Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I sent a copy to the desk.

Mr. FEINGOLD. My amendment is designed to correct a flaw in the current law that unintentionally but severely restricts the number of families of injured servicemembers that qualify for assistance to travel to the bedside of their wounded loved ones. This issue came to my attention when Tina Justice, the wife of Wisconsin Army National Guard 1LT Christopher Justice, contacted my office late last fall. First Lieutenant Justice and eight other members of Company B of the 118th Medical Battalion were traveling in a three vehicle convoy near Baghdad on September 12, 2004 and were waiting to clear a roadblock when they noticed a suspicious vehicle racing towards them. Members of Company B quickly responded, but the driver was still able to blow up his vehicle. The swift reaction undoubtedly saved many lives that day, but eight of the nine members of Company B still sustained injuries from the powerful blast, three severe enough to require evacuation to the United States. First Lieutenant Justice was one of the three soldiers seriously injured and evacuated, first to Germany, and finally to Walter Reed, where he underwent several surgeries for his injuries. All three injured Wisconsin guardsmen received exceptional medical care from the outstanding medical staff at Walter Reed. The guardsmen were also very grateful to be able to see their families who quickly rushed to be with them during this very traumatic time. Tina Justice was one of those who immediately went to Walter Reed to be with her husband, bringing along her 4-year-old daughter and 1-year-old son. Congress has enacted legislation to help family members of injured servicemembers like First Lieutenant Justice. We have passed a law that provides Federal assistance to help pay for the travel and transportation costs of family members of very seriously or seriously ill or injured servicemembers. With her husband being injured seriously enough to require evacuation to Germany and then Walter Reed, Mrs. Justice naturally assumed that she would qualify for help under this provision. However, she found something quite different. According to the Army, her husband's injuries, which required evacuation to Europe and then to the U.S., did not qualify as ``serious,'' and therefore she would not be eligible for reimbursement. Despite her many attempts to reverse this decision, the Army continued to deny her claim. After much frustration, Mrs. Justice contacted my office. When I heard about the case, I believed there must have been some sort of bureaucratic mix-up. After all, it makes no sense that the Army would spend all that money to evacuate personnel out of the theater, on to Germany, and finally to the United States if that person was not seriously injured. However, my inquiries to the Army and to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not satisfactorily resolve Mrs. Justice's problem. The Justices are not alone. I was also recently contacted by the Carter family from Ladysmith, WI. Their son, SPC Andrew Carter, sustained shrapnel injuries to his legs and feet while serving his country in Iraq and was evacuated to Walter Reed. He and his family were also frustrated by the fact that they did not qualify for travel cost reimbursement because Specialist Carter's injuries weren't classified as serious by the Army. The Army Surgeon General's office finally helped shed some light on the problem. Although the law provides travel benefits for family members of very seriously or seriously injured military personnel, what constitutes a very serious or serious injury to the Army is very different from what the average American may think. The Army's technical definition of very seriously ill or injured, VSI, is that the soldier is in imminent danger of death. In order to be classified as seriously ill or injured, SI, the soldier must require a very high level of care, such as being in the intensive care unit, but be expected to survive. All other injuries, including those that may require extensive and multiple surgeries and months of hospital care are listed as not seriously ill or injured, NSI. Now I think that the average American would agree with the VSI classification. However, if someone has taken major shrapnel and other wounds from a suicide car bomber requiring several surgeries and is evacuated all the way to the United States from Iraq, my guess is that the average American would call that pretty serious. I know I did and I know that Mrs. Justice, the Carters, and others have as well. I also think that Congress, in passing laws to allow family members to visit their injured loved ones, had a definition of VSI and SI in mind more closely aligned to that of the average American rather than the technical definition used by the Army. What we have, therefore, is a well-intentioned law that is creating expectations that just aren't being met because our definitions don't match up. The denial of travel benefits, known as Invitational Travel Orders, ITO, to families like the Justices and Carters, because their loved ones' injuries aren't bad enough comes at the absolute worst time for the injured men and women and their families. They are in the midst of an extremely traumatic time, trying to come to grips with what has happened and working to heal physically and emotionally. They need to be concentrating on these important tasks, not worrying about whether or not they can even afford to be there and fighting the bureaucracy for travel cost reimbursement. The unfortunate and avoidable aftereffect of the current policy is that the injured troops and their families feel unappreciated by the Defense Department and by the country for which the servicemember almost lost their life. The amendment I introduce today will help rectify this problem and more closely align expectations with what families are provided. This legislation would make an addition to current law by allowing for one ITO for up to three family members of a servicemember medically evacuated from a war zone to the United States, whether that injured person is listed as VSI, SI or NSI. It is important that families get this first trip and don't have to worry about whether or not they can afford to pay for it. This amendment would provide that first trip. During that first trip, families can also acquaint themselves with the many fantastic public and private programs there to help them. The Red Cross, Fisher House, Operation Hero Miles, many veterans and military service organizations, the list goes on, all provide those injured in the line of duty and their families with many resources. Families can use that first trip to learn about and tap into these resources to assist them with future needs. I know the Justices and Carters deeply appreciated the help from these and other organizations. Some may be worried that this amendment will simply crowd out the good work being done by private organizations with another Government program. This is an understandable concern. However, after consulting with some of these organizations, I am confident that this legislation will not do so. It will, in fact, complement current private efforts to assist servicemembers and their families. The experiences of the Justices and Carters also show that this proposed legislation fills a void in the current assistance efforts. We are all very conscious of supporting our troops and making sure that those who have been injured receive the best possible medical care. This should be a priority. At the same time, we must not forget the families of these servicemembers. They, too, make great sacrifices and must cope with the changes in their lives brought about by the injuries and recovery of their loved ones. The amendment I introduce today will help reduce some of the burden faced by injured troops and their families so that they can concentrate on the important work of healing. I ask the managers if they are willing to accept this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their support. I hope they will be willing to work to keep this small but important amendment in the conference report. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again thank the managers very much. I would like to make a brief statement about another amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also want to speak very briefly regarding an amendment that I had filed, amendment No. 459. Chairman Cochran raised a point of order against the amendment today, but I want to spend just a few minutes to explain what this amendment was about, because it concerns the success or failure of the U.S. effort in Iraq, and it concerns every American taxpayer. In 2003 I offered an amendment to the supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that established an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority so that there would be one auditing body completely focused on ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently, and that this effort is free of waste, fraud, and abuse. Then the CPA phased out and, happily, Iraqi sovereignty was transferred back into Iraqi hands. Congress agreed that continued oversight of the reconstruction effort was important, and agreed to an amendment that I offered last year to turn the CPAIG into the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. But even today, many months after that change, in many ways the reconstruction effort has only just begun. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of about a month ago, only a little more than $6 billion of the nearly $21 billion reconstruction fund had actually been expended. The work of the Special Inspector General must continue. My amendment is simple and largely technical. This amendment would adjust the termination date for the Special IG to link to expenditures rather than obligated funds. Obligations are dramatically outpacing expenditures in the reconstruction effort today. If we let the Special IG sunset after the bulk of the money is obligated but not expended, we will not have a clear picture of what these billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars actually achieved on the ground. The imminent disappearance of auditors can also create a real incentive for cutting corners in actually implementing projects. So we need to make sure that Congress signals its support for the Special IG continuing to see this reconstruction effort through. Transparency and accountability in the reconstruction effort is not about finding new things to criticize. It is about responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources, and it is about getting reconstruction right. Ultimately, it is about achieving our goals in Iraq. Congress appropriated reconstruction funds in an emergency supplemental. Congress created this IG in an emergency supplemental. It is entirely appropriate to make these technical changes to the IG's mandate in this supplemental to ensure that Congressional intent--which is to have ongoing, vigorous, focused oversight of the reconstruction effort--is respected. I am deeply disappointed that the managers of this bill did not see fit to devote any effort to this important amendment. The amendment had been cleared on the Democratic side, but apparently there was some problem, or some lack of interest, that prevented this amendment from being accepted. This is troubling. It is difficult to understand why anyone would oppose solid oversight of the reconstruction effort. The IG's team needs some sense of certainty as the obligation rate soars and their termination grows closer and closer, yet the bulk of reconstruction funds remain unexpended. The Senate addressed this issue in the $87 billion 2003 supplemental for Iraq, and then made an important adjustment by unanimous consent last year while we considered the DOD Authorization bill. This needs to get done, and I will continue to work to make sure that happens.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we solemnly remember the men and women who perished in the Armenian genocide 90 years ago. A million and a half Armenians were systematically massacred at the hands of the Ottoman Empire and more than 500,000 fled their homeland. When the Armenian genocide occurred from 1915 to 1923, the international community lacked a name for such atrocities. In January 1951, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide entered into force to affirm the international commitment to prevent genocide and protect basic human decency. Today, we have the words to describe this evil, and we have an obligation to prevent it. But we must also have the will to act. During the Holocaust, and later in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, the world has seen the crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide recur again and again. Too often, the will to stop atrocities has been lacking, or far too late in coming. Today, as we read report after report detailing the horrific plight of the people of Darfur, Sudan, we must muster the will and the sense of urgency required to save lives. The international community has made the first steps, but it has a long way to go in punishing and, especially, preventing genocide. As we move forward, we must learn the lessons of Armenia's genocide. We cannot be misled by the rhetorical veils of murderous leaders, thrown up to disguise the agenda at hand. We cannot respond to evidence of methodical, brutal violence by wringing our hands and waiting for some definitive proof that these events qualify as genocide. Enforcing a collective, international commitment to prevent and stop genocides from occurring is imperative. We owe the victims of the Armenian genocide this commitment. This is why we must remember the Armenian genocide. To forget it is to enable more genocides and ethnic cleansing to occur. We must honor its victims by reaffirming our resolve to not let it happen again.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a measure that will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the Nation. When dairy farmers across the country voted on a referendum six years ago, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing cooperatives cast their votes for them. This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular vote. It may serve the interest of time, but it doesn't always serve the interests of their producer owner-members. While I think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some circumstances, I have serious concerns about its use in every circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other States tell me that they do not agree with their cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote count. I have learned from farmers and officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that if a cooperative bloc votes, individual members have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. Co-ops and their individual members do not always have identical interests. Considering our nation's longstanding commitment to freedom of expression, our Federal rules should allow farmers to express a differing opinion from their co-ops, if they choose to. The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2005 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot to opt to vote separately from the co-op. This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Co- ops could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their right to vote individually. And to the extent that co-ops represent farmers' interests, in the majority of cases farmers are likely to vote the same as their co-ops. But whether they join the co- ops or not in voting for or against a measure, farmers deserve the right to vote according to their own views. I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a measure that will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the Nation. When dairy farmers across the country voted on a referendum six years ago, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing cooperatives cast their votes for them. This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular vote. It may serve the interest of time, but it doesn't always serve the interests of their producer owner-members. While I think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some circumstances, I have serious concerns about its use in every circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other States tell me that they do not agree with their cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote count. I have learned from farmers and officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that if a cooperative bloc votes, individual members have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. Co-ops and their individual members do not always have identical interests. Considering our nation's longstanding commitment to freedom of expression, our Federal rules should allow farmers to express a differing opinion from their co-ops, if they choose to. The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2005 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot to opt to vote separately from the co-op. This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Co- ops could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their right to vote individually. And to the extent that co-ops represent farmers' interests, in the majority of cases farmers are likely to vote the same as their co-ops. But whether they join the co- ops or not in voting for or against a measure, farmers deserve the right to vote according to their own views. I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to once again support the Grassley-Schumer bill on cameras in the courtroom. This proposal was reported by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote in the last two congresses, and I very much hope we can get it signed into law this year. When the workings of Government are transparent, the people understand their Government better and can more constructively participate in it. They can also more easily hold their public officials accountable. I believe this principle can and should be applied to the judicial as well as the legislative and executive branches of Government, while still respecting the unique role of the Federal judiciary. We have a long tradition of press access to trials, but in this day and age, it is no longer sufficient to read in the morning paper what happened in a trial the day before. The public wants to see for itself what goes on in our courts of law and I think it should be allowed to do so. Concerns about cameras interfering with the fair administration of justice in this county are, I believe, overstated. Experience in the State courts--and the vast majority of States now allow trials to be televised--has shown that it is possible to permit the public to see trials on television without compromising the defendant's right to a fair trial or the safety or privacy interests of witnesses and jurors. There is no question in my mind that the highly trained judges and lawyers who sit on and argue before our Nation's Federal appellate courts would continue to conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism if cameras were recording their work. Let me note also that I believe the arguments against allowing cameras in the courtroom are least persuasive in the case of appellate proceedings, including the Supreme Court. In fact, I had the opportunity to watch the oral argument when the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill in 2003. It was a fascinating experience, and one that I wish all Americans could have. Of course, the entire country was able to hear delayed audio feeds of the two Supreme Court oral arguments in Bush v. Gore and the arguments on affirmative action. This allowed the public and important look at the making of decisions that affect them in a profound way. Seeing the arguments live would have been even better. I do not believe that a discreet camera in the courtroom would have changed the character or quality of the arguments one iota. My State of Wisconsin has a long and proud tradition of open government, and it has served us well. Coming from that tradition, I look with skepticism on any remnant of secrecy that lingers in our governmental processes. Trials and court hearings are public proceedings, paid for by the taxpayers. Except in the most rare and unusual circumstances, the public is entitled to see what happens in those proceedings. The bill that my friends from Iowa and New York have proposed is a responsible and measured bill. It gives discretion to individual Federal judges to allow cameras in their courtrooms. At the same time, it assures that witnesses will be able to request that their identities not be revealed in televised proceedings. This bill gives deference to the experience and judgment of Federal judges who remain in charge of their own courtrooms. That is the right approach. Cameras in the courtroom is an idea whose time came some time ago. It is high time we brought it to the Federal courts. I am proud to support the Grassley-Schumer bill, and I hope we can enact it this year.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the Quality Cheese Act of 2005. This legislation will protect the consumer, save taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who have taken a beating in the marketplace in recent years. When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural Wisconsin cheese. But some in the food industry have pushed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change current law, which would leave consumers not knowing whether cheese is really all natural or not. If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying ``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate. If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, imitation milk proteins known as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra filtered milk could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other parts of the U.S. I was deeply concerned by these efforts to change America's natural cheese standard. This effort to allow milk protein concentrate and casein into natural cheese products flies in the face of logic and could create a loophole that could allow unlimited amounts of substandard imported milk proteins to enter U.S. cheese vats. While the industry proposal was withdrawn, my legislation would permanently prevent a similar back-door attempt to allow imitation milk as a cheese ingredient and ensure that consumers could be confident that they were buying natural cheese when they saw the natural label. Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese consumption has risen at a steady rate. These proposals to change our natural cheese standards, however, could decrease consumption of natural cheese by raising concerns about the origin of casein and milk protein concentrate. Use of such products could significantly tarnish the wholesome reputation of natural cheese in the eyes of the consumer and have unknown effects on quality and flavor. This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is simply not fair to America's farmers or to consumers. After all, consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into supposedly natural cheese, we are denying consumers the entire picture. Allowing MPCs or dry ultra-filtered milk into natural cheeses would also harm dairy producers throughout the United States. Some estimate that the annual effect of the change on the dairy farm sector of the economy could be more than $100 million. The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these ingredients, these heavily subsidized products would quickly displace natural domestic dairy ingredients. These unnatural domestic dairy products would enter our domestic cheese market and could depress dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices, in turn, could result in increased costs to the dairy price support program as the federal government is forced to buy domestic milk products when they are displaced in the market by cheap imports. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers would receive lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer would pay more for the dairy price support program. This change does not benefit the dairy farmer, consumer or taxpayer. Who then is it good for? It would benefit only the subsidized foreign MPC producers out to make a fast buck by exploiting a system put in place to support our dairy farmers. This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk, casein, and MPCs from being included in America's natural cheese standard. Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to undermine America's dairy farmers. I urge my colleagues to pass my legislation and prevent a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, taxpayer, and dairy farmer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the Quality Cheese Act of 2005. This legislation will protect the consumer, save taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who have taken a beating in the marketplace in recent years. When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural Wisconsin cheese. But some in the food industry have pushed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change current law, which would leave consumers not knowing whether cheese is really all natural or not. If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying ``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate. If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, imitation milk proteins known as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra filtered milk could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other parts of the U.S. I was deeply concerned by these efforts to change America's natural cheese standard. This effort to allow milk protein concentrate and casein into natural cheese products flies in the face of logic and could create a loophole that could allow unlimited amounts of substandard imported milk proteins to enter U.S. cheese vats. While the industry proposal was withdrawn, my legislation would permanently prevent a similar back-door attempt to allow imitation milk as a cheese ingredient and ensure that consumers could be confident that they were buying natural cheese when they saw the natural label. Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese consumption has risen at a steady rate. These proposals to change our natural cheese standards, however, could decrease consumption of natural cheese by raising concerns about the origin of casein and milk protein concentrate. Use of such products could significantly tarnish the wholesome reputation of natural cheese in the eyes of the consumer and have unknown effects on quality and flavor. This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is simply not fair to America's farmers or to consumers. After all, consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into supposedly natural cheese, we are denying consumers the entire picture. Allowing MPCs or dry ultra-filtered milk into natural cheeses would also harm dairy producers throughout the United States. Some estimate that the annual effect of the change on the dairy farm sector of the economy could be more than $100 million. The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these ingredients, these heavily subsidized products would quickly displace natural domestic dairy ingredients. These unnatural domestic dairy products would enter our domestic cheese market and could depress dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices, in turn, could result in increased costs to the dairy price support program as the federal government is forced to buy domestic milk products when they are displaced in the market by cheap imports. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers would receive lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer would pay more for the dairy price support program. This change does not benefit the dairy farmer, consumer or taxpayer. Who then is it good for? It would benefit only the subsidized foreign MPC producers out to make a fast buck by exploiting a system put in place to support our dairy farmers. This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk, casein, and MPCs from being included in America's natural cheese standard. Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to undermine America's dairy farmers. I urge my colleagues to pass my legislation and prevent a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, taxpayer, and dairy farmer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, I am introducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care. High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need. Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an employee's health care is $6,348. In my home State of Wisconsin it is even higher--the average cost there is $7,618. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care. By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 10,000 employers nationwide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 160 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their 87,500 employees and dependents. This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality. This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance. My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees. For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers. By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates. This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization. I am pleased that this bill is supported by the National Business Coalition on Health, an organization that already understands that allowing businesses to come together to increase their health care purchasing power can lead to an increase in health care quality, and a decrease in health care costs. We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, I am introducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care. High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need. Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an employee's health care is $6,348. In my home State of Wisconsin it is even higher--the average cost there is $7,618. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care. By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 10,000 employers nationwide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 160 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their 87,500 employees and dependents. This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality. This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance. My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees. For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers. By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates. This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization. I am pleased that this bill is supported by the National Business Coalition on Health, an organization that already understands that allowing businesses to come together to increase their health care purchasing power can lead to an increase in health care quality, and a decrease in health care costs. We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Lautenberg, Mikulski, and Murray, that would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our brave military personnel who are being deployed for the ongoing fight against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other missions in this country and around the world. It is legislation that the Senate adopted unanimously when I offered it as an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Iraq supplemental spending bill and I think it would be very fitting for my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure again during this, the National Month of the Military Child. The men and women of our Armed Forces undertake enormous sacrifices in their service to our country. They spend time away from home and from their families in different parts of the country and different parts of the world and are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their dedicated service. The ongoing deployments for the fight against terrorism and for the campaign in Iraq are turning upside down the lives of thousands of active duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families as they seek to do their duty to their country and honor their commitments to their families, and, in the case of the reserve components, to their employers as well. Today, there are more than 180,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel on active duty. Some of my constituents are facing the latest in a series of activations and deployments for family members who serve our country in the military. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and safe return. Many of those deployed in Iraq have had their tours extended beyond the time they had expected to stay. This extension has played havoc with the lives of those deployed and their families. Worried mothers, fathers, spouses, and children expecting their loved ones home after more than a year of service have been forced to wait another three or four months before their loved ones' much-anticipated homecoming. The emotional toll is huge. So is the impact on a family's daily functioning as bills still need to be paid, children need to get to school events, and sick family members must still be cared for. Our men and women in uniform face these challenges without complaint. But we should do more to help them and their families with the many things that preparing to be deployed requires. During the first round of mobilizations for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, military personnel and their families were given only a couple of days' notice that their units would be deployed. As a result, these dedicated men and women had only a very limited amount of time to get their lives in order. For members of the National Guard and Reserve, this included informing their employers of the deployment. I want to commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when their employees were called to active duty. In preparation for a deployment, military families often have to scramble to arrange for child care, to pay bills, to contact their landlords or mortgage companies, and to take care of other things that we deal with on a daily basis. The legislation I introduce today would allow eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. But don't just take my word for it. Here is what the National Military Family Association has to say in a letter of support: (The National Military Family Association) has heard from many families about the difficulty of balancing family obligations with job requirements when a close family member is deployed. Suddenly, they are single parents or, in the case of grandparents, assuming the new responsibility of caring for grandchildren. The days leading up to a deployment can be filled with pre-deployment briefings and putting legal affairs in order. In that same letter, the National Military Family Association states that, ``Military families, especially those of deployed service members, are called upon to make extraordinary sacrifices. (The Military Families Leave Act) offers families some breathing room as they adjust to this time of separation.'' On July 21, 2004, then-Governor Joseph Kernan of Indiana testified before a joint hearing of the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions and Armed Services committees that Congress should revise FMLA to include activated National Guard families, as recommended by the National Governors' Association. The legislation I introduce today would give many military families some of the assistance Governor Kernan spoke of. Let me make sure there is no confusion about what this legislation does and does not do. This legislation does not expand eligibility for FMLA to employees not already covered by FMLA. It does not expand FMLA eligibility to active duty military personnel. It simply allows those already covered by FMLA to use those benefits in one additional set of circumstances--to deal with issues directly related to or resulting from the deployment of a family member. I was proud to cosponsor and vote for the legislation that created the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) during the early days of my service to the people of Wisconsin as a member of this body. This important legislation allows eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of child, the placement of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or a child. Some employers offer a portion of this time as paid leave in addition to other accrued leave, while others allow workers to use accrued vacation or sick leave for this purpose prior to going on unpaid leave. Since its enactment in 1993, the FMLA has helped more than 35 million American workers to balance responsibilities to their families and their jobs. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2.2 million and 6.1 million people took advantage of these benefits in 1999-2000. Our military families sacrifice a great deal. Active duty families often move every couple of years due to transfers and new assignments. The twelve years since FMLA' s enactment has also been a time where we as a country have relied more heavily on National Guard and Reserve personnel for more and more deployments of longer and longer duration. The growing burden on these service members' families must be addressed, and this legislation is one way to do so. This legislation has the support of a number of organizations, including the Wisconsin National Guard, the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Reserve Enlisted Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Military Family Association, the National Council on Family Relations, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. The Military Coalition, an umbrella organization of 31 prominent military organizations, specified this legislation as one of five meriting special consideration during the fiscal year 2004 Iraq supplemental debate. We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do all we can to support them in this difficult time. I hope that this legislation will bring a small measure of relief to our military families and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Lautenberg, Mikulski, and Murray, that would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our brave military personnel who are being deployed for the ongoing fight against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other missions in this country and around the world. It is legislation that the Senate adopted unanimously when I offered it as an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Iraq supplemental spending bill and I think it would be very fitting for my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure again during this, the National Month of the Military Child. The men and women of our Armed Forces undertake enormous sacrifices in their service to our country. They spend time away from home and from their families in different parts of the country and different parts of the world and are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their dedicated service. The ongoing deployments for the fight against terrorism and for the campaign in Iraq are turning upside down the lives of thousands of active duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families as they seek to do their duty to their country and honor their commitments to their families, and, in the case of the reserve components, to their employers as well. Today, there are more than 180,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel on active duty. Some of my constituents are facing the latest in a series of activations and deployments for family members who serve our country in the military. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and safe return. Many of those deployed in Iraq have had their tours extended beyond the time they had expected to stay. This extension has played havoc with the lives of those deployed and their families. Worried mothers, fathers, spouses, and children expecting their loved ones home after more than a year of service have been forced to wait another three or four months before their loved ones' much-anticipated homecoming. The emotional toll is huge. So is the impact on a family's daily functioning as bills still need to be paid, children need to get to school events, and sick family members must still be cared for. Our men and women in uniform face these challenges without complaint. But we should do more to help them and their families with the many things that preparing to be deployed requires. During the first round of mobilizations for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, military personnel and their families were given only a couple of days' notice that their units would be deployed. As a result, these dedicated men and women had only a very limited amount of time to get their lives in order. For members of the National Guard and Reserve, this included informing their employers of the deployment. I want to commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when their employees were called to active duty. In preparation for a deployment, military families often have to scramble to arrange for child care, to pay bills, to contact their landlords or mortgage companies, and to take care of other things that we deal with on a daily basis. The legislation I introduce today would allow eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. But don't just take my word for it. Here is what the National Military Family Association has to say in a letter of support: (The National Military Family Association) has heard from many families about the difficulty of balancing family obligations with job requirements when a close family member is deployed. Suddenly, they are single parents or, in the case of grandparents, assuming the new responsibility of caring for grandchildren. The days leading up to a deployment can be filled with pre-deployment briefings and putting legal affairs in order. In that same letter, the National Military Family Association states that, ``Military families, especially those of deployed service members, are called upon to make extraordinary sacrifices. (The Military Families Leave Act) offers families some breathing room as they adjust to this time of separation.'' On July 21, 2004, then-Governor Joseph Kernan of Indiana testified before a joint hearing of the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions and Armed Services committees that Congress should revise FMLA to include activated National Guard families, as recommended by the National Governors' Association. The legislation I introduce today would give many military families some of the assistance Governor Kernan spoke of. Let me make sure there is no confusion about what this legislation does and does not do. This legislation does not expand eligibility for FMLA to employees not already covered by FMLA. It does not expand FMLA eligibility to active duty military personnel. It simply allows those already covered by FMLA to use those benefits in one additional set of circumstances--to deal with issues directly related to or resulting from the deployment of a family member. I was proud to cosponsor and vote for the legislation that created the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) during the early days of my service to the people of Wisconsin as a member of this body. This important legislation allows eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of child, the placement of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or a child. Some employers offer a portion of this time as paid leave in addition to other accrued leave, while others allow workers to use accrued vacation or sick leave for this purpose prior to going on unpaid leave. Since its enactment in 1993, the FMLA has helped more than 35 million American workers to balance responsibilities to their families and their jobs. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2.2 million and 6.1 million people took advantage of these benefits in 1999-2000. Our military families sacrifice a great deal. Active duty families often move every couple of years due to transfers and new assignments. The twelve years since FMLA' s enactment has also been a time where we as a country have relied more heavily on National Guard and Reserve personnel for more and more deployments of longer and longer duration. The growing burden on these service members' families must be addressed, and this legislation is one way to do so. This legislation has the support of a number of organizations, including the Wisconsin National Guard, the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Reserve Enlisted Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Military Family Association, the National Council on Family Relations, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. The Military Coalition, an umbrella organization of 31 prominent military organizations, specified this legislation as one of five meriting special consideration during the fiscal year 2004 Iraq supplemental debate. We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do all we can to support them in this difficult time. I hope that this legislation will bring a small measure of relief to our military families and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit the People-to- People Engagement in World Affairs resolution with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator HAGEL. In July 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States released its final report, which determined that ``just as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. . . . If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us.'' The 9/11 Commission report clearly states that in the interests of national security, the U.S. must commit to a long-term, global strategy, which includes, among other things, effective public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is an essential component of our efforts to define and defend America's interests and ideals abroad. But a successful, long-term approach to building solid relationships with the rest of the world is not just the mission of the State Department. It also requires the engagement of the American people. This People-to-People Engagement in World Affairs resolution is a call to Americans to reach beyond our borders to engage with the world at an individual level. It encourages Americans to seize opportunities to engage in the global arena--through participating in a professional or cultural exchange; studying or volunteering abroad; working with an immigrant or refugee group in the United States; hosting a foreign student or professional; participating in a sister-city program; or learning a foreign language. This resolution also urges the State Department to coordinate between government agencies and non- governmental organizations to create a database where Americans can learn of opportunities to become involved in world affairs. Furthermore, it encourages all Members of Congress to work to raise the importance of citizen diplomacy in their states and districts. Americans must make a serious investment in reaching across borders and reversing the tide of increasing anti-American sentiments abroad. According to a 2003 Pew Research Center survey, during 1999-2000, more than 50 percent of the people in surveyed countries held a favorable view of the U.S., and in at least one country, favorable views of the U.S. were held by over 80 percent of those surveyed. More recent surveys reveal a stark contrast with those figures and growing anti- American sentiment. Pew found that, by 2003, favorable views of the United States in these countries plummeted. Additionally, whereas negative public opinion of the U.S. among Muslims was once limited to the Middle East, now it has spread to populations in places like Nigeria and Indonesia. Pew found that ``the bottom has fallen out of Arab and Muslim support for the United States.'' While these sentiments are most notable in the Muslim world, they extend even farther, coloring the views of many others. Growing anti-American sentiment abroad is dangerous and breeds misperceptions in future generations. Our ability to work with allies to foster democratic societies and tackle global problems relates directly to our image abroad. Building an international coalition with our allies requires their trust that our efforts are genuine. Success in combating terrorism, the greatest global threat, is contingent upon a unified, global participation. Members of the international community must collaborate to eliminate loopholes that terrorist networks manipulate when intelligence and communication break down between borders. Anti-Americanism can feed a steady supply of recruits and supporters for terrorist networks, intent on our destruction. Terrorist networks capitalize on misperceptions about the U.S. to advance their own agenda and scapegoat the U.S. as the reason for the poverty, weak and corrupt states, and powerlessness that many experience on a daily basis. International cooperation is also essential for effective progress in other important, trans-border issues, such as the proliferation of WMD, human trafficking, poverty, environmental degradation, and diseases from HIV/AIDS to polio. We cannot solve these problems alone--we need allies to help find and achieve meaningful solutions. Combating anti-American sentiments requires that we engage in a conversation with people in all levels of society beyond our borders. And as Secretary Rice has noted, our dialogue cannot be a monologue. Talking at people about what the U.S. image abroad should be is not sustainable or effective. Talking with people, and listening to them, however, can be the start of real understanding and even trust. That conversation needs to happen at a governmental level, through public and private diplomacy, but it also needs to happen at an individual person-to-person level, through citizen diplomacy. I have met with a number of groups from my State of Wisconsin that tell me they are concerned about misperceptions of America abroad, which they believe discourage people from coming to the U.S. to visit, study, learn about our wonderful country, and share their knowledge. I am so proud of the work people back in Wisconsin have done to overcome barriers to engaging outside our borders, whether by continuing Wisconsin's strong history of support for the Peace Corps, or by taking part in farmer to farmer initiatives and education exchange programs, building sister communities, or tirelessly working to ensure that Wisconsin maintains its success in attracting foreign visitors to our remarkable state. In 2004, Wisconsin was awarded the Goldman Sachs Foundation Prizes for Excellence in International Education in honor of its work to bring international education and skills into its curriculum. In fact, earlier this year, Wisconsin welcomed a group of teachers from Azerbaijan to study the workings of our education system to create a model for a new curriculum in their country. Wisconsin also works to improve communities abroad. A non-profit organization based in Wisconsin helps abused children in Latvia and is working to create the first family shelter there for these children and their mothers. Another Wisconsinite who is an expert in dairy prices participated in a farmer to farmer program to assist in building a pricing system in Armenia's dairy industry. He was able to share his experiences from this program with myself and people back in the state. Citizen diplomacy not only helps the rest of the world to understand us, it strengthens this country internally as well. Americans with insight into and understanding of the world beyond our borders become energized constituents who demand wise foreign policy and help all of us to understand global events. President Kennedy acknowledged the importance of public diplomacy in 1960 and challenged Americans to serve their country through building stronger communities abroad. His vision is even more relevant today. It is our responsibility to connect with people outside our borders. This duty can be fulfilled by teachers, students, retirees, and anyone who can share the best of the American people. We are a generous nation. Many of our fellow Americans have dedicated their lives to bringing about change for a better world. It is in our hands to carry this mission forward.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with me in the 107th and 108th Congresses to reform the Corps. We cannot ignore the record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces. Fiscal responsibility has never been so important. This legislation provides Congress with a unique opportunity to underscore our commitment to that goal. Too often, some have suggested that fiscal responsibility and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. Through this legislation, however, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars and protect the environment. As evidence of this unique opportunity, this bill is supported by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and Earthjustice. Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a gloomy Federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and many other States across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services in my state alone. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy. This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, who included the former Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers' package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of peer review of Corps projects. The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were included the bill I authored in the 108th Congress. It codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps, which was investigated through the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects. I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking about the same issue. The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the problem is with Congress. All too often, Members of Congress have seen Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring that taxpayers get the most bang for their Federal buck. This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and environmental protection are co-equal objectives of the Corps. Furthermore, the Corps must use current discount rates when determining the costs and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are justified using a discount rate formula established over 30 years ago, not the current government-wide discount rate promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. By using this outdated discount rate formula, the Corps often overestimates project benefits and underestimates project costs. This legislation also requires that a water resource project's benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer. According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60 Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates federal- local cost sharing of flood control projects and reduces the federal cost burden of these projects. While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to reduce their local share for projects. The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following circumstances: 1. the project has costs greater than $25 million, including mitigation costs; 2. the Governor of a state that is affected by the project requests a panel; 3. the head of a federal agency charged with reviewing the project determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; or 4. the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. Any party can request that the Secretary make a determination of whether the project is controversial. This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The Director is responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The Secretary is required to respond to the panel's report and explain the extent to which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The panel report and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the project will be made available to the public. The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects as a condition of receiving a Federal permit, and I think the Federal Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks. I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible. This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion. The bill requires the Corps to conduct a fiscal transparency report to review and report on the current backlog of Corps projects. Under current law, a project will be deauthorized anywhere from 7.5 to 11.5 years after authorization for construction if it receives no funding, and any type of funding will keep the project alive. This bill reduces the amount of time until automatic deauthorization based on funding to between 7.5 to 6.5 years. After 4 years of receiving no construction funding, a project goes on the Fiscal Transparency Report list. To keep one of those projects alive, Federal funds must be obligated for construction within 30 months of submission of the Fiscal Transparency Report. If no funds are obligated during that time, the project is deauthorized. This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water Resources bill. I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the never-ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters include congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance. I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, there is still need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with me in the 107th and 108th Congresses to reform the Corps. We cannot ignore the record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces. Fiscal responsibility has never been so important. This legislation provides Congress with a unique opportunity to underscore our commitment to that goal. Too often, some have suggested that fiscal responsibility and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. Through this legislation, however, we can save taxpayers billions of dollars and protect the environment. As evidence of this unique opportunity, this bill is supported by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Wildlife Federation, American Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and Earthjustice. Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a gloomy Federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and many other States across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services in my state alone. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy. This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, who included the former Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers' package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of peer review of Corps projects. The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were included the bill I authored in the 108th Congress. It codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps, which was investigated through the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects. I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking about the same issue. The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the problem is with Congress. All too often, Members of Congress have seen Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring that taxpayers get the most bang for their Federal buck. This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and environmental protection are co-equal objectives of the Corps. Furthermore, the Corps must use current discount rates when determining the costs and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are justified using a discount rate formula established over 30 years ago, not the current government-wide discount rate promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. By using this outdated discount rate formula, the Corps often overestimates project benefits and underestimates project costs. This legislation also requires that a water resource project's benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer. According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60 Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates federal- local cost sharing of flood control projects and reduces the federal cost burden of these projects. While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to reduce their local share for projects. The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following circumstances: 1. the project has costs greater than $25 million, including mitigation costs; 2. the Governor of a state that is affected by the project requests a panel; 3. the head of a federal agency charged with reviewing the project determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; or 4. the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. Any party can request that the Secretary make a determination of whether the project is controversial. This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The Director is responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The Secretary is required to respond to the panel's report and explain the extent to which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The panel report and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the project will be made available to the public. The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects as a condition of receiving a Federal permit, and I think the Federal Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks. I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible. This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion. The bill requires the Corps to conduct a fiscal transparency report to review and report on the current backlog of Corps projects. Under current law, a project will be deauthorized anywhere from 7.5 to 11.5 years after authorization for construction if it receives no funding, and any type of funding will keep the project alive. This bill reduces the amount of time until automatic deauthorization based on funding to between 7.5 to 6.5 years. After 4 years of receiving no construction funding, a project goes on the Fiscal Transparency Report list. To keep one of those projects alive, Federal funds must be obligated for construction within 30 months of submission of the Fiscal Transparency Report. If no funds are obligated during that time, the project is deauthorized. This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water Resources bill. I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the never-ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters include congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance. I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, there is still need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point men's basketball team for their second straight NCAA Division III national championship. The Pointers capped off a dominating run through the tournament with their victory over Rochester University in the championship game. With the victory, the Pointers become just the third team in NCAA Division III history to win back to back titles. The championship game was also a milestone for Head Coach Jack Bennett, who earned his 200th career victory with the win and has since been selected as the Basketball Times Coach of the Year. The Pointers posted a terrific 29-3 record this season, winning many of their games by wide margins and tying the school record for wins in a season set last year. The Pointers had the stingiest defense in the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference this season, allowing just over 56 points a game. They also outscored their opponents by an overwhelming average of 17 points per game. Stevens Point led their conference in many statistical categories, including three-point and overall shooting percentage and assists. Their tough play throughout the season earned them a share of the conference championship. The Pointers also won their second straight WIAC Tournament title. A talented roster of student-athletes, led by All-American Nick Bennett and Division III Men's Basketball Player of the Year Jason Kalsow, played unselfishly and always with passion. Members of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point men's basketball team that fought hard for the championship include senior Tamaris Relerford from Beloit, WI; freshman Shawn Lee from Marshfield, WI; sophomore Brett Hirsch from Menomonee Falls, WI; freshman Brad Kalsow from Huntley, IL; freshman Steve Hicklin from Sussex, WI; senior Kyle Grusczynski from Seymour, WI; sophomore Cory Krautkramer from Cameron, WI; sophomore Jon Krull from Marshall, WI; junior Matt Bouche from Dane, WI; junior Brian Bauer from Auburndale, WI; junior Mike Prey from Shawano, WI; senior Eric Maus from Green Bay, WI; freshman Gbena Awe from Milwaukee, WI; freshman Tyler Doyle from Appleton, WI; freshman Matt Atkinson from Suamico, WI; senior John Gleich from Wheaton, IL; and freshman Zach Leahy from Hartland, WI. Many of these champions are volunteers in the community at basketball camps and with Big Brothers and Big Sisters. They are also students dedicated to academics as well as to basketball. The team's competitive spirit is an inspiration to youngsters in Wisconsin. When March Madness is in the air, Division III may not always be in the spotlight. But the Pointers' second straight national championship is a trophy all Wisconsinites are proud of. Their victory is a substantial part of the incredible postseason for Wisconsin college basketball teams.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today marks the 11th anniversary of the start of the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Eleven years ago, a deliberate, centrally planned, and organized campaign of mass murder and rape was set in motion in Rwanda, and eventually it took the lives of some 800,000 men, women, and children. The victims were ethnic Tutsis and also moderate ethnic Hutus who believed in tolerance and resisted the call to participate in madness. In many ways, the entire country was victimized. Millions were displaced, and shattered state institutions are still recovering from the devastating loss of skilled personnel. Survivors have struggled to cope with their memories, and orphans have had to assume adult responsibilities in the wake of tragedy. The entire central African region has been violently unstable ever since. As this horror unfolded, the international community, including the United States, failed the people of Rwanda, and failed to act in the face of true evil. The world had said ``never again'' to genocide. And then we abandoned the people of Rwanda to an unspeakable national nightmare. Even as the world marks this solemn anniversary, we read ongoing reports of the crisis in Darfur, Sudan--a crisis that our President and this Congress has called a genocide. Once more, we confront a reality that exposes the inadequacy of our pledges of ``never again.'' And many will seize the anniversary of the Rwandan tragedy to rally support for more effective action in Darfur, where the international response has too often been sluggish and inadequate. In the case of Darfur, the United States has spoken boldly. Our humanitarian response, though slow to gear up, is significant and commendable. The efforts of the African Union are laudable. But the bottom line is that neither the African Union nor the U.S. has taken effective action to protect the people of Darfur. While last week the United Nations Security Council made some progress on Darfur, much more remains to be done, and I do not believe that the United States has exerted adequate diplomatic and political effort on behalf of the people of Darfur. We ought to be able to do more--to be more forceful, more focused, more innovative, and more persuasive--to stop genocide. So I applaud those who will work to refocus American attention on Darfur today, and I stand with them in their urgent call for a more effective response. But today, of all days, we must not forget Rwanda. We cannot pretend that Rwanda's struggles are simply in the past, or that the country exists simply to serve as a cautionary tale. The people of Rwanda still struggle today with efforts to rebuild their country, with the devastating HIV/AIDS pandemic, with the need for justice and accountability, and broadly, with fear. And though it is true that even the most conscientious policy will never erase the failures of the past, it is also true that we only compound our mistakes when we ignore the realities of Rwanda today. Frankly, some of these realities are deeply disturbing. Crushing poverty characterizes the economic situation of far too many Rwandans, and serious repression is a dominant feature of the country's political life. The most recent State Department Human Rights Report on Rwanda cites instances of political disappearances, arbitrary arrest of opposition supporters, and harassment of independent journalists. According to the report, last year the government of Rwanda ``effectively dismantled independent human rights organizations'' and the Government declined to use its considerable influence with the RCD- G faction in Eastern Congo to effectively curtail that group's practice of killing, raping, and robbing the people of Eastern Congo on a massive scale. Of course the government of Rwanda and the Rwandan people value order and are extremely sensitive to ethnically divisive forces. Rwanda remains a traumatized society. But not all dissent is dangerous or divisive, and history teaches us that imposing order alone is not enough to guarantee stability and security. Over the long run, suppression and intimidation can undermine security rather than protecting it, forcing healthy debates into illicit channels, and casting doubt on the legitimacy of the prevailing order. We fail to be true friends to the people of Rwanda when we fail to be honest about these issues, and to raise our voices in support of the civil and political rights of the Rwandan people. As we remember the past today, we should resolve to pay close attention to the present. The people of Rwanda deserve more than our regret. They deserve our support for their efforts to build a more just, more free, and more secure future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern regarding the recent election in Zimbabwe, which secured sweeping powers for the ruling ZANU-PF party. These results come as no surprise. In addition to reported irregularities on voting day itself, the ruling party had waged a campaign of intimidation, coercion, and institutional manipulation well in advance of the balloting in order to ensure victory. Last month I joined Senator McCain in writing to Secretary Rice, urging her to reaffirm the United States commitment to supporting genuine democratic processes and institutions in that troubled country. The U.S. needs a post-election strategy in Zimbabwe for supporting civil society, encouraging respect for civil and political rights, and bolstering the forces fighting against corruption. We also need to continue to plan for the future. Once Zimbabwe's corrupt leadership finally released its grasp on power, the country will require substantial international assistance to turn around its devastating economic decline and to rebuild institutions, such as the once-independent judiciary, so that the rule of law can be effectively restored. Too many Zimbabwean youths have been traumatized, pressed into service in brutal pro-ruling party militia forces, enduring serious abuse and then often becoming abusers themselves. These young men and women, too, will need support and assistance to find their way back on a path toward the futures they once dreamed of as children. I hope that soon the people of Zimbabwe will be given a chance to freely express their will in a genuine democratic process that is free from manipulation, intimidation, and coercion. As we prepare ourselves to be good partners to the people of Zimbabwe when change finally does come, we must also take a hard look at the disappointing passivity of leaders in many southern African states who have failed to speak and act in support of basic human rights and the rule of law in their own neighborhood. These decisions raise real doubts about the commitment of these regional leaders to democracy, and over the long term, these failures threaten the prospects for stability and prosperity throughout the region. South Africa, with its painful history, its tremendous promise, and its special moral authority, might have been a powerful protector of the rights of the people of Zimbabwe. Instead, South Africa's leadership has chosen, time and again, to sweep repression and abuse in Zimbabwe under the rug and to lend support to a bullying President who would rather destroy his own country than accept the rule of law and let real power rest with the Zimbabwean people. This South African choice is perhaps one of the greatest disappointments of all. The people of Zimbabwe have suffered through years of economic and political catastrophe. Those of us who have watched this decline feel tremendous frustration and real sadness as we observe what has happened to their country. But we must not surrender to hopelessness, and we must not give up. I continue to be deeply moved by the bravery and patriotism of Zimbabwean citizens who resist the state's repression, even at enormous personal cost. The United States must remain committed to working with them to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe succeed in their fight for freedom and genuine democracy.