESL classes, and that this training counts toward the work requirement. I support efforts to expand the number of activities that TANF clients are permitted to count as work, and my bill would add ESL classes to that list. In addition, I am concerned about reports of unfair sanctioning and case closures across the country. We should make every effort to minimize discrimination in the application of sanctions and the termination of benefits. My bill would require that, prior to imposing a sanction, States inform individuals of the reasons for the sanction and what individuals may do to come into compliance with program rules to avoid the sanction. It also would stipulate that sanctions may not continue after individuals have come into compliance with program rules, and that individuals be informed of all other services and benefits for which they may be eligible during the period of the sanction, and of their rights under applicable State and Federal laws. Finally, this bill would require States to perform enhanced data collection and analysis so that we can get a better picture of the people who apply for and receive TANF benefits and those who leave the welfare rolls. I share the concern that has been expressed by a number of my constituents regarding the lack of comprehensive, uniform data about State welfare programs, including information on those who apply for benefits and those who have left the welfare rolls. My bill would require States to collect and manage data in a uniform way; to disaggregate the data based on a larger number of subgroups, including race, ethnicity/national origin, gender, primary language, and educational level of recipient; to include information on work participation and about applicants who are diverted to other programs; and to track clients whose cases are closed. In addition, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services would be required to include a comprehensive analysis broken down by these same data groups in its annual report on the TANF program. The Department would also be required to perform a longitudinal study of program outcomes that includes data on applicants for assistance, families that receive assistance, and families that leave assistance during the period of the study. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be required to protect the privacy of individuals and families applying for or receiving assistance under State TANF programs when data on such individuals and families is publicly disclosed by the Secretary. These enhanced requirements are not meant to impose an additional burden on the States. Rather, they are intended to measure the success of the program in a more comprehensive and transparent manner. This legislation is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Nation's oldest and most diverse civil rights coalition. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a resolution submitted by Senator Frist and Senator Reid to commemorate the life and work of Senator Gaylord Nelson. It is with mixed emotions that I make this statement honoring Senator Nelson. I am proud--proud to have known Gaylord Nelson, proud to be from the same State as him, and proud to occupy his Senate seat. I am also deeply saddened--saddened by the loss to his family, especially to his wife of 58 years, Carrie Lee; saddened by the loss to our Nation; and saddened that a personal hero and dear friend of mine is gone. I am also thankful--thankful for Senator Nelson's long life, thankful for the example he set of how to make a difference in this world, and thankful to his family for sharing this good and decent man with the Nation. We mourn his death, but we also celebrate his remarkable legacy. Gaylord Anton Nelson was born on June 4, 1916, in Clear Lake, WI. Gaylord's parents were always interested in politics, and in true Wisconsin tradition, they were La Follette Progressive Republicans at the State level and Democrats at the national level. Their Wisconsin- style progressive politics rubbed off on young Gaylord. When he was 10, Gaylord traveled with his dad to hear a campaign speech by Senator Bob La Follette, Jr., who succeeded his father in the Senate in 1925. Gaylord recalls in his biography: On the way back home to Clear Lake, my dad asked if I wanted to be a senator. I said I'd love to be a senator, but I'm afraid that Bob La Follette will solve all of our problems before I get a chance to serve. Thirty-three years later, Gaylord was nominated to be the Democrat candidate for Governor of Wisconsin. At the 1958 Democrat convention in LaCrosse, Gaylord's father had a heart attack. When Gaylord went to see him in the hospital, the elder Nelson smiled and then said to his son, ``Do you think Bob La Follette left enough problems behind for you to solve?'' Gaylord's father died 10 days later. Unfortunately, Gaylord's father did not get to see his son's rise to the national political level. If he had, he would have seen Gaylord attack those ``remaining problems left to solve'' with La Follette-like dogged determination and commitment to Progressive politics. From consumer protection to employee rights, Senator Nelson fought doggedly to address problems affecting countless Americans. Gaylord Nelson was also willing to take a tough stand. When President Johnson requested money to escalate the war in Vietnam, for example, Nelson was one of three senators to vote against the proposal. In a speech on this floor, he said: At a time in history when the Senate should be vindicating its historic reputation as the greatest deliberative body in the world, we are stumbling over each other to see who can say `yea' the quickest and the loudest. I regret it, and I think some day we shall all regret it. . . . Reluctantly, I express my opposition . . . here by voting `nay.' The support in the Congress for this measure is clearly overwhelming. Obviously, you need my vote less than I need my conscience. Whether it was issues of war and foreign affairs, worker safety and health, or access to affordable healthcare, Gaylord Nelson was guided by his conscience, and by the wellbeing of Wisconsinites. Out of his impressive record, however, one issue stands out as central to his legacy--Gaylord Nelson's passion and commitment to protecting our environment. Not many people who have served in this distinguished body can lay claim to a day, but Gaylord Nelson can. On April 22, 1970, Gaylord Nelson created a day to celebrate the glory of the Earth. Where did Nelson get his lifelong interest and dedication to the environment? ``By osmosis,'' Nelson would say, ``while growing up in Clear Lake, WI.'' It's true that Wisconsin has a tradition of great conservationists-- Aldo Leopold, author of A Sand County Almanac; Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society; and John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club. The people of Wisconsin, living in such a beautiful and ecologically diverse State, feel a special connection to our natural resources. We share a long tradition of our State government achieving excellence in its conservation policies. Many Wisconsinites would agree with Senator Nelson that our conservation ethic comes ``by osmosis'' from the intense natural beauty of our State. Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72 counties, and protecting the environment is always one of the top issues raised at these forums. Senator Nelson's vision and determination helped crystallize this Wisconsin conservation ethic into an international phenomenon. Thanks to Gaylord Nelson, Wisconsin can lay claim to the genesis of Earth Day, a day of national and international reflection on the importance of our natural resources and a clean environment. Thanks to him, for the past 35 years, people around the world have taken time out of our lives to think about, learn about and dedicate themselves to conservation. An astonishing 20 million Americans--10 percent of the U.S. population at the time--participated in the first observance of Earth Day on April 22, 1970. American Heritage magazine described the event as ``one of the most remarkable happenings in the history of democracy.'' The day was marked by marches, rallies, teach-ins, and concerts. Fifth Avenue was closed for two hours and over 100,000 people celebrated Earth Day on Union Square in New York City. Earth Day has become an important part of who we are. From Milwaukee, WI to Mumbai, India, millions of people across the world have taken Senator Nelson's legacy to heart. People have dedicated thousands of hours to volunteer to conserve the environment--whether it's in their backyard, local river, or park. During his 18 years of service in the Senate, Gaylord Nelson brought about significant change for the ``greener'' in both our Nation's laws and the institution of the Senate itself. He was the co-author of the Environmental Education Act, which he sponsored with the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and he sponsored the amendment to give the St. Croix and the Namekagon Rivers scenic protection. In the wake of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, Gaylord Nelson, along with Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, directed national attention to the documented persistent bioaccumulative effects of organochlorine pesticides used in the Great Lakes by authoring the ban on DDT in 1972. He was the primary sponsor of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Act, protecting one of Northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas. It is to Gaylord's lasting credit that he was able to fight tenaciously for environmental and other causes without alienating or antagonizing a soul. His decency, modesty and charm won over even those who didn't share his goals. By all accounts, he was one of the most beloved members this body has seen and, at a time when partisan tensions are running high, his willingness to reach out to people across the political spectrum should remind all of us that political disagreement does not have to be personal. As we honor Senator Nelson and his legacy, I hope Congress will re- dedicate itself to achieving the bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment that existed for nearly two decades. This April, Senator Nelson issued a statement to mark the 35th anniversary of Earth Day and calling Earth Day 2005 ``a wake up call.'' Senator Nelson said: On environmental issues, our intelligence is reliable. Our scientists have the facts, if we will only listen. It is a ``slam dunk'' that we cannot continue on our present course. But without Presidential and Congressional leadership, even an enlightened public cannot cope with the greatest challenge of our time. As always, Gaylord was right. I know that Wisconsinites value a clean environment, not just for purely aesthetic or philosophical purposes, but because a clean environment ensures that Wisconsin and the United States as a whole remains a good place to raise a family, to start a business, or to buy a home. People across this country share those values, and we in this body owe it to them and to Gaylord's memory to protect our natural resources. Gaylord Nelson changed the consciousness of a nation. He was a distinguished Governor and Senator, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a personal hero of mine. And he was the embodiment of the principle that one person can change the world. But Senator Nelson's biographer may have said it best: He was always the boy from Clear Lake, Wisconsin, off on adventure. Clear Lake is where he will return, but future generations will carry on his adventure, and his example and principles will show them the way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my shock and alarm over the most recent turn taken in Zimbabwe's deepening political and economic crisis. As my colleagues know, the ruling regime in Harare recently launched a massive campaign to destroy the homes of hundreds of thousands of urban Zimbabweans, evicting men, women, and children-- in at least one case reportedly evicting even AIDS orphans--under the auspices of ``driving out the rubbish.'' Many analysts believe that the Government is attempting to forcibly relocate the urban population--which tends to support the political opposition--to rural areas in order to diffuse resistance to its repressive policies. The ruling party may also be attempting to revitalize the agricultural sector, which has been devastated by its policies, through this campaign of forced relocation to rural areas. What is certain is that this kind of deliberate displacement of people in a country where 3 to 4 million already need food assistance is an absolute outrage. Sadly, this is what we have come to expect from President Mugabe and his cronies. This same government has refused food assistance for hungry people; manipulated available food assistance for political purposes; systematically attacked the independence of the judiciary; silenced independent media voices; and created, often through coercion, brutally violent youth militias to terrorize civilians. I commend Chairman Martinez for speaking out so forthrightly on this issue. I am pleased to join him here today. I have also joined with my colleague, Senator Durbin, in working to encourage U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to treat this crisis with the urgency it deserves, and I also thank him for his leadership. And I recently joined with Senator McCain to assure Secretary of State Rice of the strong, bipartisan support that exists here for an energized Zimbabwe policy. But we can and must do more to oppose this campaign of abuse. We must continue to speak plainly to Southern African leaders about the toll that their silence about this ongoing crisis takes on their credibility, and about the loss of investor and donor confidence in the region that is a consequence of Zimbabwe's ceaseless downward spiral over the past 5 years. The administration has spoken out commendably regarding the Zimbabwe crisis, but more could be done to take action that would bolster their tough talk. Targeted sanctions could have more bite, and the U.S. and other key donors could more clearly link support for laudable initiatives such as the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development to restoration of respect for civil and political rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. Those of us who have followed the crisis in Zimbabwe often feel a sense of frustration as we watch so much of what was promising about that country be systematically dismantled by the current ruling party. But we must not give up on the people of Zimbabwe, many of whom continue to fight against repression despite considerable risk. Once Zimbabwe's corrupt leadership finally releases its grasp on power, the country will require substantial international assistance to rebuild the institutions of democracy and regain its economic footing. I was pleased to work with the majority leader on the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which became law in 2001. This law spells out Congress's commitment to come forward as a strong partner of a recovery in Zimbabwe when change finally does come and Zimbabwe's long, sad slide into authoritarianism and economic collapse has been halted. I still believe in the promise of that bill and look forward to the day conditions allow all of us to realize that promise, and to join with the people of Zimbabwe in rebuilding their country and safeguarding their democracy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak instead of Senator Kerry under the previous order, to be followed by Senator Lautenberg for 10 minutes under the time controlled by Senator Dorgan, to be followed by a Republican Senator to speak under the time of Senator Grassley.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak instead of Senator Kerry under the previous order for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, the latest expression of the disastrous trade policies of this administration which are, unfortunately, a continuation of the disastrous trade policies of previous administrations. I hold listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year. I have held those listening sessions for over 12 years now, listening to tens of thousands of people from all over Wisconsin. I recently completed my 900th of those sessions, and I can say that there is nearly universal frustration and anger with the trade policies we have pursued since the late 1980s. Even among those who would have called themselves traditional free-traders, it is increasingly obvious that the so-called NAFTA model of trade has been a tragic failure. I voted against NAFTA, GATT, and permanent most-favored-nation status for China, in great part because I felt they were bad deals for Wisconsin businesses and Wisconsin workers. At the time I voted against those agreements, I thought they would result in lost jobs for my State. Even as an opponent of those trade agreements, I had no idea just how bad things would be. And things could hardly be worse. One can see the results of those policies in hundreds of communities around my State. As one might expect, our largest communities--places like Milwaukee, Madison, and Green Bay--lost thousands of jobs as a result of those trade policies, most notably NAFTA and permanent most-favored-nation status for China. But less obvious to some may be the devastation experienced by smaller towns and cities across my State. In those communities, the legacy of our trade policy has been especially cruel. Even if we only use the extremely conservative statistics collected by the Department of Labor, statistics which many argue grossly understate actual job loss, smaller communities all over Wisconsin have been the victim of the trade policies of the past decade. NAFTA's legacy of lost jobs includes places such as: Baraboo, with 190 lost jobs; DeForest, with 40 lost jobs; Elkhorn, with 354 lost jobs; Hawkins, with 443 lost jobs; Marinette, with 54 lost jobs; Mauston, with 48 lost jobs; Merrill, with 263 lost jobs; Montello, with 70 lost jobs; Oconto Falls, with 100 lost jobs; Peshtigo, with 95 lost jobs; Platteville, with 588 lost jobs; Spencer, with 23 lost jobs; and Waupaca, with 130 lost jobs. Some might suggest that 23 lost jobs in Spencer, WI are not all that many but when a small town loses a business, and the dozens or possibly hundreds of jobs that business provides, the impact surges throughout the entire community. Families are left without a breadwinner, or sometimes even two breadwinners. Stores are left without customers. New homes are not built. Families may be forced to move away. Schools lose children. The tax base drops, putting an increased burden on those who remain. When a bad trade deal results in lost jobs, it is not only those who lost a job who suffer. And the suffering in Wisconsin has been considerable. Altogether, Wisconsin has a net loss of more than 23,000 jobs because of NAFTA, and thousands more because of the other trade agreements into which we have entered in recent years. Now we have CAFTA, which is based on that same failed model of trade. I should note at this point that in too many instances, these trade agreements have been lose-lose trade agreements. They have been bad deals for our workers as well as the workers of our trading partners. This is a vital point, because many who are advocating CAFTA argue that the agreement is critical for promoting economic growth and reducing poverty in these Central American nations. In fact, the experience of the flawed trade model has been just the opposite. Eleven years of NAFTA have lowered living standards in Mexico, both for urban workers and in rural areas. Professor Riordan Roett of Johns Hopkins wrote on this very issue in a recent column, and this is what he had to say: Mexican workers under NAFTA lost precipitously through the 1990s, despite the extravagant promises made by proponents of the model on which CAFTA is based. At least 1.5 million Mexican farmers have lost their livelihoods under NAFTA. According to a 2004 report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ``Agricultural trade liberalization linked to NAFTA is the single most significant factor in the loss of agricultural jobs in Mexico. `` Thus far, limited employment growth in Mexico's manufacturing sector has failed to absorb displaced rural workers. This does not bode well for the CAFTA countries. A 2004 U.S. International Trade Commission study on the potential impacts of CAFTA leads one to conclude that the agreement will displace many in the rural sector in Central America. Following a recent visit to Guatemala, United Nations Special Raporteur for Food Jean Ziegler determined that CAFTA will increase hunger and poverty once the agreement fully kicks in. . . . one is left to wonder where the displaced rural population of Central America will find employment. If the arguments made by the proponents of CAFTA sound familiar, it is because they are. CAFTA's advocates are making exactly the same arguments today that the proponents of NAFTA made a little over 10 years ago. Because our markets are already largely open, they argue, it will be American businesses and American workers who will benefit from this trade agreement. It is an argument that sounds neat and simple, but let's compare the rhetoric to the record. In 1993, before NAFTA was implemented, our trade deficit with Canada and Mexico was $9 billion. In 2004, 10 years after NAFTA was implemented, our trade deficit with those two countries has ballooned 1,200 percent--1,200 percent--to $111 billion. By one estimate, the massive growth of imports into this country from Canada and Mexico relative to exports to those two countries has displaced almost one million jobs. Giving China permanent most-favored-nation trading status and ratifying the creation of the World Trade Organization have only made matters worse. Our trade deficit is now more than $600 billion. Far from improving our trade balance, NAFTA and these other trade agreements have only made matters worse. Our trade policy is fundamentally flawed. This is not a new problem, nor is it the fault of only one political party. The leadership of both parties have pushed these deeply flawed agreements, and too many Members from both parties were ready to support them without scrutiny. When questions were raised about the actual provisions of these flawed agreements, supporters were quick to play the free trade card and label those who questioned these policies as ``protectionist.'' It is somewhat encouraging that some who blindly accepted these agreements are now beginning to read the fine print. One might think it obvious, but apparently it needs to be reiterated, these are not your father's trade agreements, and the elegant theories of Adam Smith and others do not apply to the agreements we are asked to approve. As Thea Lee wrote in a recent column in the Wall Street Journal: We should all understand by now that modern (post-NAFTA) free-trade agreements are not just about lowering tariffs. They are about changing the conditions attached to trade liberalization, in ways that benefit some players and hurt others. These are not your textbook free-trade deals. These are finely orchestrated special-interest deals that boost the profits and power of multinational corporations, leaving workers, family farmers, many small businesses, and the environment more vulnerable than ever. Millions of working families across Wisconsin know this. I sometimes think that if instead of exporting manufacturing goods China exported editorial writers, the opinion pages of our newspapers might reflect an understanding of this as well. The argument we hear is that trade deals like CAFTA may cause some short-term pain but they are ultimately good for all countries concerned. Maybe we lose a few jobs to Mexico or China, the argument goes, but we would also gain jobs. Each country would engage in the economic activity for which it has a so-called ``comparative advantage'' and everyone wins. But this nice, neat academic theory bears little relation to what is actually happening in the real world. And one of the reasons for this disconnect is that in an arena that has been fundamentally changed by technical advances, such as the Internet and the rapid flow of capital, we are not playing by the same rules as our trading partners. The trade agreements into which our country has entered in recent years too often lack even the most reasonable of standards to prevent a race to the bottom, and ensure that our businesses and workers can compete on a level playing field. This is certainly the case with CAFTA, which fails to include meaningful labor standards, and the weak standards that it does include are effectively unenforceable. CAFTA states that member countries cannot, for their own benefit, fail to enforce their labor laws. But the agreement also states that nothing in the agreement ``shall be construed to empower a Party's authorities to undertake labor law enforcement activities in the territory of another Party.'' Thus, any protections that might be afforded by the requirement to enforce current labor laws are left to each government to self-enforce. This really does nothing. Unlike the commercial provisions in CAFTA, the labor provisions cannot be enforced through binding dispute settlement, or trade sanctions. If a country violates its commercial obligations, sanctions can be imposed quickly, but a violation of workers' rights is only subject to a possible fine. In the unlikely event that a country is forced to pay a fine, it pays that fine to itself. While the fine is supposed to be used to fund domestic labor initiatives, we all know that such revenues are fungible, and there is no way to prevent a violating country from also transferring money out of its labor budget, so the fine adds no new net resources for enforcement. This is not an academic concern. Studies have documented serious labor violations in Central American countries. American businesses and American workers should not have to compete with countries with such flawed labor records. CAFTA also fails to include adequate environmental safeguards. What environmental provisions there are in CAFTA are largely cosmetic in nature. As with worker standards, the environmental standards that are in the agreement lack the kind of enforcement teeth provided to commercial provisions in the agreement. For example, while the agreement includes the establishment of a process under which citizens can identify failures to enforce environmental laws effectively, advocates note that the proposed citizen process has no clear enforcement mechanism to ensure action on public complaints. By contrast, the enforcement mechanisms for investment related provisions are real. Investors can demand monetary compensation of governments under CAFTA's investment rules. In fact, any hope that CAFTA countries might, on their own, strengthen environmental standards to make the playing field a bit more level is undermined by the investment rules included in the trade agreement. Those rules allow foreign investors to challenge environmental laws and regulations in front of international trade panels, circumventing local courts. Moreover, the threat of having to pay investor interests heavy monetary damages if a challenge is successful is certain to have a chilling effect on the willingness of CAFTA government, both federal and local, to establish the kinds of environmental protections that might help that region and provide better balance for American firms that must live under our own strong environmental laws. Among the rosiest of predictions made by the proponents of CAFTA are the positive impacts they claim for U.S. agricultural sectors. But our experience with NAFTA again leaves me deeply skeptical of such claims. The promises made to farmers that we heard over the early 1990s, have largely failed to materialize. But even setting aside for the moment the failure of NAFTA to deliver on those promises, even if we accept the most optimistic of projections by CAFTA's proponents, there is no scenario under which this helps small family farmers in Wisconsin or the Nation. The American market dwarfs the CAFTA market, so any benefits will be miniscule and concentrated in the middlemen and large agribusinesses. I am afraid to say that is the up side. The down side is that CAFTA sets up an unfair playing field that could put our farmers at a long- term competitive disadvantage. As my visits with Wisconsin farmers have shown me, American farmers are not afraid of competition and I would not hesitate to put them up against any other farmers across the world on an equal footing. The problem is that CAFTA does not provide this fairness. Instead, Wisconsin and the rest of America's farmers are required to meet environmental and labor standards to both keep the water, air and land clean and at the same time pay their employees a living wage. As I have noted, CAFTA does not require the same standards in other countries. Our farmers can attest that our environmental and labor standards are very real and enforced. CAFTA does nothing to level the field on which our farmers will be asked to compete, and that tilted playing field apparently extends even beyond CAFTA countries. For example, ethanol production has long been considered an opportunity for American farmers to reap greater and consistent income from their crops, while helping to reduce our dependence on foreign fuel. But under CAFTA, Central American countries could become a conduit for cheap ethanol exports to the United States, importing unlimited amounts of ethanol tariff free even if they were blended with 50 percent ethanol from non-CAFTA countries like Brazil. Perhaps most concerning to me is that while CAFTA would put American farmers at a competitive disadvantage with the relatively small CAFTA market, its impact could be far greater. CAFTA will likely be used. as the blueprint for the much larger Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. If this retreat from the principle of fair trade is repeated there, the negative effects could be dramatic and felt throughout U.S. agriculture. Wisconsin has paid a heavy price for CAFTA's predecessors. Since 2000, Wisconsin has lost nearly 92,000 manufacturing jobs. NAFTA, the GATT, and most-favored-nation treatment for China have devastated local businesses and punished working families, taking away family-supporting jobs, and offering lower-paying jobs, if any, in return. When the impact of these agreements comes crashing down on people's lives, it is clear that we have already traded away too much in a series of bad deals. CAFTA promises more of the same devastation brought by the agreements that have come before it, putting our businesses, workers and farmers at a competitive disadvantage, while also undermining the economic development that might benefit workers, farmers and small businesses in Central America. This trade agreement fails on every count. I urge my colleagues to scrap it and tell the administration to come back with a deal that is fair to American businesses, workers and farmers, as well as the small businesses, workers and farmers of our trading partners. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will enhance and strengthen transition services that are provided to our military personnel. As the Senate conducts its business today, thousands of our brave men and women in uniform are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. These men and women serve with distinction and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt gratitude. We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them. I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care and other benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have undertaken numerous legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and their families a priority. While we should do more to support our veterans, we must also ensure that the men and women who are currently serving in our Armed Forces receive adequate pay and benefits, as well as services that help them to make the transition from active duty to civilian life. I am concerned that we are not doing enough to support our men and women in uniform as they prepare to retire or otherwise separate from the service or, in the case of members of our National Guard and Reserve, to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives while staying in the military or preparing to separate from the military. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles have ended and our troops have come home. The bill that I am introducing today, the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act (VETS Act), will help to ensure that all military personnel have access to the same transition services as they prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven provision of services from base to base and from service to service. All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country, and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same services in return. I introduced similar legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am pleased that a provision that I authored which was based on that bill was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill. In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my constituents, my amendment, in part, directed the Secretaries of Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and certification standards could be coordinated with government and private sector training and certification standards for corresponding civilian occupations. Such coordination could help military personnel who wish to pursue civilian employment related to their military specialties to make the transition from the military to comparable civilian jobs. I look forward to reviewing this report. In addition, this amendment required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing transition services for our military personnel that are administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. My amendment required GAO to focus on two issues: how to achieve the uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health assessments as part of the larger transition program. GAO released its study ``Military and Veterans' Benefits: Enhanced Services Could Improve Transition Assistance for Reserves and National Guard'' in May 2005, and it plans to release its study on health assessments in the near future. Just yesterday, GAO provided testimony on its transition services report to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity. That hearing could not have been more timely. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to improve transition programs now as we continue to welcome home thousands of military personnel who are serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We should not miss an opportunity to help the men and women who are currently serving our country. My bill, which is consistent with GAO's recommendations on transition assistance, will help to ensure that all military personnel receive the same services by making a number of improvements to the existing Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition Assistance Program (TAP/DTAP), by improving the process by which military personnel who are being demobilized or discharged receive medical examinations and mental health assessments, and by ensuring that military and veterans service organizations and state departments of veterans affairs are able to play an active role in assisting military personnel with the difficult decisions that are often involved in the process of discharging or demobilizing. Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Labor, provide pre-separation counseling for military personnel who are preparing to leave the Armed Forces. This counseling provides servicemembers with valuable information about benefits that they have earned through their service to our country such as education benefits through the GI Bill and health care and other benefits through the VA. Personnel also learn about programs such as Troops to Teachers and have access to employment assistance for themselves and, where appropriate, their spouses. My bill would ensure that National Guard and Reserve personnel who are on active duty are able to participate in this important counseling prior to being demobilized. In addition, my bill would require state- based follow-up within 180 days of demobilization to give newly demobilized personnel the opportunity to follow up on any questions or concerns that they may have during a regular unit training period. Currently, most of the responsibility for getting information about benefits and programs falls on the military personnel. The Department of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all members participate in this important program, and that is what my bill would do. In its recent report on transition services, GAO found that ``[d]uring their rapid demobilization, the Reserve and National Guard members may not receive all the information on possible benefits to which they are entitled. Notably, certain education benefits and medical coverage require servicemembers to apply while they are still on active duty. However, even after being briefed, some Reserve and National Guard members were not aware of the time frames within which they needed to act to secure certain benefits before returning home. In addition, most members of the Reserves and National Guard did not have the opportunity to attend an employment workshop during demobilization.'' In response to these findings, GAO recommended that ``DoD, in conjunction with DoL and the VA, determine what demobilizing Reserve and National Guard members need to make a smooth transition and explore options to enhance their participation in TAP.'' GAO also recommended that ``VA take steps to determine the level of participation in DTAP to ensure those who may have especially complex needs are being served.'' In addition to ensuring that all discharging and demobilizing military personnel are able to participate in TAP/DTAP, my bill would help to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by directing the Secretary of Defense to ensure that consistent transition briefings occur across the services and at all demobilization/discharge locations. In its report, GAO noted that ``[t]he delivery of TAP may vary in terms of the amount of personal attention participants receive, the length of the components, and the instructional methods used.'' We should make every effort to ensure that those who have put themselves in harm's way on our behalf have access to the same transition services no matter their discharge/demobilization location or the branch of the Armed Forces in which they serve. My bill would also ensure, consistent with GAO's recommendation, that there are programs that are directed to the specific needs of active duty and National Guard and Reserve personnel. And my bill includes a provision to ensure that personnel who are on the temporary disability retired list and who are being retired or discharged from alternate locations will have access to transition services at a location that is reasonably convenient to them. In addition, my bill would enhance the information that is presented to members by requiring that pre-separation counseling include the provision of information regarding certification and licensing requirements in civilian occupations and information on identifying military occupations that have civilian counterparts, information concerning veterans small business ownership and entrepreneurship programs offered by the Federal Government, information concerning employment and reemployment rights and veterans preference in Federal employment and Federal procurement opportunities, information concerning homelessness and housing counseling assistance, and a description of the health care and other benefits to which the member may be entitled under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs including a referral (to be provided with the assistance of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) for a VA medical and pension examination, as appropriate. Participation in pre-separation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program is a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian life. My bill is in no way intended to lengthen the time that military personnel spend away from their families or to provide them with information that is not relevant to their civilian lives or that they otherwise do not need. In order to ensure that this information remains a valuable tool and does not become a burden to demobilizing members of the National Guard and Reserve who experience multiple deployments for active duty assignments, my bill clarifies that participation in the Department of Labor's transitional services employment program will not be required if a member has previously participated in the program or if a member will be returning to school or to a position of employment. My bill would also require the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to submit a plan to Congress for increasing access to the joint DoD-VA Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, which assists personnel in applying for VA disability benefits before they are discharged from the military. This very successful program has helped to cut the red tape and to speed the processing time for many veterans who are entitled to VA disability benefits. In addition to the uneven provision of transition services, I have long been concerned about the immediate and long-term health effects that military deployments have on our men and women in uniform. I regret that, too often, the burden of responsibility for proving that a condition is related to military service falls on the personnel themselves. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the VA for benefits that they have earned through their service to our nation. Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War. More than ten years after the end of the Gulf War, we still don't know why so many veterans of that conflict are experiencing medical problems that have become known as Gulf War Syndrome. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the Persian Gulf region face many of the same conditions that existed in the early 1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and to study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region are adequately protected from the many possible causes of Gulf War Syndrome. Part of the process of protecting the health of our men and women in uniform is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment physicals and who end up choosing not to have these important physicals in order to get home to their families that much sooner. I am equally concerned about reports that some personnel who did not receive such a physical--either by their own choice or because such a physical was not available--are now having trouble as they apply for benefits for a service-connected condition. I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support my bill, that our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt, high quality physical examination as part of the demobilization process. These individuals have voluntarily put themselves into harm's way for our benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense makes every effort to determine whether they have experienced, or could experience, any health effects as a result of their service. In light of concerns raised by many that each service and each installation uses a different process for demobilization physicals, my bill would require the Secretary of Defense to set minimum standards for these important medical examinations and to ensure that these standards are applied uniformly at all installations and by all branches of the Armed Forces. In addition, to ensure that all personnel receive these important exams, my bill stipulates that the exam may not be waived by the Department or by individual personnel. My bill also would strengthen current law by ensuring that these medical examinations also include a mental health assessment. Our men and women in uniform serve in difficult circumstances far from home, and too many of them witness or experience violence and horrific situations that most of us cannot even begin to imagine. I have heard concerns that these brave men and women, many of whom are just out of high school or college when they sign up, may suffer long-term physical and mental fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences. My bill would improve mental health services for demobilizing military personnel by requiring that the content and standards for the mental health screening and assessment that are developed by the Secretary include content and standards for screening acute and delayed onset post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, specifically, questions to identify stressors experienced by military personnel that have the potential to lead to PTSD. These efforts should build on--not replace--the mental health questions that the Pentagon is already using as part of its post-deployment health screening process. Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to chronic PTSD, which could have its roots in an experience from a previous deployment and which could come to the surface by a triggering event that is experienced on a current deployment. The same is true for full-time military personnel who have served in a variety of places over their careers. We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too often attached to seeking assistance is ended. One step in this process is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, through DoD, the VA, or a private sector health care provider. To that end, my bill would require that the health care professionals who are assessing demobilizing military personnel provide all personnel who may need follow-up care for a physical or psychological condition with information on appropriate resources through DoD or the VA and in the private sector that these personnel may use to access additional follow-up care if they so choose. I commend the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for issuing in March 2005 a memorandum to the Assistant Secretaries for the Army, Navy, and Air Force directing them to extend the Pentagon's current post-deployment health assessment process to include a reassessment of ``global health with a specific emphasis on mental health'' to occur three to six months post-deployment. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee earlier this year, the Assistant Secretary stated that the services were in the process of implementing a program that would include a ``screening procedure with a questionnaire and a face-to-face interaction at about three months'' post-deployment. He also noted that the idea for this program came from ``front line people'' and that he ``asked them. . . `do you think we should make it mandatory?' and the answer was: yes.'' This sentiment makes it even more important that the initial post- deployment mental health assessment be strengthened and that it be mandatory as well so that health care professionals have a benchmark against which to measure the results of the follow-up screening process. In order to gain a better understanding of existing programs, my bill requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to report to Congress on the services provided to current and former members of the Armed Forces who experience PTSD and related conditions. This report will include an analysis of the number of persons treated, the types of interventions, and the programs that are in place for each branch of the Armed Forces to identify and treat cases of PTSD and related conditions. In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are eligible for medical benefits from the VA learn about and receive these benefits, my bill would require that, as part of the demobilization process, assistance be provided to eligible members to enroll in the VA health care system. My bill would also make improvements to the DoD demobilization and discharge processes by ensuring that members of military and veterans service organizations (MSOs and VSOs) are able to counsel personnel on options for benefits and other important questions. The demobilization and discharge process presents our servicemembers with a sometimes confusing and often overwhelming amount of information and paperwork that must be digested and sometimes signed in a very short period of time. My bill would authorize a ``veteran to veteran'' counseling program that will give military personnel the opportunity to speak with fellow veterans who have been through this process and who have been accredited to represent veterans in VA proceeding by the VA. These veterans can offer important advice about benefits and other choices that military personnel have to make as they are being discharged or demobilized. Under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use of the services provided by MSOs and VSOs as part of the transition process. But these groups tell me that they are not always allowed access to transition briefings that are conducted for our personnel. In order to help facilitate the new veteran-to-veteran program, my legislation would require the Secretary to ensure that representatives of MSOs, VSOs, and state departments of veterans affairs, are invited to participate in all transition and Benefits Delivery at Discharge programs. In addition, my legislation requires that these dedicated veterans, who give so much of their time and of themselves to serving their fellow veterans and their families, are able to gain access to military installations, military hospitals, and VA hospitals in order to provide this important service. By and large, these groups are able to speak with our military personnel at hospitals and other facilities. But I am disturbed by reports that representatives of some of these groups were having a hard time gaining access to these facilities in order to visit with our troops. For that reason, I have included this access requirement in my bill. I want to stress that my bill in no way requires military personnel to speak with members of MSOs or VSOs if they do not wish to do so. It merely ensures that our men and women in uniform have this option. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a wide range of groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and veterans and their families. These groups include: the American Legion; the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin National Guard; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Five years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA) launched a Statewide program called ``I Owe You,'' which encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service to our country in the Armed Forces. As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored 20 events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Information about additional benefits through WDVA is also provided. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 18,650 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I am proud to have had members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries. According to WDVA, this program has helped Wisconsin to receive approximately $250 million in additional VA funding and benefits for our veterans each year. The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine. And in August 2003, the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments named the program a finalist in its 2003 Innovations in American Government Awards Program. The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the VA. These are federal benefits that we owe to our veterans and it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse to halt or reduce these efforts. The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 18,000 Wisconsin veterans want to make sure they know about all the benefits that are owed to them, there must be many more veterans around our country who deserve to be told about the benefits they have earned. We can and should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe. In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach.'' My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its agencies (the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration). Currently funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding with other crucial VA programs. I have long supported efforts to adequately fund VA programs. We can and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim processed. Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding. Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative agreements with state departments of veterans affairs regarding outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are awarded to state departments under this program could be used to enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits process. State departments that receive grants under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities. I want to be clear that it is not my intention that the funding for these grants be taken from existing VA programs. I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives of our nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America. I hope that my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that our veterans know about the benefits for which they may be eligible as a result of their service to our country. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to add my name today as a cosponsor of the Combat Meth Act of 2005, S. 103. I want to thank Senator Talent and Senator Feinstein for their leadership on this issue. I have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on a new version of the bill that I understand will be offered in the Judiciary Committee as a substitute when the bill is marked up, and I am very pleased to support this new version of the Combat Meth Act. Meth is a highly addictive and particularly destructive drug that can be manufactured from widely available household items. In the last 5 years, the use of this terrible drug has skyrocketed, both nationally and in my home State of Wisconsin. When I talk to prosecutors and police officers from Wisconsin, they consistently tell me that meth use is the most daunting problem they are facing. They tell me that meth is the single most harmful drug--to addicts, families, children, communities, and the environment--that they have ever dealt with. This bill gives law enforcement officials a chance to stem the growing tide of meth use by restricting access to the cold medicines that are commonly used to make meth and by providing funds for programs that have been shown to combat the meth problem. The bill targets those who purchase over-the-counter drugs for the purpose of manufacturing meth, while still allowing law-abiding Americans to have adequate access to the cold medicines they need. Methamphetamine is derived from pseudoephedrine, a chemical that is found in most common cold medicines. Meth ``chefs'' can manufacture the drug by buying large quantities of cold medicine, mixing it with other common chemicals, and heating it. This process can occur nearly anywhere and requires only limited knowledge and experience. Even beginners can easily manufacture this drug. Given how easy it is it make, it is not surprising that meth use has been increasing rapidly. A recent report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse finds that meth use has swept across the country, starting in Southern California and moving steadily eastward. The situation has become particularly dire in the Midwest, where meth use accounts for more than 90 percent of all drug prosecutions. Literally millions and millions of individuals have reported using meth--and this trend shows no signs of slowing. Meth cases in my home State of Wisconsin have gone up 500 percent in just the last 4 years, from 101 prosecutions in 2000 to 545 in 2004. And Wisconsin is doing much better than many other Midwestern States thanks to proactive efforts by state officials in the late 1990s, before meth had taken hold, to educate communities about the dangers of meth and the need for prevention. These education and prevention efforts paid off, keeping the number of meth labs relatively low in Wisconsin compared to neighboring States, but the problem remains a very serious one. Both the manufacture and the use of meth have devastating consequences for users and those around them. In the short-term, even occasional meth use leads to a whole host of physical and psychological problems. It causes inflammation of the heart lining, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. It causes damage to the nervous system and creates abscesses on the skin. It also attacks the brain, leading to bouts of paranoia, anxiety, and insomnia. Meth's long-term effects are even more destructive. It has highly addictive properties, quickly turning occasional users into desperate addicts. Meth addicts often go for days without eating or sleeping. They suffer from a variety of heart ailments and can sustain permanent and often irreversible brain damage. The drug's effect on the brain also leaves addicts vulnerable to the entire spectrum of mental health problems, from paranoia and depression to aggression and psychosis. And the drug's chemical effects are particularly insidious, meaning that addicts often require extended detoxification periods before they can begin treatment. Sadly, meth's harmful effects are not confined to its users. The process of manufacturing meth creates unique environmental hazards that can poison surrounding communities. Cooking the chemicals that create meth can lead to explosions, fires, and the release of noxious gases. Remnants from the procedure are often washed down the drain or dumped in the ground, where they can contaminate local water sources. Another related danger of significant meth use in a community is an increased crime rate. Meth addicts often resort to violence to gain access to the materials they need or to the money they must have to sustain their addiction. Additionally, people who are high on meth are disposed to aggressive and violent behavior. The results are apparent. For example, local news reports indicate that Eau Claire County in Wisconsin, which has been hard hit by the meth problem, has seen a significant increase in meth-related crimes as meth use has become more prevalent. This drug does not just poison users; it can affect entire communities. And in the unkindest cut of all, children who are exposed to meth manufacturing or use can be scarred for life. Children of meth addicts are exposed to toxic fumes and volatile chemicals, resulting in potentially serious health problems, and they are often abused or neglected by those in the throes of addiction. This problem calls for immediate Federal action. When Oklahoma was the first State earlier this year to pass a law that successfully restricted access to pseudoephedrine, the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine grew noticeably in neighboring States. The Oklahoma experience shows that States acting alone cannot address what has become a national meth problem. We need a law that creates national standards for the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine and puts the resources of the Federal Government behind the effort to stop meth use. The new version of the Combat Meth Act provides the national response that we need. It attacks the meth problem at all stages of the process: It gives State and local officials the tools they need to prevent the sale of products used to make meth, to investigate and prosecute meth manufacturers, and to treat meth addicts and protect the children they harm. This bill helps prevent meth use by restricting the sale of ingredients needed to manufacture meth. Under the new bill, cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine will be placed behind pharmacy counters and purchasers will only be able to buy 7.5 grams of the product per month--more than enough for people who really need the medicine but not enough for those who are buying the medicine to make meth. It requires people purchasing pseudoephedrine products to sign a written log, but I am pleased that the new version of the bill ensures the privacy of this potentially sensitive medical information by allowing the information to be used only to find individuals who might be purchasing these products to make meth. The bill also provides funding to States to monitor the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine. The Combat Meth Act gives States the resources they need to bring meth manufacturers to justice. It provides money for training programs for State and local law enforcement and expands the scope of currently effective meth investigation and clean-up programs. Once meth producers and traffickers are found, this bill helps put them behind bars by hiring additional Federal prosecutors, training local prosecutors in Federal and State meth laws, and cross-designating local prosecutors as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, allowing them to bring legal action in Federal courts. While this bill strengthens enforcement and prosecution measures, it also recognizes that most meth addicts require treatment rather than harsh criminal sanction. To that end, the bill authorizes the creation of a meth treatment assistance center, which will help states learn how to effectively treat those who suffer from this awful addiction. And for this drug's most innocent victims--the children who are exposed to meth by the users around them--the bill provides a $5 million grant to allow Federal, State, and local entities to work together to help assist and educate children who have been harmed by a family member's meth addiction. The widespread use of meth, particularly in the Midwest, has become an unsupportable burden for many families and communities. The new version of the Combat Meth Act is a common-sense response to a growing problem one that requires immediate Federal attention. While the bill does not address the increasing problem of meth imports from overseas, it will help cut back on domestic meth manufacturing and the many harms that accompany it. I am proud to support this new version of the bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to join the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in cosponsoring the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. This bill is a much- needed solution to the daunting problem of ensuring the privacy and the security of our personal data, which has become such a precious commodity. As we enter the 21st century, several forces are converging to make our personal information more valuable--and vulnerable--than ever. The world is going digital, and so is our personal data. In this day and age, almost everything we do results in a third party creating a digital record about us--digital records that we may not even realize exist. We seek the convenience of opening bank accounts and making major purchases over the Internet, often without ever speaking to another person face to face or even over the telephone, making identity theft easier and more lucrative. Businesses, nonprofits and even political parties are personalizing their messages, products and services to a degree we've never seen before, and they are willing to invest significant amounts of money in collecting personal information about potential customers or donors. And we are living in an age where identity-based screening and security programs can be vitally important, resulting in more information being collected about individuals in an attempt to identify them accurately. As a result, personal information has become a hot commodity that is bought, sold, and--as so often happens when something becomes valuable--stolen. We are at a crossroads. We all know about the security breaches that have been on the front pages of newspapers all over the country for the past 6 months. They have placed the identities of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk. But this is about much more than just information security. Until California law required ChoicePoint to notify individuals that their information was compromised and they might be vulnerable to identity theft, many Americans had never heard of this company. As news stories focused on the data broker business, many Americans were surprised to discover that companies are creating digital dossiers about them that contain massive amounts of information, and that these companies sell that information to commercial and government entities. The revelations about these security breaches highlighted the fact that Americans need a better understanding of what happens to their information in a digital world--and what kind of consequences they can face as a result. When I am back home in Wisconsin, I hear from people who do not understand why companies have the right to sell their sensitive personal information. I hear from people who are shocked to discover that personal information about them is available for free on the Internet. There is no question that data aggregators facilitate societal benefits, allowing consumers to obtain instant credit and personalized services, and police officers to locate suspects. But these companies also gather a great deal of potentially sensitive information about individuals, and in many instances they go largely unregulated. Too many of my constituents feel they have lost control over their own information. Congress must return some power to individual Americans so that we can all better understand and manage what happens to our own personal data. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act takes a comprehensive approach to the privacy and security problems we face. It gives consumers back some control over their own information. The bill requires data brokers to allow consumers to access their own information, and to investigate when consumers tell them that corrections are necessary. And it requires companies to give notice to affected consumers and to law enforcement if there is a serious security breach, so that individuals know their identity may be at risk and can take steps to protect themselves. In addition, the bill increases penalties for those who steal our identities. It provides grants to State and local law enforcement to help them combat data fraud and related crimes. It requires companies that buy and sell information to have appropriate data security systems in place. It provides protection to Social Security numbers by prohibiting the sale, purchase or display of Social Security numbers, with certain exceptions, and preventing companies from requiring customers to provide their Social Security numbers in order to purchase goods or services. These protections will help safeguard against future privacy violations and security breaches in the commercial data industry. But that is not all this bill accomplishes. The bill also contains some critically important privacy and security provisions to govern the Government's use of commercial data. This is an aspect of the data broker business that has not yet gotten as much attention in the wake of the recent security breaches. The information gathered by these companies is not just sold to individuals and businesses; Government agencies of all stripes also buy or subscribe to information from commercial sources. The most recent example was the discovery that the Pentagon has a contract with a marketing firm to analyze commercial and other data about high school and college students. While I believe the Government should be able to access commercial databases in appropriate circumstances, there are few existing rules or guidelines to ensure this information is used responsibly. Nor are there restrictions on the use of commercial data for powerful, intrusive data mining programs, an issue I have been particularly concerned about. The Privacy Act, which governs when Government agencies themselves are collecting data, does not apply because the information is held outside the Government and is not gathered solely at Government direction. As a result, there is a great deal we do not know about Government use of commercial data, even in clearly appropriate circumstances such as when the agency's goal is simply to locate an individual already suspected of a crime. We don't know under what circumstances Government employees can obtain access to these databases or for what purposes. We don't know how Government agencies evaluate the accuracy of the databases to which they subscribe, or how the accuracy level affects government use of the data. We don't know how employees are monitored to ensure they do not abuse their access to these databases, or how those who misuse the information are punished. And we don't know how Government agencies, particularly those engaged in sensitive national security investigations, ensure that the data brokers cannot keep records of who the Government is investigating, records which themselves could create a huge security risk in light of the vulnerabilities that have come to the forefront in recent months. That is why I am so pleased that this bill includes provisions to address the Government's use of commercial data. A comprehensive approach to data privacy and security would be incomplete without taking on this piece of the puzzle. The bill recognizes there are many legitimate reasons for Government agencies to obtain commercially available data, but that they need to be subject to privacy and security protections. It takes a commonsense approach, pushing Government agencies to take basic steps to ensure that individuals' personal information is secure and only used for legitimate purposes, and that the commercial information the Government is paying for and relying on is accurate and complete. Specifically, the bill would require that Federal agencies that subscribe to commercial data adopt standards governing its use. These standards would reflect long-standing basic privacy principles. The bill would ensure that Government agencies consider and determine which personnel will be permitted to access the information and under what circumstances; develop retention policies for this personal data and get rid of data they no longer need, minimizing the opportunity for abuse or theft; rely only on accurate and complete data, and penalize vendors who knowingly provide inaccurate information to the Federal Government; provide individuals who suffer adverse consequences as a result of the agency's reliance on commercial data with a redress mechanism; and establish enforcement mechanisms for those privacy policies. The bill also extends to other screening programs the existing protections that already are in place to govern the Transportation Security Administration's possible use of commercial data for its identity-based airline passenger screening program, Secure Flight. If the Federal Government is going to rely on commercial data to screen Americans and decide whether to permit them to travel by air or engage in other common activities, it should do so only subject to explicit congressional authorization, as this bill provides. In addition, agencies should have to provide a redress process for those wrongly affected, and should have to operate under rules that govern the access, use, disclosure, accuracy and retention of that data. The bill also directs the General Services Administration to review Government contracts for commercial data to make sure that vendors have appropriate security programs in place, and that they do not provide information to the Government that they know to be inaccurate. And it requires agencies to audit the information security practices of their vendors. These are basic good Government measures. They guarantee that the Federal Government is not wasting money on inaccurate data, and that vendors are undertaking the security programs that they have promised and for which the Government is paying. We live in a new digital world. The law may never fully keep up with technology, but we must make every effort we can. I am proud to be involved in this comprehensive, reasoned approach to privacy and security. I congratulate Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for their excellent work on this bill. This bill is important and it deserves very serious consideration by the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to join the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in cosponsoring the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. This bill is a much- needed solution to the daunting problem of ensuring the privacy and the security of our personal data, which has become such a precious commodity. As we enter the 21st century, several forces are converging to make our personal information more valuable--and vulnerable--than ever. The world is going digital, and so is our personal data. In this day and age, almost everything we do results in a third party creating a digital record about us--digital records that we may not even realize exist. We seek the convenience of opening bank accounts and making major purchases over the Internet, often without ever speaking to another person face to face or even over the telephone, making identity theft easier and more lucrative. Businesses, nonprofits and even political parties are personalizing their messages, products and services to a degree we've never seen before, and they are willing to invest significant amounts of money in collecting personal information about potential customers or donors. And we are living in an age where identity-based screening and security programs can be vitally important, resulting in more information being collected about individuals in an attempt to identify them accurately. As a result, personal information has become a hot commodity that is bought, sold, and--as so often happens when something becomes valuable--stolen. We are at a crossroads. We all know about the security breaches that have been on the front pages of newspapers all over the country for the past 6 months. They have placed the identities of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk. But this is about much more than just information security. Until California law required ChoicePoint to notify individuals that their information was compromised and they might be vulnerable to identity theft, many Americans had never heard of this company. As news stories focused on the data broker business, many Americans were surprised to discover that companies are creating digital dossiers about them that contain massive amounts of information, and that these companies sell that information to commercial and government entities. The revelations about these security breaches highlighted the fact that Americans need a better understanding of what happens to their information in a digital world--and what kind of consequences they can face as a result. When I am back home in Wisconsin, I hear from people who do not understand why companies have the right to sell their sensitive personal information. I hear from people who are shocked to discover that personal information about them is available for free on the Internet. There is no question that data aggregators facilitate societal benefits, allowing consumers to obtain instant credit and personalized services, and police officers to locate suspects. But these companies also gather a great deal of potentially sensitive information about individuals, and in many instances they go largely unregulated. Too many of my constituents feel they have lost control over their own information. Congress must return some power to individual Americans so that we can all better understand and manage what happens to our own personal data. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act takes a comprehensive approach to the privacy and security problems we face. It gives consumers back some control over their own information. The bill requires data brokers to allow consumers to access their own information, and to investigate when consumers tell them that corrections are necessary. And it requires companies to give notice to affected consumers and to law enforcement if there is a serious security breach, so that individuals know their identity may be at risk and can take steps to protect themselves. In addition, the bill increases penalties for those who steal our identities. It provides grants to State and local law enforcement to help them combat data fraud and related crimes. It requires companies that buy and sell information to have appropriate data security systems in place. It provides protection to Social Security numbers by prohibiting the sale, purchase or display of Social Security numbers, with certain exceptions, and preventing companies from requiring customers to provide their Social Security numbers in order to purchase goods or services. These protections will help safeguard against future privacy violations and security breaches in the commercial data industry. But that is not all this bill accomplishes. The bill also contains some critically important privacy and security provisions to govern the Government's use of commercial data. This is an aspect of the data broker business that has not yet gotten as much attention in the wake of the recent security breaches. The information gathered by these companies is not just sold to individuals and businesses; Government agencies of all stripes also buy or subscribe to information from commercial sources. The most recent example was the discovery that the Pentagon has a contract with a marketing firm to analyze commercial and other data about high school and college students. While I believe the Government should be able to access commercial databases in appropriate circumstances, there are few existing rules or guidelines to ensure this information is used responsibly. Nor are there restrictions on the use of commercial data for powerful, intrusive data mining programs, an issue I have been particularly concerned about. The Privacy Act, which governs when Government agencies themselves are collecting data, does not apply because the information is held outside the Government and is not gathered solely at Government direction. As a result, there is a great deal we do not know about Government use of commercial data, even in clearly appropriate circumstances such as when the agency's goal is simply to locate an individual already suspected of a crime. We don't know under what circumstances Government employees can obtain access to these databases or for what purposes. We don't know how Government agencies evaluate the accuracy of the databases to which they subscribe, or how the accuracy level affects government use of the data. We don't know how employees are monitored to ensure they do not abuse their access to these databases, or how those who misuse the information are punished. And we don't know how Government agencies, particularly those engaged in sensitive national security investigations, ensure that the data brokers cannot keep records of who the Government is investigating, records which themselves could create a huge security risk in light of the vulnerabilities that have come to the forefront in recent months. That is why I am so pleased that this bill includes provisions to address the Government's use of commercial data. A comprehensive approach to data privacy and security would be incomplete without taking on this piece of the puzzle. The bill recognizes there are many legitimate reasons for Government agencies to obtain commercially available data, but that they need to be subject to privacy and security protections. It takes a commonsense approach, pushing Government agencies to take basic steps to ensure that individuals' personal information is secure and only used for legitimate purposes, and that the commercial information the Government is paying for and relying on is accurate and complete. Specifically, the bill would require that Federal agencies that subscribe to commercial data adopt standards governing its use. These standards would reflect long-standing basic privacy principles. The bill would ensure that Government agencies consider and determine which personnel will be permitted to access the information and under what circumstances; develop retention policies for this personal data and get rid of data they no longer need, minimizing the opportunity for abuse or theft; rely only on accurate and complete data, and penalize vendors who knowingly provide inaccurate information to the Federal Government; provide individuals who suffer adverse consequences as a result of the agency's reliance on commercial data with a redress mechanism; and establish enforcement mechanisms for those privacy policies. The bill also extends to other screening programs the existing protections that already are in place to govern the Transportation Security Administration's possible use of commercial data for its identity-based airline passenger screening program, Secure Flight. If the Federal Government is going to rely on commercial data to screen Americans and decide whether to permit them to travel by air or engage in other common activities, it should do so only subject to explicit congressional authorization, as this bill provides. In addition, agencies should have to provide a redress process for those wrongly affected, and should have to operate under rules that govern the access, use, disclosure, accuracy and retention of that data. The bill also directs the General Services Administration to review Government contracts for commercial data to make sure that vendors have appropriate security programs in place, and that they do not provide information to the Government that they know to be inaccurate. And it requires agencies to audit the information security practices of their vendors. These are basic good Government measures. They guarantee that the Federal Government is not wasting money on inaccurate data, and that vendors are undertaking the security programs that they have promised and for which the Government is paying. We live in a new digital world. The law may never fully keep up with technology, but we must make every effort we can. I am proud to be involved in this comprehensive, reasoned approach to privacy and security. I congratulate Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for their excellent work on this bill. This bill is important and it deserves very serious consideration by the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Sununu-Bingaman Tongass amendment. I support this amendment for one simple reason: it ends a fruitless subsidy that costs taxpayers millions of dollars a year. Yes, I do want to see the rare Alaskan Tongass rainforest protected, but that is not what this amendment does. Let me be very clear about this point. This amendment does not place a prohibition on logging. It does, however, place a prohibition on taxpayers footing the bill for logging. Alaska's Tongass National Forest contains represents the biggest block of intact old-growth forest in Alaska and is the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world. Yet the Tongass is the Forest Service's biggest money-losing timber program. Since 1982, over $850 million has been lost on Tongass logging as a result of subsidies, uncompetitive bidding practices, and vastly undervalued timber sales. We hear that this amendment will result in a loss of jobs. This argument concerns me because I recognize the timber industry's role in my home State of Wisconsin. Upon closer examination, though, I understand that this year alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $163,000 for every direct timber job created by logging the Tongass. That is roughly four times the average U.S. household income this year--and certainly more than loggers in Wisconsin are getting paid in Federal dollars. Something is wrong with this picture. I support the Sununu-Bingaman amendment and urge my colleagues who care about fiscal responsibility and care about the environment to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is no secret that there have long been concerns about the competitive sourcing process at the Forest Service. I commend the chairman and ranking member for their attention to this issue in the underlying bill, which reflects those concerns by limiting the amount of funding that the Forest Service may use during fiscal year 2006 for competitive sourcing studies and related activities. The underlying bill also requires agencies funded by this bill to ``include the incremental costs directly attributable to conducting the competitive sourcing competitions'' in any reports to the Appropriations Committee about such studies and stipulates that such costs should be reported ``in accordance with full cost accounting principles.'' The fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations bill that the other body passed last month contains similar language, and also directs the Forest Service to provide quarterly reports on its related business process reengineering efforts. The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent and if the Forest Service's competitive sourcing process is resulting in true savings, which should include a full cost accounting of all of the related savings and losses associated with this process. An amendment I proposed to the bill would have required the General Accountability Office to conduct an audit of existing Forest Service competitive sourcing procedures and to make recommendations on how these procedures can be improved, including recommendations on what accounting practices should be adopted, by the Forest Service to improve accountability. It is my understanding that the chairman and the ranking member have agreed to work with me to request such an audit.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assistance on this important issue. I look forward to reviewing GAO's findings. northeast states forestry research cooperative

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, energy policy is an important issue for America and one which my Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. Crafting an energy policy requires us to address important questions about, for example, the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the need to ensure adequate energy supplies while protecting the environment, the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the need for a sound national energy policy, a vote on an energy bill is a very serious matter and I do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. In my view, however, this bill does not achieve the correct balance on several important issues, which is why I will oppose it. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that implementing the bill will cost $5.1 billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006- 2010 period. I am concerned that this estimate does not include the at least $10.1 billion in unpaid-for tax breaks. The $10.1 billion includes $5.7 billion in production tax credits and $4.4 billion in various subsidies to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries. Although I support the extension of the wind energy production tax credit and incentives for alternative fuels such as biodiesel, I am concerned that these tax expenditures are not offset. This billion dollar figure does not include the potential costs of the billions of dollars in loan guarantees provided in the bill, which could prove extremely costly to taxpayers. According to the CBO, loan default risk is ``well above 50 percent'' leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. The oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric and nuclear industries are mature industries that do not need to be propped up by the taxpayers. I am also especially concerned about the tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry, which is already experiencing windfall profits as oil nears $60 a barrel. Even before the Senate added the tax title to the bill or any other amendments, CBO estimated that implementing the bill would cost $5.1 billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006-2010 period. None of this spending is offset, or paid for. Our nation's budget position has deteriorated significantly over the past few years, in large part because of the massive tax cuts that were enacted. We now face years of projected budget deficits. The only way we will climb out of this deficit hole is to return to the fiscally responsible policies that helped put our nation on a sound fiscal footing in the 1990s, and that means making sure the bills we pass are paid for. Otherwise we are digging our deficit hole even deeper and adding to the massive debt already facing our children and grandchildren. In addition, this bill repeals the proconsumer Public Utility Holding Company Act, the Federal Government's most important mechanism to protect electricity consumers. The bill does include language from my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, banning Enron-like energy trading schemes. I also welcome the addition of new language that gives the Federal Government more oversight of utility mergers. This language, however, in my opinion, does not adequately prevent utilities from using affiliate companies to out compete small businesses. That is why I joined with the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, in filing the consumer protection, fair competition, and financial integrity amendment. We believe that small businesses and consumers should be protected from abuses involving public utility companies' related businesses. We also share the belief that repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in the underlying bill creates a serious regulatory void and market flaw that Congress should correct. Our amendment would have improved the bill by making clear the actions that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--or FERC--must take to ensure that deregulated holding companies do not outcompete our small businesses, damage their financial standing, and then pass the costs of bad investments to consumers. Our amendment was supported by a wide and impressive coalition of business, labor, financial, and consumer groups which include AARP, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Public Power Association, American Subcontractors Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation, Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty Corporation, Blue Point Re Limited, CIFG, IXIS Financial Guaranty, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Financial Security Assurance, MBIA Insurance Corporation, Radian Asset Assurance Inc., RAM Reinsurance Company, XL Capital Assurance, ELCON, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Mechanical Contractors Association of America, National Electrical Contractors Association, Plumbing- Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association, Public Citizen, Public Interest Research Group, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Small Business Legislative Council, and Wisconsin Public Power, Incorporated. My State of Wisconsin is acutely interested in and concerned about the repeal of PUHCA and about ongoing abuses involving the unregulated corporate affiliates of regulated utilities. I have also heard from contractors and other small businesses across the Nation who have been harmed by unfair competition by affiliates of public utilities. I am pleased this consumer protection amendment was a bipartisan effort. I believe we have broad support in this body and beyond for this amendment, which is why I was disappointed that we were not able to offer this amendment because of the threat of another amendment being offered that would eliminate the oversight provisions currently in the bill. I am pleased, however, that we were able to obtain assurances from the chair and ranking member that they would hold a hearing on abusive affiliate transactions. I also appreciate the ranking member's commitment to request a GAO investigation of the potential for abusive transactions involving affiliates of public utility companies. During debate on this important measure, I supported several efforts to improve the underlying bill and the bill contains many provisions that I support. Specifically, I strongly supported the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, No. 779. I am pleased that the Senate overwhelmingly passed this important measure. I support the national ban of methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, and the measures in the bill that increase the supply of ethanol. I am also pleased that the amendment includes language I drafted to consolidate the number of Federal reformulated gasoline blends. I have worked closely with Congressman Paul Ryan in an effort to reduce the number of Federal reformulated gasoline blends and increase gasoline supplies for consumers. In recent years, fuel supply shocks such as pipeline problems and refinery fires have contributed significantly to gasoline price spikes in southern Wisconsin. Chicago and southeast Wisconsin use a specialized blend of reformulated gasoline to meet Federal Clean Air Act requirements that is not used elsewhere in the country. When supplies of this type of gasoline run low, Wisconsin is unable to draw on supplies of gasoline from other areas. Consolidation of the number of boutique fuels will help Wisconsin and consumers across the country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the boutique fuels issue is adequately addressed in the energy bill conference report. I also supported Senator Bingaman's amendment to mandate a renewable portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to generate or purchase 10 percent of the electricity they sell from renewable sources by 2020. The Senate has previously considered renewable portfolio standards of 20 percent. We can do even better on renewable energy sources, but I am pleased that the Senate took a positive step forward on this important issue. I am also pleased with the many energy efficiency incentives and the reauthorization of the Energy Performance Savings Contracts Program. I also support the inclusion of mandatory electricity reliability standards to prevent blackouts. I supported the Cantwell energy security amendment, No. 784, because it would have helped to put America on the path towards independence from foreign oil. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent by 2025 will make our country stronger and safer. For years, the American economy has been subject to the whims of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, cartel. The amendment did not address which technology should be used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and does not mandate changes in fuel economy standards. The language is simple--it sets our goal and we have to figure out how to get there. We are a country of innovators. Whether it is wind, solar, biodiesel, or a technology we still have not dreamed of yet, we can-- and we must--break our addiction to foreign oil. This bold, aggressive amendment would have ensured that we meet our goal of real energy independence. I was disappointed that the Senate did not adopt this amendment. In sum, the American people deserve a more fiscally responsible energy policy than that is reflected in this bill, and I cannot vote in favor of it. This measure will need to be improved in conference to get my vote.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the Bond-Levin amendment regarding CAFE standards, and I want to explain my views in detail. Fuel efficiency is a critically important issue for our country, for my home State of Wisconsin, and for our future. I remain committed to the goal that significant improvements in automobile and light truck fuel efficiency can be achieved over an appropriate time frame. My vote for the Levin-Bond is entirely consistent with that goal. The Levin-Bond amendment seeks to renew the Department of Transportation's role in setting CAFE standards, acting through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA. If Congress does not act to try to restore normalcy to the NHTSA process, we will keep having these fights which Congress attempts to either block or set CAFE standards, every 20 years or so, when the political will is sufficient to do so. NHTSA will never be able to carry out the normal process of reviewing and incrementally improving fuel efficiency for automobiles and light trucks, as Congress originally intended when it passed the CAFE law in the 1970s. Both interest groups battling over the CAFE issue, the auto manufacturers and the environmental community, have switched their positions in this debate on this bill over the past several years. The auto industry, which once wanted CAFE perpetually frozen with a rider to an appropriations bill, now supports the Levin amendment. The environmental community, which once opposed the rider and wanted NHTSA to act, now wants Congress to set the standard rather than NHTSA. With my vote, I am maintaining my consistent position on this issue. As I stated on the Senate floor in the debate on the CAFE rider on June 15, 2000, my vote was about ``Congress getting out of the way and letting a Federal agency meet the requirements of Federal law originally imposed by Congress.'' I supported removing the rider back in 2000 because I was concerned that Congress has for more than 5 years blocked NHTSA from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is a need to modify fuel economy standards. As I made clear in 2000, 2002, 2003 and many other previous debates on this issue, I have made no determination about what fuel economy standards should be, though I do think that an increase is possible. NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given model year, taking into account several factors; technological feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as those for safety and environmental performance, the need to conserve energy, and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. I want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make an objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. I expect NHTSA to consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental interests, auto manufacturers, and other interested citizens--in developing this rule. And, I expect NHTSA to act, and if it does not, this amendment requires Congress to act on a standard. In opposing the Levin-Bond amendment, some subscribe to the view that NHTSA has a particular agenda and will recommend weak standards. I do not support that view. NHTSA should be allowed to set this standard. Congress is not the best forum for understanding whether or not improvements in fuel economy can and should be made using existing technologies or whether emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution. In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers, indeed all consumers, have a wide range of new, more fuel efficient automobiles, SUVs, and trucks available to them, taking into account all appropriate energy, technological and economic factors. That balancing is required by the law. I expect NHTSA to proceed in a manner consistent with the law by fully considering all those factors, and this amendment ensures they do so. In supporting this amendment, I maintain the position that it is my job to ensure that the agency responsible for setting fuel economy be allowed to do its job. I expect it to be fair and neutral in that process, and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that their views are represented and that the regulatory process proceeds in a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits will support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the ANTI-GANG Act, introduced today by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities. Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The ANTI-GANG Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics. The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow the recruitment of the very best Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorneys General and allow them to remain in public service longer so they can use their wealth of experience to combat gang violence. The ANTI-GANG Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute, which was never intended to be used against violent street gangs, with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but also addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The ANTI-GANG Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement and certify that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest Finally, the ANTI-GANG Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional young prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence. It is very hard to know whether this will work, and what effect if might have on the criminal justice system. With the review required by the ANTI-GANG Act, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand to Federal role in prosecuting juveniles. We all know that the gang problem is a serious one, and that it is only getting worse. Other members of Congress have proposed different approaches to combating the gang problem, and the House of Representatives has passed its own gang bill. But the ANTI-GANG Act is the approach most responsive to the needs of State and local prosecutors who are on the ground fighting this problem, day in and day. Other approaches go down the wrong path. State and Federal prosecutors have not demanded unchecked and increased Federal jurisdiction over State crimes that diminishes the States' historic and primary role in fighting violent street gangs. They did not come to us seeking new and expanded Federal death penalty crimes, but rather effective laws that focus on the recruitment and retention of gang members. They never mentioned needing a massive and unwarranted reworking of the Federal rules used to prosecute juveniles as adults, regardless of whether the juvenile is in a gang or not. And, to my knowledge, no prosecutors have put increased mandatory minimums targeted at first offenders on their wish list. All of these approaches sound tough, but they aren't what prosecutors and law enforcement have asked for and they won't solve the gang problem. Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks, and walk their streets without fearing that gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The ANTI-GANG Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe. I am proud to cosponsor it and I urge my colleagues to support it.