Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I further ask that following my remarks, the Senator from Louisiana be recognized for her remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is not uncommon for Senators to stand in the Senate and tell their colleagues and the American people that an upcoming vote is one of the most important the Senate will ever take. We are the masters of hyperbole in this body, forever standing on the precipices and poised on the brink of momentous decisions. But today, I think most will agree with me: We truly are at such a moment. The Senate is on the verge of making a decision with potentially enormous consequences for this institution and for the country and the people we serve. At stake is not just the fate of a handful of judicial nominations or of a future Supreme Court nomination, as important as they may be. No, the decisions made this week will resonate far beyond this Chamber and far beyond the current controversy. I will speak today about how we arrived at this moment of great peril and how we might step back from the brink. I will speak about the consequences of the question that will apparently be put before the Senate prior to our next recess. I will speak today about principle and about power. While they do not always attract a lot of public attention, traditional nominations are very important. We all know that. The judicial branch is a coequal branch of Government. The interpretation and enforcement of the laws we pass in Congress depend greatly on the men and women who serve as judges, and, of course, Federal judges serve lifetime appointments. Decisions made by the President and the Senate on judicial nominations have a long-term and long-lasting impact on the Nation. Disputes over how the Senate should exercise its constitutional power of advice and consent on such nominations are as old as the Republic itself. Nominations have led to some of the most historic and divisive debates in this body, dating back to efforts to pack the courts with Federalist judges in the waning days of John Adams' Presidency. More recently, we had debates about Franklin Delano Roosevelt's court- packing plan in the late 1930s, the Abe Fortas nomination in the late 1960s, and Robert Bork in the late 1980s, to give a few examples. Debate, even bitter partisan debate, over judicial nominations is nothing new. What is new is that the Senate is now poised to break with its rules and traditions. For the first time, the desire of one side to win nomination battles has become so intense and so unyielding that it threatens the very rules by which this Senate has operated for centuries. In all of the previous controversies I have mentioned, which I think most serious students of Congress and the courts would agree were more significant than the current debate over a handful of circuit court judges, the rules of the Senate have allowed the battles to be fought fairly. Only today, apparently, must those rules give way so one side can have its way. The majority leader and those who support his extraordinary plan to change the Senate rules by fiat seek to cloak their grab for power in the source of our Nation's loftiest principles, and that source is the Constitution. This is not just a silly public relations effort to change the name of their plan from the nuclear option--the term coined by the majority leader's predecessor--because that term obviously fares rather poorly in the public opinion polls. It is actually a cynical effort to distract the public from the extraconstitutional nature of the plan by invoking the Constitution itself. In the last Congress, as in this one, I served as the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The subcommittee held a hearing in May 2003 with the grandiose title: ``Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution, When a Majority is Denied Its Right to Consent.'' The hearing was certainly interesting and provocative. I was there the whole time. No one made a convincing case that there is any such right in the Constitution anywhere. Article II, section 2 spells out the Senate's role in nominations. It states, in relevant part, that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.'' That is it. That is all it says. Some have managed to find in those few words a requirement that the Senate give all judicial nominees up-or-down votes. Even if someone isn't a strict constructionist, I can't for the life of me understand where they get that from. Where is it? Where is it in the language? Where is it in the Constitution? It may be the policy they prefer, but it is not a constitutional argument. It is not a constitutional requirement. In fact, the only language in the Constitution that directly addresses the issue we are faced with today is the following from Article I, clause 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . . The Senate has determined its rules, and its rules also provide the means for changing the rules, of course. The Senate is now being asked to change the rules by breaking the rules. There is no principle involved here. There is just power. It is a shame that those who support the President's nominees have inflated what is essentially a political dispute to a constitutional debate. For those of us who take the Constitution seriously, it is jarring to hear colleagues suggesting that one is violating one's oath of office by voting not to end debate on a nomination. As my colleagues know, I spent 7 years in this body fighting to pass a campaign finance reform bill. We had a majority here on that bill after a couple of years. That wasn't the issue. For years that effort had the support of a bipartisan majority of Senators, but it was stymied by filibusters. Senators who supported reform had many spirited, sometimes even bitter, debates with Senators who opposed our bill. But never did we contend our opponents on campaign finance reform were violating their oath of office by using every tool available to oppose a bill with which they strongly disagreed. The Constitution does not prohibit opponents of a judicial nominee-- or any nominee, for that matter--from using a filibuster to block a final vote on the nominee. The majority does not have a constitutional right to confirm a nominee, and the nominee has no constitutional right to a vote. As the senior Senator from West Virginia said the other day: The Senate has often denied consent to a nominee in the past by simply refusing to schedule a final vote. I have not always supported those actions, but I have not pretended they are unconstitutional. If the arguments being advanced today by the Republican majority are correct, then the Republicans acted unconstitutionally in 1995 when they defeated the nomination of Henry Foster to be Surgeon General by using a filibuster. They violated the Constitution when they required cloture votes before ultimately confirming Stephen Breyer, Rosemary Burkett, H. Lee Sarokin, Richard Paez, and Marsha Berzon to circuit court judgeships, David Sacher to the Surgeon General's office, and Ricki Tigert to the FDIC, Walter Dellinger to the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, and the current Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, to be U.S. Attorney. If the arguments being advanced today are correct, they violated their oaths of office when they forced the ambassadorial nomination of Sam Brown to be withdrawn because they refused to end debate on his nomination. These are just the cases where a cloture vote was required to get a nomination through. I won't even start on the list of nominees who never even got a hearing or a vote in the Judiciary Committee or any kind of debate on the floor if they cleared committee. But there are dozens of them. Wasn't the majority denied its right to consent just as much in those cases? Is there any meaningful constitutional difference between a filibuster on the one hand and on the other hand a hold on the Senate floor or a wink and a nod between a committee chairman and a Member who just doesn't like a nominee? One could certainly argue the denial of consent by failing to schedule a hearing or a vote in committee is on even less firm constitutional ground than a filibuster because it allows just one Senator, the chairman of Judiciary Committee, to make the decision that the Senate's consent on a nominee will be withheld, whereas if all the Senators vote, a filibuster can be sustained only with 41 or more votes. But there is no real argument that filibusters of judicial nominations are unconstitutional, just as blocking nominations in committee is not unconstitutional. There is no principle here that justifies eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees who have lifetime appointments but leaves it intact for nominees to the executive branch who can only serve until the term of the appointing President ends at the latest. There is no principle that can distinguish judicial nominations from legislation, which may also be passed by a majority, but can be amended or revoked by a majority in the same or later Congress as well. Again, the effort we are facing here is not based on principle, it is based on power. The lack of a constitutional basis for it is made even more clear by the specific plan that the majority leader spelled out in his press release last week. He intends, according to that release, to ``seek a ruling from the Presiding Officer regarding the appropriate length of time for debate on such nominees.'' Seeking a ruling on how long we should debate? Surely the Presiding Officer cannot make that ruling on constitutional grounds, the idea of a constitutional time limit. What is the constitutional basis for ruling that the Senate can debate a nomination only for a particular length of time? Is the Presiding Officer going to opine that it is constitutional to debate a nomination for 100 hours, but unconstitutional for us to have 101 hours of debate? That would be absurd. No, it appears that instead of following the existing precedents of the Senate, which state there is no dilatory rule except after cloture has been invoked, the Presiding Officer will just announce a new rule and the Senate will then debate and vote on an appeal of that ruling. If this happens, the rules of the Senate will be changed by fiat, by breaking the rules--not principle, power, the power of majority rule. The Constitution did not set up the Senate to be a majoritarian body. That is why renaming the nuclear option as the constitutional option is so wrong. The Constitution allows citizens from smaller States who could be easily outvoted in a majoritarian legislature such as the House to have the same power in the Senate as citizens of larger States. This is not a minor provision, as the Presiding Officer knows. The Founders clearly didn't think so because--this is amazing--they made it the only provision in the Constitution that cannot be amended. No State can give up its equal representation in the Senate without its consent. You can't do a constitutional amendment to change that. They designed the Senate to be an important bulwark against majoritarian pressure. The Senate rules from the very beginning, of course, have granted protections for the minority. There was no cloture rule at all until this century. The rule didn't cover nominations until 1949. While the cloture rule has changed over time--sometimes offering more protection to the minority and sometimes less--those rule changes have always been accomplished in accordance with the Senate rules until now, until the demand for power trumped principle. The Framers intended the Senate to act as a check on the whims of the majority, not to facilitate them. I will not pretend the Senate has always been on the right side of history. At times, most notably during the great civil rights debates of the 1950s and 1960s, Senators used the powers given them to block vital, majority-supported legislation. But notwithstanding those dark moments, the Senate has also served throughout the history of this Republic as a place where individuals with different beliefs and goals were forced to come together to work for the common good. By empowering the minority, the Framers created a body that has served this country well. To continue down the road we are on now will be to irretrievably change the very character of the Senate and irretrievably weaken the institution. Without the unique feature of extended debate, the Senate will be much less able to stand up to the President or to cool the passions of the explicitly majoritarian House. I know my colleagues see themselves as guardians of this remarkable institution, as I do. When we leave the Senate--and some day, somehow or another, all of us will--it is our responsibility to ensure we do not leave this institution weakened. As Senators, we tend to see ourselves as pretty important, but none of us--and certainly no judicial nomination--is more important than the institution of the U.S. Senate itself. Why is this extreme course necessary? Why are so many of our colleagues prepared to sacrifice the Senate's character and its special power? Why are they bent on giving up their own power as Senators? Let me take a minute to respond to some of the charges made about the behavior of the minority that supposedly has given the majority no choice but to use this nuclear option. First, we are told using the filibuster to block a judicial nomination is unprecedented. As anyone who has studied the record knows, that is nonsense. Most famously, the Fortas nomination was filibustered. The Senator who led that filibuster, Robert Griffin of Michigan, has tried to claim in recent days that it really wasn't a filibuster at all. But he said at the time: It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote. We are told, however, that the Fortas nomination was different because there were Southern Democrats opposed to the nomination as well as Republicans. But what difference does that make? This debate is not about the rights of the minority party; it is about the rights of a minority of Senators. Does anyone really think that if one or a few of our Republican colleagues joined a filibuster against one of the handful of circuit court nominees that have been blocked, it would make a difference to the Senators who support the nominations and want to change the rules? Fortas, of course, was a Supreme Court nominee, while the handful of nominees that have been blocked so far have been nominated to circuit courts. But there have been filibusters of circuit court nominees in the past as well, indeed in the very recent past. In 2000, cloture votes were held on two Clinton nominees to the Ninth Circuit, Marsha Berzo, and Richard Paez. The current majority leader himself voted against cloture on Judge Paez's nomination on March 8, 2000. Apparently, these filibusters were different because they were unsuccessful. The handful of Democratic filibusters of President Bush's nominees are unprecedented, we are told, because the Republican filibusters of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon didn't prevent them from being confirmed. Does anyone really think that if the current majority leader and the others who voted--against ending debate on the Paez nomination had convinced their colleagues to join them they would have then changed their votes the next time around to make sure that the principle of an up or down vote was maintained? This is what now passes for debate and argument on the issue of so- called ``obstruction'' of President Bush's nominees. ``The filibusters are unprecedented,'' they say. Never mind that Republicans, including the majority leader, used the same tactic against nominees they opposed. ``Democratic obstruction of the President's nominations is unprecedented,'' we hear. Never mind that the Senate approved 204 out of 214 nominations that came to the floor in President Bush's first term, but in the last 4 years of President Clinton's presidency, only 175 nominees were confirmed and 55 were blocked, including 20 circuit court nominees. Many of those nominees never even got a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on which I sit. Well, that was different, we are told, because President Bush's nominees have a majority of support in the Senate. But that distinction is nonsense as well. President Clinton's nominees had majority support, obviously. That is why they were held up in committee and never reached the floor, even for a cloture vote. Judge Paez, for example, was first nominated in January 1996. We finally confirmed him in March 2000. The vote on cloture was 85 to 14. The vote to confirm him was 59 to 39. But one of the most foolish arguments we hear in support of the nuclear option is that there is a crisis in the courts because of the number of vacancies caused by Democratic filibusters. As of the end of President Bush's first term, during which the Senate confirmed 204 judges, there were only 27 vacancies on the Federal bench. The courts had their lowest vacancy rate since 1990. Five months into his second term, there are now 45 vacancies, but the President has made nominations for only 15 of them, one-third. For 30 vacancies there are no nominees. The vacancy rate is still very low historically. If there is a crisis now, which there isn't, it surely is not the Senate's fault. There is no vacancy crisis. But we are about to be thrown into a constitutional crisis by a majority that is drunk with power. While there is plenty of blame to go around, the President precipitated this crisis. When he took office in 2001, he had an opportunity to end the bitterness that plagued judicial nominations over the previous decade by recognizing that an injustice had been done to a large number of Clinton nominees. Not an unconstitutional injustice, but an injustice nonetheless There were enough vacancies on the Federal appellate courts for him to name most of the judges but give a few seats to Clinton nominees who had been blocked, or to other nominees suggested by Democrats in those States. In his first group of nominations, which were almost all to the appellate courts, he made a nod in that direction by nominating Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit. President Clinton's nomination of Gregory, the first African-American to sit on that circuit, had been blocked in the Judiciary Committee. He was eventually confirmed by a 99-1 vote. The hopes that the President would make good on his campaign promise to change the tone in Washington were short lived. He ignored pleas for consultation and conciliation on judicial nominations. Time after time, he has filled appellate court seats that had been kept vacant during the Clinton years with extremely conservative and often controversial nominees. Yet Democrats certainly didn't block all or even nearly a majority of those choices. Much to the displeasure of many of the groups on the left that work on nominations, Jeffrey Sutton and Deborah Cook now sit on the Sixth Circuit, Jay Bybee, who we later learned was the author of the infamous DOJ torture memo, is on the Ninth Circuit. Michael McConnell and Timothy Tymkovich are on the Tenth Circuit. In all, 35 of President Bush's nominations to the circuit courts have been confirmed, even though 9 of those seats became vacant during the Clinton years and were kept vacant by denying Clinton nominees an up or down vote. Only seven judges were blocked because of their views or records. Three others were held up because of the particularly egregious tactics used to block Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit during the Clinton administration. The President has succeeded in reshaping the Federal courts to his liking. He may soon have one or even two Supreme Court nominations to make. He ought to be proud of and pleased with his accomplishments, but winning almost all the time apparently isn't enough. And in order to win every time, he is willing to push the Senate to upend over 200 years of tradition and precedent and perhaps permanently damage the comity on which this institution functions. In the end, the seemingly insurmountable differences we have on judicial nominees can only be resolved the way that seemingly insurmountable differences are resolved on almost all other hotly contested issues in the Senate--through negotiation and compromise. Of course, for there to be compromise, both sides have to be willing to engage in that effort. The offers made by the majority leader thus far do not retain the unique and crucial feature of the current Senate rules--the right to unlimited debate. They amount to a slow motion nuclear option. It may be that a confrontation cannot be avoided. The groups that support the President's nominees are clamoring for the nuclear trigger to be pulled. The only hope for the Senate is the Senate itself. In the end, this decision will be made by the 100 men and women given the honor and responsibility of serving in this body at this point in our Nation's history. The stakes could hardly be higher, or the consequences to this body more significant. I can only hope that my colleagues vote to let the Senate continue to be the Senate. The checks and balances that the Framers created are at great risk today. The American people will suffer a great loss if we step over this precipice. My fervent plea and hope is that the Senate will choose principle over power. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on final passage on the Senate version of H.R. 3, the SAFETEA bill. As we all know, the country has important transportation needs that Congress must address and I commend the managers of the bill for working hard to address highway construction, mass transit, highway safety and other important programs. This is a very important bill and I am not taking my vote lightly. I have heard from numerous individuals and groups across Wisconsin who are opposed to another temporary extension and eager to have the certainty for planning purposes that comes with a full reauthorization. I understand their concerns and I share their desire that Congress provide necessary transportation funding. That is why I voted in favor of the motion to proceed to the bill and the motion to invoke cloture on the bill--because Congress needs to act on the country's transportation priorities. I wish I could vote for the bill. I would have voted for a bill that was equitable, even if it was not perfect. However, the current bill is far from equitable--in fact, it makes Wisconsin a double loser, both under the funding formula's rate of return and in the level of overall funding relative to the last bill, TEA-21. The bill does not do nearly enough to help meet the transportation needs of my constituents in Wisconsin and, for that reason, I will vote against the bill. Let me take a little time to explain my concerns with the bill, starting with the funding formula this bill would establish. Under that formula, certain States would continue to receive significantly more money than they pay into the highway trust fund, while other States continue to be denied their fair share. In fact, the number of donor States--or those who receive less than their fair share--would actually increase under this bill compared to the final year of TEA-21. In 2004 there were 27 donor States, while by the end of the new bill in 2009 there would be 31 States that pay more into the highway trust fund than they receive back. Six States--Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon and Wisconsin--would become donors, while only Arkansas and Nebraska would leave that category. I worked hard with the rest of the Wisconsin delegation during the last successful authorization to make sure that our State finally got a fair rate of return. Let me tell my colleagues, that change was long overdue. According to numbers from the Department of Transportation, from 1956 through 2000, Wisconsin got back just 90 cents on every dollar it paid into the trust fund. In TEA-21, Wisconsin at last received a fair return. Unfortunately, this bill will take us back to where we were for the previous four decades--in the hole. Under the new formula, Wisconsin will once again be a donor State in 2006 and receive the bare minimum rate of return of 92 percent by the final year of the bill. I have spoken to other members of our State's delegation, and I think I can safely say we agree that Wisconsin deserves better. It is bad enough that the bill would return Wisconsin to donor status. Adding insult to injury is the level of funding that this bill would provide for my State. This bill provides almost flat funding for Wisconsin, which we all know in real terms is a cut. In 2004 under TEA- 21, Wisconsin received $635 million, while the average spending under the current bill would only be $642.8 million per year. When these figures are adjusted for inflation, in real terms the bill means a reduction of over $35 million each year for Wisconsin, reducing our ability to meet our transportation needs--all while we become a donor State and again subsidize other States' transportation projects. I cannot support a bill that treats Wisconsin so poorly with respect to both overall funding and the formula's rate of return. Fortunately, today's vote is not the final word on this bill. I will continue to work hard with the senior Senator from Wisconsin and the rest of the State's delegation to do everything that we can to produce a final transportation bill that is fair for our constituents.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will cast my vote in support of the conference report on the 2005 supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq, Afghanistan, and tsunami relief. I do so despite my strong objections to the administration's policy of continuing to fund our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency supplemental bills. These needs should be addressed in the regular budget request so that they can actually be paid for, not placed on the tab of the American people so that debt can pile up. But the fact remains that our troops on the ground need timely support, and I will cast my vote to see that they get it, and the victims of the horrifying 2004 tsunami in South and Southeast Asia are provided with some meaningful relief and assistance. I am pleased that the conferees retained my amendment to make it easier for the families of injured servicemembers to travel to the bedsides of their loved ones. I am disappointed that a sunset provision was added to this common-sense measure, and I will continue fighting to ensure that the benefits to military families provided by my amendment become permanent. My vote in support of this conference report also comes with serious reservations because it contains the extremely troublesome immigration and driver's license provisions of the REAL ID Act, which the House passed as an amendment to this bill. I strongly support efforts to curb illegal immigration and to prevent terrorists from entering our country to do harm. But as we work to secure our borders and protect our Nation from future terrorist attacks, we must also respect the need for refugees, foreign workers, family members, students, businesspeople, visitors, and others who wish to come to our Nation legally. The REAL ID Act is a big step in the wrong direction. The new restrictions on immigration in the REAL ID Act are not necessary to protect national security. Rather, they will only serve to create serious and unjustified hardships for people fleeing persecution and for other non-citizens. Not only that, but the Senate has had no opportunity to consider the REAL ID Act. It is astounding that Congress would enact these significant immigration changes without the United States Senate ever having held a hearing on them, without the Judiciary Committee ever having considered them, and without Senators ever having taken a vote specifically on those reforms or having had an opportunity to offer amendments. Obviously these issues are too important to address them in such a truncated way. Congressional leaders have no business tacking these very significant and controversial changes to immigration law onto an unrelated, must-pass appropriations bill. Clearly, this process was used because these changes could not pass the Senate on their own merit. They had to be added to legislation that contains vital funding for our troops in Iraq. What has happened to the legislative process? I know that some in the other body, and some in the Senate as well, have very strong feelings about these immigration provisions. But strong feelings do not justify abusing the power of the majority and the legislative process in this way. I strongly object to this tactic. Let me explain a few of my concerns with the REAL ID Act. First, this conference report will make it even harder for those fleeing persecution to seek asylum in this country. These changes to asylum law are simply unnecessary. As any attorney who handles asylum cases can tell you, asylum cases are already extremely difficult to prove. In fact, only about 30 percent of asylum applications are granted today. Those seeking asylum in the United States already undergo the highest level of security checks of all foreign nationals who enter this country, and the provisions in this bill will result, I am sure, in the rejection of legitimate applications without making us any safer. The asylum provisions of the REAL ID Act were improved somewhat in conference, and I greatly appreciate the work Senator Brownback did to make changes to the House-passed version. But the changes do not go far enough to adequately protect asylum seekers. This bill will have real effects on real people--people who will be sent back to countries where they or their families may be harmed or even killed because of their political or religious beliefs. There are also provisions in this bill that would further restrict judicial review in immigration proceedings. This is not the time to downgrade the judicial branch's longstanding role as a check on the abuse of executive branch power, particularly in light of some of the administration's unprecedented actions since September 11, 2001. Non- citizens have borne the burden of many of the administration's egregious civil liberties violations that have occurred since September 11. I believe that we can fight terrorism without compromising our civil liberties. Making it harder for non-citizens to seek judicial review in immigration proceedings is sending exactly the wrong message about the need to respect the Constitution and basic human rights. The REAL ID provisions in the conference report also have potentially serious environmental implications. One section of the conference report allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws that he deems necessary to allow expeditious construction of barriers at the border. Let me repeat that: The Secretary can waive any and all laws that he wishes in order to construct these barriers. I guess that could include labor and safety laws, but certainly it means that environmental regulations can be waived, at the sole discretion of the Secretary. I also want to address the driver's license title of the conference report. This title of the REAL ID Act is particularly unfortunate because it repeals provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which we just passed a few months ago, and replaces them with the unworkable mandates that Congress rejected when debating the intelligence reform legislation. The intelligence reform bill required a negotiated rulemaking process to develop minimum identification standards, a process that is already under way and has included State governments, the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation, law enforcement, industry representatives, privacy advocates, and immigration groups. They all had a seat at the table under the intelligence reform bill. In fact, they met for 3 full days just a few weeks ago. This process would have, in all likelihood, resulted in sensible, realistic standards for driver's licenses to improve security. Instead, the REAL ID Act mandates a long list of expensive and inflexible requirements for the states, some of which could have serious unintended consequences. Let me give you an example that demonstrates why we should not be rushing these provisions into law. A variety of States, either by law or policy, have address confidentiality programs that permit law enforcement officers, judges, or domestic violence victims to list something other than their home address on the face of their driver's license. They are required to provide their home address to the DMV, but it is not actually printed on the license. This is an important security measure to protect public officials and victims of violence from individuals who wish to do them harm. The REAL ID Act would override these protections by mandating that a person's home address be printed on the face of the driver's license itself. Had the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to review this bill, I feel confident we could have addressed this issue in a more nuanced way, and certainly the process now underway that this bill will short-circuit would have taken into account the legitimate public safety interest allowing some people to not list their actual addresses. The intelligence reform bill struck the right balance by setting up a mechanism to help improve the security of State identification cards, while also ensuring that States and other interested parties would have input into the process of determining minimum identification standards. I am very disappointed that the REAL ID Act is overriding this ongoing process with costly and unrealistic requirements that leave States with little discretion. On top of all this, the REAL ID Act prohibits the issuance of State driver's licenses to undocumented aliens. States should be the ones to decide whether, in the interests of public safety, they wish to issue driver's licenses to undocumented aliens. The reality is, there are millions of undocumented workers in the Nation. States could reasonably decide, just as Wisconsin has, that from a law enforcement and public safety perspective it is better to ensure that these individuals have been tested on their driving skills, have obtained insurance, and are readily identifiable, rather than to force them to drive illegally. While I am extremely concerned about the effects these REAL ID provisions are going to have on noncitizens and on already cash- strapped State governments, I do want to note one bright stop in the immigration landscape of this bill. That is the provision that addresses the shortage of H-2B visas for temporary, seasonal workers. The cap for H-2B visas was reached just 3 months into the 2005 fiscal year, in January, which meant that employers in Northern States, such as Wisconsin whose tourism, landscaping, and other seasonal industries get started later in the year, have been unable to hire workers using H-2B visas. Senator Mikulski and Senator Gregg worked tirelessly to ensure that this provision was enacted into law in time to help employers who need workers this year, and I do commend them for their efforts. I have been proud to cosponsor their H-2B legislation, and I am very pleased this is about to become law. Unlike the REAL ID bill, this provision had overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate and quick congressional action was definitely needed. Mr. President, I will vote for this legislation because our Armed Forces need the funds it provides, but I strongly object to the inclusion of the REAL ID Act in the conference report. Those who support these provisions have prevailed only because they were willing to upend the legislative process to achieve their ends. I certainly regret that, and I think many of us will come to regret that. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss my vote in favor of cloture on the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency EPA. I have always believed that the President should be granted significant deference in selecting his Cabinet and close advisers. Unlike judicial nominees, the EPA Administrator will serve for 4 years at the President's discretion. Furthermore, the President made a good choice. Stephen Johnson, who has served the country for 24 years as a career EPA employee, is a well-qualified nominee who enjoys broad public support. When his nomination was considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this spring, the committee approved his nomination by a vote of 17-1. He will serve the country well as Administrator of the EPA. I share my colleagues' concerns about the administration's refusal to provide the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with EPA's analysis of the clean air bills pending before the Senate. I am proud to cosponsor Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act, and I believe that the administration's Clear Skies proposal is woefully inadequate. I agree that the information Senator Carper has requested from EPA is vitally important to evaluate the differing clean air regulation proposals. EPA's refusal to turn over its analysis indicates that its own data do not lend support to the Clear Skies initiative. Disclosure of Government data to the public is a cornerstone of our democracy, and this administration has continually attempted to avoid congressional oversight. I implore Mr. Johnson, on his first day as EPA Administrator, to turn over these documents to the Senator Carper and Senator Jeffords. To restore credibility to the agency that is supposed to safeguard human health and the environment, Administrator Johnson should release this information immediately. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the administration's refusal to provide this information should stand in the way of this qualified nominee leading the Nation's Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this resolution is the latest in a string of budgets that continue to set records for fiscal recklessness. The test of any budget is the bottom line, and any civics teacher looking at the bottom line would have to give this budget an ``F.'' It continues to drive us deeper into the deficit ditch, with little hope that we will ever climb out of it, and it is just as revealing for what it does not include as for what it does. This budget fails to include a single penny for the President's most important domestic priority, his plan to privatize Social Security. While I strongly oppose such a plan, if the President and congressional leadership are serious about pushing their plan to privatize Social Security, the very least they can do is pay for it. This budget fails to provide for long-term reform of the alternative minimum tax, something on which there is widespread, bipartisan agreement. But here again, instead of ensuring that this clear priority can move ahead, this budget remains silent. And perhaps most importantly, this budget fails to restore the common sense pay-go budget rule that helped restrain our collective fiscal appetites, and made us pay for what we wanted to do. That is such a simple, straightforward proposition pay for what you want. It's what every family has to do. It's how the Clinton-Gore administration and Congress finally balanced the Federal books during the 1990s. We are already in a deep budget hole. The only way we are going to get out is to stop digging. But instead of getting back on track to reducing our deficits, and beginning to pay down our enormous government debt, this budget has Congress digging the hole even deeper. This budget is deeply flawed in many other ways, but let me discuss just one, the use of expedited budget procedures to impose a controversial and environmentally reckless proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As I noted during the mark-up of the budget resolution in committee, this is a fight that we should have in open debate, not through the abusive use of the reconciliation process that itself relies on the most dubious of budget assumptions. As one of our colleagues put it, we should not abuse the budget and the budget reconciliation process ``in order to be immune from unlimited debate.'' Allowing oil drilling in this wildlife refuge is an issue that is too important to the public to be passed like this. We should debate it in the open during an energy debate, not further degrade the already adulterated reconciliation process. This budget aggravates our fiscal problems by adding to the already mountainous Federal debt. It fails to restore desperately needed budget discipline. It corrupts the reconciliation process, originally intended to facilitate deficit reduction, by using it to worsen the bottom line by expediting more unfunded tax cuts, and by using it to shield a controversial attack on an environmental treasure. In short, this budget is a disaster. The Nation would be better off without any budget resolution than with this one.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this past weekend millions of Jews around the world celebrated the beginning of the Passover holiday. Gathered at Seder tables with family and friends, they commemorated the Israelites' exodus from Egypt almost 4,000 years ago. Jewish law dictates, however, that the Jewish people must do more on Passover than merely remember their ancestors' time in bondage. They must strive to reenact the experience. Using matzah and bitter herbs, the Seder is an endeavor to recreate the past. To literally taste the bitterness of slavery and the sweetness of freedom. It is also an opportunity to sharpen awareness of an alarming yet oft-overlooked truth: that millions of men, women and children around the world are still enslaved and have yet to know freedom. Ultimately the Passover Seder is a modern call to action. It reminds that until all people know the joy of freedom, none of us is truly free. Many Jews use the Seder not only to celebrate the value of freedom, but to call attention to regions of the world where the spirit of slavery lives on in places like Darfur, Sudan. For over 2 years now, the Darfur people have been terrorized by violence. Millions have been oppressed by threats of death and destruction. Meanwhile, untold numbers of refugees have fled across the scorched earth, seeking refuge from their taskmasters. The genocide that rages on in Darfur is a modern derivative of slavery. With the support of the Khartoum Government, Janjaweed militia groups commit mass looting, raping and violence inspired by ethnic hatred. A recent analysis by the coalition for International Justice indicates that nearly 400,000 civilians have died since the conflict began 2 years ago. Over 140,000 have been killed by Sudanese Government forces. And an estimated 250,000 Darfur civilians have perished from disease and starvation stemming from displacement. Recently, there has also been a disturbing trend of intimidation directed at aid workers in the region. The Red Cross reports that attacks on aid convoys in Darfur have increased in recent weeks. And last month, a USAID worker was intentionally shot point blank in an attempt to thwart humanitarian efforts and spread fear and intimidation. Having personally visited the refugee camps on the Chad-Sudan border and met with survivors, I know that millions of our brothers and sisters are still crushed under the yoke of slavery and fear. Millions of them still do not know what it means to be free. Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel recently commented that ``All are entitled to live with dignity and hope. All are entitled to live without fear and pain. Not to assist Sudan's victims today would for me be unworthy of what I have learned from my teachers, my ancestors and my friends, namely that God alone is alone: His creatures must not be.'' We must reject this form of slavery by oppression. We must stop the killings. The death toll will only rise without immediate, convincing and unified intervention by the international community. It is our obligation as free people to bring hope and banish repression. And it is my belief that we should use the message shared by the Passover story, and, indeed, the wisdom of all traditions, to guide us wisely on our Journey.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic policy issue of our time, namely health care reform. I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold town hall meetings. Year after year, the number one issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. The frustration I hear, the anger and the desperation, have convinced me that we must change the system. So many people now come to tell me that they used to think government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they tell me that their businesses are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the government to step in. These costs are crippling our economy just as the nation is struggling to rebound from the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check. Costs are skyrocketing, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. So in all too many cases, employers are left to offer sub-par benefits, or to wonder whether they can offer any benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation. One option that could help employers, especially small businesses, reduce their health care costs is to have them form health care cooperatives, where employers lower costs by purchasing care as a group. I have introduced a bill in the Senate to make it easier for business to create these cooperatives. But that legislation certainly isn't the magic bullet that can address the whole problem. We need to come up with more comprehensive ways to address rising costs. In most cases, costs are still passed on to employees, who then face enormous premiums that demand more and more of their monthly income. People tell me that they don't understand how anyone can afford these astronomical premiums, and what can you say to that? Well, we can say that it's time to move toward universal coverage. I believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system that is uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is ending a system where approximately 45 million Americans are uninsured, and where too many of those who are insured are struggling to pay their premiums, struggling to pay for prescription drugs, and struggling to find long term care. We can't tolerate a system that strands so many Americans without the coverage they need. This system costs us dearly: Even though an estimated 45 million Americans are uninsured, the United States devotes more of its economy to health care than other industrial countries. Leaving this many Americans uninsured affects all of us. Those who are insured pay more because the uninsured can't afford to pay their bills. And those bills are exceptionally high, because the uninsured wait so long to see a doctor. The uninsured often live sicker, and die earlier, than other Americans, so they also need a disproportionate amount of acute care. In 2001 alone, health care providers provided $35 billion worth of uncompensated care. While providers absorb some of those costs, inevitably some of the burden is shifted to other patients. And of course the process of cost-shifting itself generates additional costs. We are all paying the price for our broken health care system, and it is time to bring about change. Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we should change the health care system in this country. Some propose using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a national single payer health care system is the only way to go. I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to consider all of these as we address our broken health care system. As a former State legislator, I come to this debate knowing that States are coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health care problem. So in addition to the approaches already mentioned, I think we really need to look at what our States are doing, and add to the menu of possibilities an approach under which each State decides the best way to cover its residents. I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country, without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that states have a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are, and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their State. So I am in favor of a State-based universal health care system, where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage. This approach would achieve universal health care, without the Federal Government dictating to all of the states exactly how to do it. The Federal Government would provide States with the financial help, technical assistance and oversight necessary to accomplish this goal. In return, a State would have to make sure that every resident has coverage at least as good as that offered in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)--in other words, at least as good as the health insurance Members of Congress have. States would have the flexibility to expand coverage in phases, and would be offered a number of Federal ``tools'' to choose from in order to help them achieve universal coverage. States could use any number of these tools, or none of them, instead opting for a Federal contribution for a State-based ``single-payer'' system. In addition to designing and implementing a plan to achieve universal care, States would also be required to provide partial funding of these plans. The Federal Government would approve each State plan, and would conduct oversight of the implementation of these plans. Federal tools that States could choose from to help expand health coverage could include an enhanced Medicaid and SCHIP Federal match for expanding coverage to currently uninsured individuals; refundable and advanceable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance for individuals and/or businesses; the establishment of a community-rated health pool, similar to FEHBP, to provide affordable health coverage and expanded choices for those who enroll; and assistance with catastrophic care costs. States could be creative in the State resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State could use personal and/or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The approach I have set forth would guarantee universal health care, but still leave room for the flexibility and creativity that I believe is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, quality health care. As I have noted, there have been a number of interesting proposals to move us to universal health care coverage. While I will be advocating the State-based approach that I have just outlined, others have proposed alternative approaches that certainly merit consideration and debate. And this brings us to the legislation Senator Graham and I are introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the tens of millions who are uninsured or underinsured or struggling to pay their premiums, Washington refuses to address the problem in a comprehensive way. That is why we are introducing this bill. Our legislation will force Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the session following enactment of the bill. If a committee chair fails to introduce a bill within the first month, then the ranking minority party member of the respective committee may introduce a measure that qualifies for the expedited treatment outlined in my bill. The measures introduced by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader will be placed directly on the Senate Calendar. The measures introduced by the two committee chairs, or ranking minority members, will be referred to their respective committees. The committees have 60 calendar days, not including recesses of 3 days or more, to review the legislation. At the end of that time, if either committee fails to report a measure, the bills will be placed directly on the legislative calendar. If the Majority Leader fails to move to one of the bills, any Member may move to proceed to any qualifying health care reform measure. The motion is not debatable or amendable. If the motion to proceed is adopted, the Chamber will immediately proceed to the consideration of a measure without intervening motion, order, or other business, and the measure remains the unfinished business of the Senate until the body disposes of the bill. Similar procedures are established for House consideration. I want to emphasize, my hill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be considered. But what my bill does do is to require Congress to act. It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis. It has been over 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive health care reform. We cannot afford any further delay, because I believe the cost of inaction is too great. I urge my colleagues to support the Reform Health Care Now Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2005. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl and Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home state. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's fifteen species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2006 through Fiscal Year 2010. In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset through the Secretary of Interior's administrative budget. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the over 450 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway. The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique. One of the program's supporters has told me that this program is the conservation equivalent of putting a man on the moon. I think it is quite appropriate then that the Smithsonian announced that one of the ultralight planes from Operation Migration, which leads the migration from Necedah to Chassahowitzka, will be inducted into the National Air and Space Museum. The plane will be on display in the Museum early next year. I cannot think of a better way to showcase this innovative conservation program. Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941, however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2005. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl and Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home state. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's fifteen species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2006 through Fiscal Year 2010. In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset through the Secretary of Interior's administrative budget. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the over 450 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway. The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique. One of the program's supporters has told me that this program is the conservation equivalent of putting a man on the moon. I think it is quite appropriate then that the Smithsonian announced that one of the ultralight planes from Operation Migration, which leads the migration from Necedah to Chassahowitzka, will be inducted into the National Air and Space Museum. The plane will be on display in the Museum early next year. I cannot think of a better way to showcase this innovative conservation program. Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941, however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the United States. I am pleased to have three members of the Environment and Public Works Committee--the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer--as original cosponsors of this bill. I also thank Senators Dayton, Kerry, Schumer, and Durbin for joining me in introducing this important legislation. In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4 majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non- navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands, streams, ponds, and other bodies of water. This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory birds. In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other waters. The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs, familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands. In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands. An estimated 60 percent of the wetlands in my home State of Wisconsin lost Federal protection. Wisconsin is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland Managers has been collecting data from States across the country. For example, Nebraska estimates that it will lose protection for more than 40 percent of its wetlands. Indiana estimates it will lose 31 percent of total wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands. Delaware estimates the loss of protection for 33 percent or more of its freshwater wetlands. These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most of the Nation's ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would have a devastating effect on our environment. In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to state and local governments. My home State of Wisconsin has passed legislation to assume the regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of wetlands nationwide are unclear and confusing, jeopardizing the migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands. Since 2001, the confusion over the interpretation of the SWANCC decision has grown. On January 15, 2003, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raising questions about the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Simultaneously, they released a guidance memo to their field staff regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The agencies claim these actions are necessary because of the SWANCC case. But both the guidance memo and the proposed rulemaking go far beyond the holding in SWANCC. The guidance took effect right away and has had an immediate impact. It tells the Corps and EPA staff to stop asserting jurisdiction over isolated waters without first obtaining permission from headquarters. Based on this guidance, waters that the EPA and Corps judge to be outside the Clean Water Act can be filled, dredged, and polluted without a permit or any other long-standing Clean Water Act safeguard. The rulemaking announced the Administration's intention to consider even broader changes to Clean Water Act coverage for our waters. Specifically, the agencies are questioning whether there is any basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over additional waters, like intermittent streams. The possibility for a redefinition of our waters is troubling because there is only one definition of the term ``water'' in the Clean Water Act. The wetlands program, the point source program which stops the dumping of pollution, and the non-point program governing polluted runoff all depend on this definition. Even though the Administration rescinded this proposed rulemaking in December 2003, the policy guidance remains in effect. If we don't protect a category of waters from being filled under the wetlands program, we also fail to protect them from having trash or raw sewage dumped in them, or having other activities that violate the Clean Water Act conducted in them as well. Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S.--the understanding that Congress held when the Act was adopted in 1972--as reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC decision. The proposed legislation is very simple. It does three things. First, it adopts a statutory definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding definition of waters in the EPA and Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it deletes the term ``navigable'' from the Act to clarify that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and to reinforce that original intent. Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and wetlands on all relevant constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property Clause, the Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause. In conclusion, I am very pleased to have the support of so many environmental and conservation groups, as well as organizations that represent those who regulate and manage our country's wetlands, such as: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American Rivers, the National Audubon Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Defenders of Wildlife, the Ocean Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Izaac Walton League, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers. They know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the Federal Government's role in protecting our water. This legislation is a first step in doing just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing important legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the United States. I am pleased to have three members of the Environment and Public Works Committee--the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer--as original cosponsors of this bill. I also thank Senators Dayton, Kerry, Schumer, and Durbin for joining me in introducing this important legislation. In the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County versus the Army Corps of Engineers, a 5 to 4 majority limited the authority of Federal agencies to use the so-called migratory bird rule as the basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over non- navigable, intrastate, isolated wetlands, streams, ponds, and other bodies of water. This decision, known as the SWANCC decision, means that the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers can no longer enforce Federal Clean Water Act protection mechanisms to protect a waterway solely on the basis that it is used as habitat for migratory birds. In its discussion of the case, the Court went beyond the issue of the migratory bird rule and questioned whether Congress intended the Clean Water Act to provide protection for isolated ponds, streams, wetlands and other waters, as it had been interpreted to provide for most of the last 30 years. While not the legal holding of the case, the Court's discussion has resulted in a wide variety of interpretations by EPA and Corps officials that jeopardize protection for wetlands, and other waters. The wetlands at risk include prairie potholes and bogs, familiar to many in Wisconsin, and many other types of wetlands. In effect, the Court's decision removed much of the Clean Water Act protection for between 30 percent to 60 percent of the Nation's wetlands. An estimated 60 percent of the wetlands in my home State of Wisconsin lost Federal protection. Wisconsin is not alone. The National Association of State Wetland Managers has been collecting data from States across the country. For example, Nebraska estimates that it will lose protection for more than 40 percent of its wetlands. Indiana estimates it will lose 31 percent of total wetland acreage and 74 percent of the total number of wetlands. Delaware estimates the loss of protection for 33 percent or more of its freshwater wetlands. These wetlands absorb floodwaters, prevent pollution from reaching our rivers and streams, and provide crucial habitat for most of the Nation's ducks and other waterfowl, as well as hundreds of other bird, fish, shellfish and amphibian species. Loss of these waters would have a devastating effect on our environment. In addition, by narrowing the water and wetland areas subject to federal regulation, the decision also shifts more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands to state and local governments. My home State of Wisconsin has passed legislation to assume the regulation of isolated waters, but many other States have not. This patchwork of regulation means that the standards for protection of wetlands nationwide are unclear and confusing, jeopardizing the migratory birds and other wildlife that depend on these wetlands. Since 2001, the confusion over the interpretation of the SWANCC decision has grown. On January 15, 2003, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published in the Federal Register an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking raising questions about the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Simultaneously, they released a guidance memo to their field staff regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The agencies claim these actions are necessary because of the SWANCC case. But both the guidance memo and the proposed rulemaking go far beyond the holding in SWANCC. The guidance took effect right away and has had an immediate impact. It tells the Corps and EPA staff to stop asserting jurisdiction over isolated waters without first obtaining permission from headquarters. Based on this guidance, waters that the EPA and Corps judge to be outside the Clean Water Act can be filled, dredged, and polluted without a permit or any other long-standing Clean Water Act safeguard. The rulemaking announced the Administration's intention to consider even broader changes to Clean Water Act coverage for our waters. Specifically, the agencies are questioning whether there is any basis for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over additional waters, like intermittent streams. The possibility for a redefinition of our waters is troubling because there is only one definition of the term ``water'' in the Clean Water Act. The wetlands program, the point source program which stops the dumping of pollution, and the non-point program governing polluted runoff all depend on this definition. Even though the Administration rescinded this proposed rulemaking in December 2003, the policy guidance remains in effect. If we don't protect a category of waters from being filled under the wetlands program, we also fail to protect them from having trash or raw sewage dumped in them, or having other activities that violate the Clean Water Act conducted in them as well. Congress needs to re-establish the common understanding of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to protect all waters of the U.S.--the understanding that Congress held when the Act was adopted in 1972--as reflected in the law, legislative history, and longstanding regulations, practice, and judicial interpretations prior to the SWANCC decision. The proposed legislation is very simple. It does three things. First, it adopts a statutory definition of ``waters of the United States'' based on a longstanding definition of waters in the EPA and Corps of Engineers' regulations. Second, it deletes the term ``navigable'' from the Act to clarify that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and to reinforce that original intent. Finally, it includes a set of findings that explain the factual basis for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over waters and wetlands on all relevant constitutional grounds, including the Commerce Clause, the Property Clause, the Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause. In conclusion, I am very pleased to have the support of so many environmental and conservation groups, as well as organizations that represent those who regulate and manage our country's wetlands, such as: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, American Rivers, the National Audubon Society, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Defenders of Wildlife, the Ocean Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Izaac Walton League, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers. They know, as I do, that we need to re-affirm the Federal Government's role in protecting our water. This legislation is a first step in doing just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. Some of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005, is similar to legislation I introduced last Congress and will solve the problem for today and into the future. Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland,'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and 25 percent of the country's butter a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of cheese, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hard-working farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist. One concern that I have heard from Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. These programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years. Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers who are at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies. Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers--Social Security Act 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a)--have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC per year, making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits because they must average 2 QCs per year to be eligible. Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs. Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. In addition, by linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again. Along with providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It actually provides a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run. Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law. When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. When these provisions were developed, Congress intended self-employed individuals to have the ability to pay enough to earn a full 4 QCs. Unfortunately the Tax Code has not kept up with the times and due to inflation many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. Some of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005, is similar to legislation I introduced last Congress and will solve the problem for today and into the future. Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland,'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and 25 percent of the country's butter a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of cheese, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hard-working farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist. One concern that I have heard from Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. These programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years. Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers who are at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies. Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers--Social Security Act 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a)--have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC per year, making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits because they must average 2 QCs per year to be eligible. Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs. Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. In addition, by linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again. Along with providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It actually provides a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run. Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law. When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. When these provisions were developed, Congress intended self-employed individuals to have the ability to pay enough to earn a full 4 QCs. Unfortunately the Tax Code has not kept up with the times and due to inflation many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness. I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government. I support this legislation for a number of reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah. Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times wrote: Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children. I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters. Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that: ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness: ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti-environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.'' Ten years later, Wisconsinites are still watching this test case. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness simply ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin, as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I cast my vote in support of the 2005 supplemental bill for Iraq, Afghanistan, and tsunami relief. I do so despite my strong objections to the administration's policy of continuing to fund our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency supplemental bills, as if the needs of our men and women on the ground in these troubled countries comes as some sort of surprise. These needs should be addressed in the regular budget request so that they can actually be paid for, not placed on the tab of the American people so that debt can pile up. The American people deserve honesty in budgeting, and they deserve straight answers about just how long they should expect the United States to continue shouldering this extremely heavy burden in Iraq. Some have suggested that calling for straight answers somehow undermines the mission at hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. A clear vision, clear goals, and clear plans are essential to success. I hope the administration will articulate them soon. But this tremendously irresponsible budgeting and dangerously vague overall strategy do not change the fact that our troops on the ground need timely support, and I will cast my vote to see that they get it. I was in Afghanistan and Iraq less than two months ago, and I was inspired by the commitment and professionalism of the service men and women I met there. I was pleased the Senate adopted my amendment that would correct a flaw in current law that unintentionally but severely restricts the number of families of injured service members that qualify for travel assistance. Too many families are being denied help in visiting their injured loved ones because the Army has not officially listed them as ``seriously injured,'' even though these men and women have been evacuated out of the combat zone to the United States for treatment. My amendment will provide at least one trip for families of injured service members evacuated to a U.S. hospital so that these families can quickly reunite and begin recovering from the trauma they've experienced. I want to make plain that I also believe that our diplomats on the ground in tough situations deserve our support and certainly deserve the resources they need to provide for their own security. Any suggestion that we can pursue our political strategy on the cheap while leaving the military alone responsible for the success or failure of the U.S. intervention in Iraq is foolish. But I did vote to reduce some of the funds for the State Department provided in this bill, including funds for the embassy in Iraq--an embassy that will be the most expensive U.S. embassy in the world. These expenses simply do not belong in an emergency supplemental. They are predictable, they are ongoing, and they can be provided through the regular appropriations process. I regret the managers of the bill did not seize the opportunity to extend the mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction in this bill. Transparency and accountability in the reconstruction effort is not about finding new things to criticize. It is about responsible stewardship of U.S. taxpayer resources, and it is about getting reconstruction right. Ultimately, it is about achieving our goals in Iraq. We need ongoing, vigorous, focused oversight of the reconstruction effort. While I was unable to get my amendment passed, I will continue to work to ensure that this need is met. Finally, I strongly support the tsunami relief provisions in this bill. The scale of this December 2004 tsunami disaster was nearly overwhelming, and the human losses were horrifying. I know that most of us here in the Congress and most Americans are firm in our resolve to be strong, consistent partners to the survivors and the affected communities.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been the region around Eau Claire, WI. My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation has long since changed and the provision persists at the detriment of the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin. The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk production. This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk. This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices often lead to excess production. The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down. The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin. The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions. While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960s, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs. That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production. The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly. In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this outdated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness. I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government. I support this legislation for a number of reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah. Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times wrote: Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children. I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters. Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that: ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness: ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti-environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.'' Ten years later, Wisconsinites are still watching this test case. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. What Haslanger's comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness simply ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin, as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been the region around Eau Claire, WI. My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation has long since changed and the provision persists at the detriment of the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin. The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk production. This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk. This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices often lead to excess production. The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down. The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin. The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions. While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960s, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs. That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production. The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly. In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this outdated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, not many people 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. Nelson biographer Bill Christofferson asks ``Where did Nelson get his lifelong interest and dedication to the environment? By osmosis, [Nelson] would say, while growing up in Clear Lake Wisconsin.'' It's true that Wisconsin has a tradition of great conservationists, Aldo Leopold, author of Sand County Almanac; Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society; and John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club. But because of Gaylord Nelson, Wisconsin can lay claim to the genesis of Earth Day, a day of national and international remembrance of the importance of our natural resources and a clean environment. While these great leaders are well known for their conservation vision, Wisconsinites across the State do their part every day to make that vision a reality. From the backyards and parks of our cities and suburbs to our forests and farms, we take our stewardship of the land seriously. For example, our farmers continue to work with the support of Federal, State and local partnerships to prevent pollution, improve wildlife habitat, and protect wetlands and open spaces, investing millions of dollars in hundred of thousands of acres each year, all while ensuring the land is healthy enough to produce food and raw materials for generations to come. I know that the people of Wisconsin, living in such a beautiful and ecologically diverse State, feel a special connection to our natural resources and share a long tradition of our State government achieving excellence in its conservation policies. Conservation is part of our culture in Wisconsin, and the people in Wisconsin are very environmentally savvy. Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72 counties, and protecting the environment is a top issue. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Nelson. He is a former member of this body, and I am privileged to hold his Senate seat. He is a distinguished former Governor of the State of Wisconsin, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a personal hero of mine. I salute Gaylord Nelson for changing the consciousness of a Nation. He is the living embodiment of the principle that one person can truly change the world. During his 18 years of service in the Senate, Gaylord Nelson brought about significant change for the ``greener'' in both our Nation's law and the institution of the Senate itself. He is 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. And Senator Nelson, of course, was the founder of Earth Day. Thanks to him, here we are 35 years later taking time out of our lives to think about conservation. An astonishing 20 million Americans, 10 percent of the U.S. population, 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 2 hours and over 100,000 people celebrated Earth Day on Union Square in New York City. Earth Day is an event that in addition to changing the environmental consciousness of the country literally stopped the Senate. Members of both bodies voted to adjourn their respective Houses in the middle of the legislative week to attend Earth Day events, an adjournment that would be extremely rare today. Twenty-two Senators participated by giving Earth Day speeches across the country. The National Education Association, NEA, estimated that 10 million school children celebrated in the first Earth Day. The States of New Jersey and New York created State environmental agencies that week. Earth Day has become an important part of who we are. From Milwaukee, WI, to Mumbai, India, millions of people across the world are taking Senator Nelson's legacy to heart. They are volunteering tomorrow and this weekend to conserve the environment whether it is in their backyard, local river, or park. I hope that on this Earth Day 2005, the Congress will re-dedicate itself to achieving the bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment that existed for nearly 2 decades. The Clean Water Act, for example, passed the Senate in 1971 by a vote of 86-0. When President Nixon vetoed it, the Senate overrode his veto, 52-12. The Endangered Species Act, which is under such attack right now, was passed by the Senate on a 92-0 vote in 1973. Unfortunately, in recent years we have faced numerous proposals to roll back the environmental and health and safety protections upon which Americans depend. From clean water to clean air, the list of environmental rollbacks is stunning and disturbing. We need to work together to protect the environment, not revert to the times when we saw the Cuyahoga River catch fire, when at least one of the Great Lakes was considered ``ecologically dead,'' and when dumping of toxic wastes into rivers was standard operating procedure. Gaylord Nelson stated on the 30th Anniversary of Earth Day: We have finally come to understand that the real wealth of a nation is its air, water, soil, forests, rivers, lakes, oceans, scenic beauty, wildlife habitats, and biodiversity. Take this resource away, and all that is left is a wasteland. That's the whole economy. That is where the economic activity and all the jobs come from. These biological systems contain the sustaining wealth of the world. As we continue to degrade them, we are consuming our capital. And in the process, we erode our living standards and compromise the quality of our habitat. We are veering down a dangerous path. We are not just toying with nature; we are compromising the capacity of natural systems to do what they need to do to preserve a livable world. Last night, 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. I agree with this assessment, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Senator Nelson's 35th anniversary of Earth Day statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I hope that Wisconsinites and citizens across America take Senator Nelson's words to heart. I hope that they use this Earth Day to collect their thoughts and voice their opinions about the need to protect the environment and need for Congressional leadership on this issue. 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, start a business, and buy a home. We understand that by protecting our environment we are protecting our economy. And, it is important on this Earth Day 2005 that we continue to fight for strong environmental laws, and we press for strong environmental leadership in Congress. Let's continue to move forward, not roll back.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am introducing that would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng is labeled accurately with where the root was harvested. The ``Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2005'' is similar to bills that I introduced in previous Congresses and developed after hearing suggestions from ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin. I would like to take the opportunity to discuss American ginseng and the problems facing Wisconsin's ginseng growers so that my colleagues understand the need for this legislation. Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes. As a dietary supplement, American ginseng is widely touted for its ability to improve energy and vitality, particularly in fighting fatigue or stress. In the U.S., ginseng is experiencing increasing popularity as a dietary supplement, and I am proud to say that my home State of Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin produces 97 percent of the ginseng grown in the United States, and 85 percent of the country's ginseng is grown in just one Wisconsin county, Marathon County. Ginseng is also grown in a number of other States such as Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia. For Wisconsin, ginseng has been an economic boon. Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because it is of the highest quality and because it has a low pesticide and chemical content. In 2002, U.S. exports of ginseng totaled nearly $45 million, much of which was grown in Wisconsin. With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead. Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.'' Here's how the switch takes place: Wisconsin ginseng is shipped to China to be sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers too often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with Asian- or Canadian- grown ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The lower quality ginseng is then shipped back to the U.S. for sale to American consumers who think they are buying the Wisconsin-grown product. There is good reason consumers should want to know that the ginseng they buy is American-grown considering that the only accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown is to test for pesticides that are banned in the United States. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and quintozine (PCNB) have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in the U.S. To capitalize on their product's preeminence, the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has developed a voluntary labeling program, stating that the ginseng is ``Grown in Wisconsin, U.S.A.'' However, Wisconsin ginseng is so valuable that counterfeit labels and ginseng smuggling have become widespread around the world. As a result, consumers have no way of knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase-- where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous pesticides. My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2005, proposes some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw agricultural commodity, be sold at retail with a label clearly indicating the country that the ginseng was harvested in. ``Harvest'' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants were cultivated in a foreign country, they may have been treated with chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing foreign-produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision. These common sense reforms would give ginseng growers the support they deserve and help consumers make informed choices about the ginseng that they consume. We must ensure that when ginseng consumers reach for a high-quality ginseng product--such as Wisconsin-grown ginseng--they are getting the real thing, not a knock-off. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am introducing that would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng is labeled accurately with where the root was harvested. The ``Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2005'' is similar to bills that I introduced in previous Congresses and developed after hearing suggestions from ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin. I would like to take the opportunity to discuss American ginseng and the problems facing Wisconsin's ginseng growers so that my colleagues understand the need for this legislation. Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes. As a dietary supplement, American ginseng is widely touted for its ability to improve energy and vitality, particularly in fighting fatigue or stress. In the U.S., ginseng is experiencing increasing popularity as a dietary supplement, and I am proud to say that my home State of Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin produces 97 percent of the ginseng grown in the United States, and 85 percent of the country's ginseng is grown in just one Wisconsin county, Marathon County. Ginseng is also grown in a number of other States such as Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia. For Wisconsin, ginseng has been an economic boon. Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because it is of the highest quality and because it has a low pesticide and chemical content. In 2002, U.S. exports of ginseng totaled nearly $45 million, much of which was grown in Wisconsin. With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead. Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.'' Here's how the switch takes place: Wisconsin ginseng is shipped to China to be sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers too often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with Asian- or Canadian- grown ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The lower quality ginseng is then shipped back to the U.S. for sale to American consumers who think they are buying the Wisconsin-grown product. There is good reason consumers should want to know that the ginseng they buy is American-grown considering that the only accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown is to test for pesticides that are banned in the United States. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and quintozine (PCNB) have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in the U.S. To capitalize on their product's preeminence, the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has developed a voluntary labeling program, stating that the ginseng is ``Grown in Wisconsin, U.S.A.'' However, Wisconsin ginseng is so valuable that counterfeit labels and ginseng smuggling have become widespread around the world. As a result, consumers have no way of knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase-- where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous pesticides. My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2005, proposes some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw agricultural commodity, be sold at retail with a label clearly indicating the country that the ginseng was harvested in. ``Harvest'' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants were cultivated in a foreign country, they may have been treated with chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing foreign-produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision. These common sense reforms would give ginseng growers the support they deserve and help consumers make informed choices about the ginseng that they consume. We must ensure that when ginseng consumers reach for a high-quality ginseng product--such as Wisconsin-grown ginseng--they are getting the real thing, not a knock-off. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and I call up amendment No. 416 and ask for its immediate consideration.