Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, much of the debate on this nomination has focused on the views and qualifications of this nominee. I want to call the attention of the Senate to the violation of the rules of the Judiciary Committee that occurred when Mr. Pryor was considered in the committee. I will vote no on cloture because I believe that the committee rules were violated in reporting the nomination to the floor and that, before the Senate acts on this nomination, more investigation is needed of Mr. Pryor's involvement with the Republican Attorneys General Association and the truthfulness of his testimony on that topic. We faced a similar procedural problem early this year in the committee. I thought we had reached a resolution of that dispute. A number of us lifted our objection to proceeding with floor votes on John Roberts and Justice Deborah Cook after we received assurances that the committee's rule IV would be reinstated and abided by from that time forward. That agreement was put to the test during consideration of the Pryor nomination, and I'm sorry to say that the Committee failed that test. Just as we did in connection with the Roberts and Cook nominations in late February, in July, Democrats on the committee invoked rule IV and asked that a vote on the Pryor nomination not be taken. But once again, the rule was violated. The interpretation of rule IV that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee followed in connection with the Pryor nomination conflicts with the text of the rule, the practice of the committee for 24 years under five separate chairmen, and the history of the adoption of the rule. It was as wrong in July as it was in February when the chairman first expressed it. I won't repeat those arguments today, but I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my statement in the Judiciary Committee from March 27 be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to emphasize that we have never sought to use rule IV to indefinitely delay a nomination in committee. With respect to Mr. Roberts and Justice Cook, we only wanted adequate hearings so that we could properly exercise our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the nomination. With respect to Mr. Pryor, we only wanted to complete an investigation that was well underway already. We have never tried to kill a nomination in committee by never voting on it, even though that was done dozens of times to President Clinton's nominees. But we should not be forced to vote on a nomination before we have all of the information that we feel is needed to make an informed recommendation to our colleagues in the full Senate. We needed more time to investigate the issues raised by records from the Republican Attorneys General Association, RAGA, that the committee received. The documents raise what seem to me to be serious questions about the accuracy of Mr. Pryor's testimony before the Judiciary Committee and the answers he provided to written questions. We needed more time to contact the people who know about Mr. Pryor's activities as the Treasurer of RAGA and ask them questions. And we should have called Mr. Pryor back to ask him further questions in person and under oath. I don't know where this investigation might have led, but I do know that it was not nearly completed when the committee voted in July. It was the committee's duty and responsibility to provide the full Senate with a complete record about a nominee. But, as we expected, once the committee voted, the investigation stopped. So there are still many unanswered questions. Let me just cite a few examples of the questions that the RAGA documents raise. In answer to one of my written questions about who administered RAGA and who might have records of its activities, Mr. Pryor stated that RAGA was administered by the RNC and that to his knowledge all records were maintained by the RNC. He also stated that all solicitations for membership in RAGA were made by the staff of the RNC or the 5 State attorneys general who served on RAGA's executive committee. He failed to identify a single individual who worked for RAGA or raised money for RAGA. The documents we received indicate that RAGA was administered for over a year by an individual who had previously been Mr. Pryor's campaign manager. She served as RAGA's finance director. That person did not work for the RNC. They also identify an RNC employee who previously had worked for Mr. Pryor on his campaign. Both of these individuals maintained records of RAGA at some point. But Mr. Pryor did not identify these individuals, even though our questions clearly sought that information. The documents also show that solicitations were made by a finance committee of lobbyists and political fundraisers, in addition to RNC and RAGA staff and the attorneys general. The documents seem to indicate that Mr. Pryor was familiar with the finance committee and even participated in conference calls with them. Yet he failed to discuss the finance committee in his answers, even though, again, the questions specifically sought that information. The documents also suggest that Mr. Pryor received reports specifying the companies that had contributed to RAGA. This is inconsistent with Mr. Pryor's testimony that he received only e-mail and oral reports of overall fundraising totals. These are just a few examples. There may be good explanations for Mr. Pryor's testimony and answers, but we don't have them yet. And we should get them before we vote on the nomination. I will therefore vote no on cloture.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I have long advocated for the honest and accurate labeling of ginseng products. Some products previously claimed to include a product known as `Siberian Ginseng,' a bush that is distinctly different from ginseng root. I was pleased when portions of the Ginseng Truth in Labeling Act, a bill I introduced in the 107th Congress, were included in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. These provisions promote fair trade practices and accurate labeling of ginseng products sold in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a direct final rule regarding the labeling of dietary supplements containing ginseng (68 Fed. Reg. 167, August 28, 2003), and indicated that the industry must currently be in compliance with this labeling law. However, FDA has noted in correspondence that it had a number of other priorities that: . . . required the use of many of the Agency's limited resources, including enforcement resources, which would otherwise have been available for other important FDA programs and activities. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for their work on determining funding priorities for FDA. I ask if the ranking member would participate with me in a brief colloquy on this subject.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Fair Credit Reporting Act was designed to make sure that personal financial information about consumers is fairly maintained and accurately reported by credit agencies and provided only to the appropriate people. Maintaining the privacy of the consumer is one of the central objectives of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. My amendment will ensure that the Federal Government is not overstepping its role in obtaining and using this highly personal information. My amendment will require all Federal agencies to report to Congress on the practice of datamining but it would not impose any limits on the use of datamining. This amendment will provide the American people with critical information about the use of datamining technology and the way highly personal information, such as credit reports and other financial information, is obtained and used by our Government. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as datamining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Periodically, after millions of dollars have been spent, we learn about a new datamining program under development. Congress and the public should not be learning the details about these programs only after millions of dollars are spent testing and using datamining against unsuspecting Americans. Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance undertaken by this administration in the wake of September 11, the unchecked development of datamining is a potentially troubling step that threatens one of the most important values that we are fighting for in the war against terrorism; and that, of course, is freedom. My amendment would simply require all Federal agencies to report to Congress within 90 days and every year thereafter on datamining programs used to find a pattern indicating terrorist or other criminal activity and how these programs implicate the civil liberties and privacy of all Americans. If necessary, information in the various reports can be classified. The amendment does not end funding for any program, determine the rules for use of the technology or threaten any ongoing investigation that uses datamining technology. All it does is ensure that Congress has complete information about the current datamining plans and practices of the Federal Government. With this information, Congress will be able to conduct a thorough review of the costs and benefits of the practice of datamining on a program-by-program basis and make considered judgments about which programs should go forward and which ones should not. My amendment would provide Congress with information about the nature of the technology and the data that will be used. The amendment would require all Government agencies to assess the efficacy of the datamining technology and whether the technology can deliver on the promises of each program. In addition, the amendment would make sure that the Federal agencies using datamining technology have considered and developed policies to protect the privacy and due process rights of individuals and ensure that only accurate information is collected and used. Congressional review and oversight is necessary in order to find out whether and how Government agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense, plan to collect and analyze a combination of intelligence data and personal information such as individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information contained in commercial or public databases. Through comprehensive data mining, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases made with a credit card to also their most private health records could be fed into a computer and monitored and reviewed by the Federal Government. Using data mining, the Government hopes to be able to detect potential terrorists. There is no evidence, however, that data mining will, in fact, prevent terrorism. Data mining programs under development are being used to look into the future before being tested to determine if they would have even been able to anticipate past events like September 11 or the Oklahoma City bombing. Before we develop the ability to feed personal information about every man, woman, and child into a giant computer, we should learn what data mining can and can't do and what limits and protections are needed. We must also consider the potential for errors in data mining. Most people don't even know what information is contained in their credit reports. Subjecting unchecked and uncorrected credit reports to massive data mining makes the prospect of ensnaring many innocents very real. If a credit agency has data bout John R. Smith on John D. Smith's credit report, even the best data mining technology might reach the wrong conclusion. Most Americans believe that their private lives should remain private, especially from the Government. Data mining programs run the risk of intruding into the lives of individuals who have nothing to do with terrorism but who trust that their credit reports, financial records, shopping habits and doctor visits would not become a part of a gigantic computerized search engine, operating without any controls or oversight. The executive branch should be required to report to Congress about the impact of the various data mining programs now underway or being developed, and the impact those programs may have on our privacy and civil liberties so that Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and our personal liberties. Some may argue that this amendment does not belong in the bill before us. I respectfully disagree. As we consider legislation dealing with individuals' credit reports and their financial privacy, I think it is both relevant and important that we find out whether and to what extent the Government is reviewing databases containing highly personal information. So I urge my colleagues to support this very simple reporting amendment. All it asks for is information to which Congress and the Americana people are entitled. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, if I could respond briefly to the chairman, first, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for putting this bill together. I intend to support it. I am pleased to support it. I recognize the managers had to achieve a balance, and they do not want to disrupt that balance. I think I can pretty confidently assure my colleagues that a mere reporting requirement by Federal agencies could not possibly upset the balance they have so skillfully achieved. So I would argue in the case of this amendment--and my second amendment, which is also only about Federal Government reporting information--that it does no violence to what they have achieved and actually is, in this case, very consistent with the purposes of the bill that have to do with people's privacy of their financial records. So I urge the chairman and ranking member to consider that this would be different from many other amendments that could upset the balance.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, with regard to the second amendment I offered concerning the reporting for the Buy America Act, at this time I will withdraw the amendment, with my appreciation to the chairman for his interest in the matter, and I defer to his comments.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will briefly respond with great respect. There were a number of other amendments with great substance that I would have very much wanted to offer, but did not in the spirit of trying to make sure nothing of great moment occurred on this bill. These are merely reporting amendments. I understand the Senator's point. These are amendments that could have been possibly accepted; they are not particularly controversial. In any event, I respect what the managers have had to do in order to get the bill through. I am prepared to move on to the next amendment, unless they want to continue to debate this. If the managers prefer, we could move on in the next amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I have come to this floor on several occasions this year to discuss the crisis in American manufacturing and some steps that I think Congress should take to stop the flow of manufacturing jobs overseas. One step that I believe we should take to support American manufacturers is to ensure that the Federal Government buys American- made goods whenever reasonably possible. Congress enacted such a policy when it passed the Buy American Act of 1933. This law was enacted to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. However, the Buy American Act includes a number of waiver provisions which allow agencies to buy foreign-made goods in certain defined circumstances. I am concerned that agencies may be using these waiver provisions to get around the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. That's why, earlier this year, I introduced the Buy American Improvement Act, which would strengthen the existing act by tightening its waiver provisions. Unfortunately, it's virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign- and domestic-made goods. Under current law, only the Department of Defense is required to report annually to Congress regarding its use of waivers of the Buy American Act and its corresponding purchases of foreign-made goods. As for other agencies, there is no real disclosure or accountability in the waiver process. I think that Congress and the public should know how taxpayer dollars are being spent, and that's what my amendment would do. The amendment is very simple and, I hope, noncontroversial. It would just require all Federal agencies to prepare an annual report that details their purchases of foreign-made goods. That's it. It would not make any changes in the Buy American Act; that law and its waiver provisions would remain the same. All that would change is that we would all know whether the Buy American Act is working. My amendment would require that the annual report to be submitted by agency heads include the following information: the dollar value of any articles, materials, or supplies purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such articles, materials, or supplies under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured outside of the United States. The amendment also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet. Some may argue that this is a burdensome requirement. The truth is that it is similar to the reporting requirement that the Defense Department complies with every year. If the Pentagon, with its many procurement contracts, can report to Congress annually on its purchases of goods, so too can all other Federal agencies. I am pleased that this amendment is supported by an array of business and labor groups including the AFL-CIO, Save American Manufacturing, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. Madam President, 2.5 million American manufacturing jobs have been lost since January 2001. The current unemployment rate is 6.1 percent. The stagnant economy and continued loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs underscore the need for the Federal Government to support American workers and businesses by buying American-made goods. This amendment is a modest step toward that goal. I understand that the managers will oppose this and all amendments that are deemed to be non-relevant to the bill. I respect their prerogative to do so. I would have preferred to offer this important amendment to another bill. But opportunities to offer amendments have been few and far between this year, and it is the right of all Senators to offer amendments. I hope that my colleagues will not oppose this amendment simply because they do not feel it belongs on this particular bill. The question is not whether this amendment belongs on the bill; the question is whether it is good law. I think it is and I hope others will agree. The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and to what extent these dollars are being used to support foreign jobs. I urge my colleagues to support American companies and American workers by supporting this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his important statement to finally make some progress in strengthening the Buy America Act. I look forward to working with him on this matter.

Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding is the Senator intends to table my other amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, when the Senate voted on this supplemental bill in October, I expressed my serious reservations about the overall direction of U.S. policy in Iraq and the astounding financial burden being imposed on the American people as a result of our misguided policies. Yet ultimately I voted in favor of the bill because I wanted to provide important resources for our troops on the ground and because I recognize that bringing stability to Iraq is in our national interest. At that time, I made it clear that I would not be able to support future funding for the Iraq mission if the administration failed to take concrete steps to put that mission on a sounder footing. Today, as we consider this conference report, my reservations have only multiplied. Under intense pressure from the White House, the conferees have stripped a reasonable and appropriate Senate provision that would have converted a portion of the reconstruction grants to loans. This provision, which was designed to encourage international debt forgiveness, did not involve any U.S. decisions about Iraq's future oil revenues, rightly leaving those decisions to the Iraqi people. The administration's refusal to accept this sound provision, combined with the disappointing showing at the recent donors conference in Madrid, suggests to me that the White House continues to set this country on an unsustainable course. The administration's failure to get more support in Madrid and continued insistence that the American people can and should shoulder the lion's share of the burden reveal a failure to grasp the reality of the current situation and the urgent need to rethink their approach. I am also disappointed that the conferees chose to strip out my amendment, which was adopted here in the Senate, to help ease some of the strain that has been placed on the families of our military personnel. My amendment allowed a spouse, son, daughter, or parent who already qualifies for benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act to use their benefits for issues arising from one additional set of circumstances--the deployment of a family member. Our military families--be they active duty, Guard, or Reserve--are coping with tremendous strains and a great deal of unpredictability. This Congress should be working to help them, and I will continue to pursue this issue. I am pleased that my amendment to establish an Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority was retained in this conference report. Though some changes were made to my proposal, the heart of the effort survived and in some cases was strengthened, and American taxpayers will now have someone watching how their dollars are spent in Iraq. We have sorely needed vigorous accountability and transparency mechanisms to oversee our policy in Iraq for some time. It is my hope that regular reports from the Inspector General can help the administration and the Congress to clean up waste and abuse and to improve our overall performance when it comes to reconstruction efforts. Transparency is also important in our representations to the Iraqi people. I am pleased that another of my amendments, which requires the Coalition Provisional Authority to provide regular updates on the status and use of Iraqi oil revenues in Arabic on the Internet, was retained. Honest and regular information is our best weapon to combat those who would play to Iraqis' worst suspicions in order to harm Americans. I am also pleased that this conference report recognizes the importance of bolstering U.S. efforts to help bring stability to Afghanistan, and to assist the war-torn states of Liberia and Sudan. While the administration has focused tremendous attention on Iraq, the global fight against terrorism is still our first foreign policy priority. Helping weak and failing states to recover is an important part of that effort. But despite these positive elements, it is extremely difficult to have confidence in this conference report. Rather than listening to congressional reservations, rather than hearing what Members of this body had to say when we spoke about our constituents' profound sense of unease about our policy, those responsible for directing U.S. action in Iraq appear to have heard nothing at all--not the voices of the American people, not the voices of the Congress, not the voices coming from Iraq itself, where horrible violence continues to take American and Iraqi lives. In the days since the Senate voted on this bill, the administration has failed to grasp the need for a fundamental change in direction necessary to ensure that all of the resources that this bill provides at taxpayer expense will be used wisely. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to report on the budgetary effect of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3289, making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. The President's supplemental appropriations request totaled $87.0 billion in budget authority and $36.8 billion in outlays for FY 2004 for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the reconstruction of Iraq. The conference report provides $87.5 billion in budget authority and $37.1 billion in outlays. Most of the funds in the conference report, $83.8 billion in budget authority, are designated emergencies under section 502(c) of the 2004 Budget Resolution. None of these emergency funds count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and sections 504 and 505 of the 2004 budget resolution. The conference report also contains non-emergency spending totaling $3.8 billion in budget authority. Non-emergency appropriations are those appropriations that were not requested by the President and not declared a contingent emergency. Non-emergency appropriations are scored against the appropriate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. I will remind the Senate at the appropriate time about any points of order that apply to subsequent bills. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote no on cloture on the nomination of Charles Pickering to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We had a fair process in the last Congress on this nominee--two hearings, a lengthy period of deliberation and debate, and a fair vote. The nomination was defeated. The Judiciary Committee's consideration of this nomination was thorough and fair. Obviously, some did not like the result, but I do not think they can in good faith find fault with the process. It is my view that a process that gives a nominee a hearing, and then a vote in the Judiciary Committee is not an unfair process, or an ``institutional breakdown,'' as some critics of our work in the committee last year called it. It is the way the Judiciary Committee is supposed to work. During the 6 years prior to last Congress, the Judiciary Committee did not work this way. Literally dozens of nominees never got a hearing, as Charles Pickering did, and never got a vote, as Charles Pickering did. Those nominees were mistreated by the committee; Charles Pickering was not. What happened in the Judiciary Committee last year provides no justification whatsoever for the President's unprecedented action of renominating someone who has been considered by the committee and rejected. Judges on our Federal courts of appeals have an enormous influence on the law. Whereas decisions of the district courts are always subject to appellate review, the decisions of the courts of appeals are subject only to discretionary review by the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court agrees to hear only a very small percentage of the cases on which its views are sought, the decisions of the courts of appeals are in almost all cases final. That means that the scrutiny that we in the Senate and on the committee give to circuit court nominees must be greater than that we give to district court nominees. I would think that this would be self-evident, and certainly the debates over circuit court nominees over the years have been much more heated than those relating to district court nominees. But I begin with this point because there are some who have argued that because the Senate confirmed Judge Pickering to the district court by a unanimous vote in 1990, he must be elevated to the circuit court. Judge Pickering now has a substantial record as a district court judge that he did not have in 1990, and Senators are entitled--indeed it is our duty--to review and evaluate that record. Even leaving that aside, a court of appeals judgeship is different from a district court judgeship. There is another factor that I think requires us as a committee to give this nomination very careful consideration. During the last 6 years of the Clinton administration, this committee did not report out a single judge to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That is right. Not a single one. And as we all know, that was not for lack of nominees to consider. President Clinton nominated three well-qualified lawyers to the Court of Appeals--Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, and Alston Johnson. None of these nominees even received a hearing before this committee. When the chairman held a hearing in July 2001 on the nomination of Judge Clement for a seat on this circuit court, only a few months after she was nominated, it was the first hearing for a Fifth Circuit nominee since September 1994. We have since confirmed another Fifth Circuit nominee, Edward Prado. So there is a history here and a special burden on the administration to consult with our side on nominees for this Circuit. Otherwise, we would simply be rewarding the obstructionism that the President's party engaged in over the last 6 years by allowing him to fill with his choices seats that his party held open for years, even when qualified nominees were advanced by President Clinton. And I say once again, my colleagues on the Republican side bear some responsibility for this situation, and they can help resolve it by urging the administration to address the injustices suffered by so many Clinton nominees. With that background, let me outline the concerns that have caused me to reach the conclusion that Judge Pickering should not be confirmed. Except for the DC Circuit, the Fifth Circuit has the largest percentage of residents who are minorities of any circuit--over 40 percent. It is a court that during the civil rights era issued some of the most significant decisions supporting the rights of African American citizens to participate as full members of our society. It is a circuit where cases addressing the continuing problems of racism and discrimination in our country will continue to arise. Judge Pickering's record as a Federal district court judge leads me to conclude that he does not have the dedication to upholding the civil rights laws that I believe a judge on this circuit must have. Judge Pickering has a disturbing habit of injecting his own personal opinions about civil rights laws into his opinions and of criticizing plaintiffs who seek through legal action to correct what they perceive to be discriminatory conduct. In two separate opinions in unrelated employment discrimination cases, Judge Pickering not only found against the plaintiffs but saw fit to disparage their claims in identical language. This is what he said: The fact that a black employee is terminated does not automatically indicate discrimination. The Civil Rights Act was not passed to guarantee job security to employees who do not do their job adequately. . . . The Courts are not super personnel managers charged with second guessing every employment decision made regarding minorities. The Court should protect against discrimination but it can do no more. This case has all the hallmarks of a case that is filed simply because an adverse employment decision was made in regard to a protected minority. The use of this kind of language as a boilerplate does not indicate to me a judge who has an open mind about employment discrimination lawsuits. I think that people who have legitimate claims under the civil rights laws of this country have reason to be concerned about whether a judge who would go out of his way to say these kinds of things in legal opinions will hear their cases fairly. Indeed, during his confirmation hearing, Judge Pickering seemed to confirm that he has a predisposition to believe that employment discrimination claims that come before him are not meritorious. He testified that as he understands the law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ``engages in mediation and it is my impression that most of the good cases are handled through mediation and are resolved.'' He went on to say, ``The cases that come to court are generally the ones that the EEOC has found are not good cases, so then they are filed in court.'' That is emphatically not the law, and it was extremely disturbing that a sitting federal judge who has ruled in numerous employment discrimination cases would so profoundly misunderstand the role of the EEOC in these cases. Judge Pickering has also expressed troubling views in voting rights cases, including criticizing the concept of ``one person, one vote.'' That concept is one of the bedrock constitutional foundations of our political system. Judge Pickering opined in one case: ``It is wondered if we are not giving the people more government than they want, more than is required in defining one man, one vote, too precisely.'' I do not believe that we can give the people too much democracy, and I am not inclined to elevate to a higher court a judge who seems not to take this constitutional principle seriously. Another area of the law where Judge Pickering has demonstrated what seems like a hostility to certain kinds of claims is that of prisoner litigation. We all know that there is a significant problem of frivolous lawsuits being filed by prisoners. Congress addressed this problem in 1996 with the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, where it provided certain sanctions for prisoners who file repeated frivolous claims. Judge Pickering, however, has taken the law into his own hands on numerous occasions by threatening to order prison officials to restrict prisoners' privileges if they filed another frivolous lawsuit. And he did this even after Congress specified certain sanctions for repeated frivolous lawsuits in the 1996 Act. I believe that this kind of threat is inappropriate behavior for a Federal judge. Judge Pickering's opinions could not help but chill even legitimate complaints from prisoners. While it is true that much frivolous litigation is filed by prisoners, it is also true that some celebrated cases upholding and explaining the constitutional rights of the accused have had their genesis in a prisoner complaint where the prisoner did not have a lawyer. Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the right to an attorney, was such a case. Just the day before Judge Pickering's second hearing, the Washington Post ran a story about a prisoner who received a favorable Supreme Court decision in a case that began with such a complaint. And the petition for certiorari was filed by the prisoner without a lawyer, as well. I believe that judges at all levels must have an open mind toward all types of cases. Engaging in tactics that will frighten people into not asserting their rights is a highly questionable thing to do. Judge Pickering did respond to my written questions about his decisions in prisoner litigation. I was gratified to learn that he never actually imposed the sanctions he threatened, and I appreciate his and the Justice Department's efforts to find legal authority for his orders. I find those efforts unconvincing, particularly with respect to the orders that he entered after Congress passed the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. Judge Pickering states in answer to my questions that ``[m]y objective was to stop prisoners who were filing frivolous litigation from doing so,'' and that ``I do not believe that legitimate complaints by prisoners were chilled by this approach.'' I simply do not know how Judge Pickering could be so certain now, or when he was making these orders, that threatening to order prison officials to take away unspecified privileges if a prisoner filed another frivolous complaint was a tactic that would discourage only frivolous suits by prisoners, but not legitimate ones. I also have concerns about two different ethical issues that arose during the consideration of his confirmation. I questioned him about one such issue at his second hearing before Judiciary Committee last year. After his first hearing, Judge Pickering asked a number of lawyers who practice before him to submit letters of recommendation. He asked them to send those letters to his chambers so that he could fax them to Washington. And he testified that he read the letters before forwarding them to the Justice Department, which sent them on to the committee. Now when I asked Judge Pickering about this, he seemed confused by the questions, as if he thought I was objecting to the fact that the letters had been faxed rather than mailed. Let me be clear, I have no problem with faxes. I get them all the time. What I do have a problem with is a sitting Federal judge asking lawyers who practice before him to send letters supporting his nomination to a higher court and having those letters sent to him rather than directly to the Justice Department or the Senate. That seems to raise an obvious ethical issue, and I was surprised that Judge Pickering didn't recognize it, even when I questioned him about what he did. I asked Professor Stephen Gillers of NYU Law School, one of the leading experts on legal and judicial ethics in the country, for his views on this issue. Professor Gillers responded in a letter to me. He confirmed my concern about Judge Pickering's actions. Let me read a portion of that letter. Professor Gillers wrote: It was improper for Judge Pickering to solicit letters in support of his nomination from lawyers who regularly appear before him. It is important to my answer that the Judge asked the lawyers to fax him the letters so that he could send them to the Justice Department for transmittal to the Senate. He did not ask the lawyers to send any letters directly to Washington. Consequently, the Judge would know who submitted letters and what the letters said, as would be obvious to the lawyers. Last year, Senator Hatch obtained a letter on this issue from a professor Richard Painter. Professor Painter answers only the question of whether soliciting letters of support violates existing rules of judicial conduct and never mentions the additional fact that Judge Pickering asked for the letters to be sent to him rather than to the Senate. That makes Professor Painter's views much less relevant to the questions I asked. Furthermore, Professor Painter's analysis seems to be limited to an effort to show that the authorities relied upon by Professor Gillers are not exactly on point and that the standards governing the solicitation of letters of support for nominations are vague. He argues that the rules should be clarified and made more specific. And perhaps he is right about that. But it seems to me to be an insufficiently low standard to set that judges need only make sure they don't clearly violate the ethical rules. We should not want judges who simply avoid clear violations of rules of ethical conduct. We should not want judges who either don't spot ethical issues or treat them as obstacles to be parsed and tiptoed around. We should want judges who are beyond reproach, who know that ethical conduct is at the core of their responsibilities, because such conduct helps ensure that the public will respect their decisions. I believe that Judge Pickering's conduct fell far short in this instance. Before this year's committee vote on Judge Pickering, some additional information came to light on this matter that suggests that Judge Pickering's conduct presents even more serious ethical questions. In his response to my inquiry about Judge Pickering's solicitation of letters of support, Prof. Gillers also noted the following: The impropriety becomes particularly acute if lawyers or litigants with matters currently pending before the Judge were solicited. Then the desire to please the Judge would be immediately obvious and the coercive nature of the request even more apparent. In addition, soliciting favorable letters from lawyers or litigants in current matters could lead to recusal on the ground that the Judge's ``impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'' 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a). We identified 18 separate letters, all written in late October 2001, that came to the committee from Judge Pickering's chambers. We now know that at least seven of the lawyers who wrote letters on behalf of Judge Pickering at his request actually had cases pending before him at the time. A number of those lawyers had more than once case pending. One lawyer received Judge Pickering's request for a letter when a previously scheduled settlement conference was a little over a month away. Another lawyer whom Judge Pickering solicited represented the plaintiffs in a class action against a major drug company. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in May 2001, and the motion was still pending before Judge Pickering when he requested the letter. Now I have to ask my colleagues: Suppose you were a lawyer in a case and your opponents filed a motion trying to get your case dismissed. The judge has not yet ruled on the motion and you get a call from him asking you to write a letter of recommendation because he has been nominated to serve on a higher court. What would you do? Wouldn't you be troubled? Wouldn't you feel at least a bit of pressure to comply? And would you write a fully candid letter, especially if the judge asked you to send the letter to him directly so he could see it before forwarding it to the Judiciary Committee? I will submit for the Record a chart indicating the lawyers with cases pending before Judge Pickering who wrote letters for him upon his request. I consider this a very serious ethical breach, and Prof. Gillers agrees. This violation of judicial ethics casts serious doubt on Judge Pickering's fitness to serve on the Court of Appeals. It is within this framework that I evaluate the other ethical issue that has arisen, Judge Pickering's conduct in the Swan cross-burning case. This case and Judge Pickering's handling of it have been the subject of a great deal of controversy and public discussion, and I will not repeat the details. I will only say that I am very troubled by the Swan case, for a number of reasons. Judge Pickering, it seems to me, improperly stepped out of his judicial role, to try to get a result that he favored in the case. He had an ex parte contact with the Justice Department about the case. He threatened to rule on a legal issue in a way that he apparently did not believe was correct if the Justice Department did not change its sentencing position. He twice told the Justice Department that he might order a new trial even though it was clearly outside of his authority to do so. And he took unusual and apparently unjustified steps to keep his order secret, which prevented public scrutiny of his actions. Judicial nominations should not be like legislation that can be reintroduced and reconsidered by a succeeding Congress. The Senate, acting through this committee, and exercising its constitutional responsibility, refused to give its consent to this nomination last year. I believe it was wrong for the President to re-nominate Judge Pickering. I do not believe Judge Pickering is a racist, nor do I believe that he is a bad person. I did not come to this decision to vote against his confirmation lightly or because of pressure from interest groups or other Senators. I sincerely believe that Judge Pickering is not the right choice for this position. I wish him well in his continued work on the district court. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter to which I referred.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to support H.R. 1904, as amended by the Senate. I do so, however, with significant reservations about the bill, and its benefits for Wisconsin, and I want to describe my concerns in detail. Forest fire management is a critical issue for my home State of Wisconsin and for the country. Forest fires burned on approximately 7 million acres across 15 States during last year's fire season, the second worst in 50 years. Fighting those fires cost taxpayers about $1.6 billion. It also cost 23 firefighters their lives. This year's fire season is expected to be as bad as last year's. And though Wisconsin has escaped the season unharmed, my State did face a higher than normal risk of fire this summer due to the relatively dry weather we had the year before. Moreover, forests are important to Wisconsin economically. Our businesses depend on them as do our recreation and tourism industries. The primary and secondary wood products industry is the second largest employer in Wisconsin and, according to the Wisconsin Division of Forestry, my State leads the Nation in 2002 in the production of fine papers, sanitary paper products, children's furniture, and millwork. Forest resources in Wisconsin are a primary tourism attraction for both residents and visitors. Given the role and importance of forests in Wisconsin, I wish that the bill focused more on the forests of the Upper Midwest. I am particularly concerned that the bill passed by the House focuses too strongly on the implementation of recommendations made by the Western Governors regarding forest health. It is worth noting that the Senate has considered these kinds of emergency legislative measures to address forest health in the recent past. As many will recall, an emergency timber salvage rider was attached to and signed into law by President Clinton as part of the 1995 rescissions bill, legislation supposedly designed to reduce Federal expenditures. The salvage rider was extremely controversial, and my constituents were very concerned about its implementation in terms of its fiscal cost, the loss of critical wildlife habitat and endangered species, and the precedent that it set for lawmaking and the separation of powers in this country. The salvage rider suspended the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and ``all other applicable Federal environmental and natural resource laws,'' such as the Clean Water Act. I opposed the rider because it was too restrictive in scope. The public was blocked from the legal process through which decisions affecting their national forests are made. All sales under the salvage rider were exempt from the administrative appeal process, and judicial review was severely limited to sales deemed ``arbitrary and capricious.'' So I think it is wise to be careful in crafting this legislation, lest we risk taking too extreme a step in our efforts to address forest health. I agree that the Congress should enact legislation to protect our Nation's forests from catastrophic wildlife and disease. Overall, I think that the substitute offered for title I of the bill by Senators Cochran, Feinstein, Wyden, Daschle and others, is an improvement over the underlying bill. I have also supported a number of amendments to try to narrow the bill's scope and improve its provisions. It is my hope that the conferees will adhere to the provisions approved by the Senate when they develop a final bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will be supporting the McCain- Lieberman climate change legislation, and I want to detail the reasons for my support. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the United States agreed to a goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and we became a party to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. As a Member of the Senate, I have supported this agreement. In order to meet this commitment, our Government has engaged in a wide range of voluntary programs. But, despite these efforts, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 14 percent between 1990 and 2000. We should take additional nationwide steps to meet this goal, and I believe this legislation is an appropriate first step. In this legislation, my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, would implement Phase I only of their broader bill on greenhouse gases, S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. This legislation will return the Nation's emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. It will do so by reducing emissions in the short term while providing market-based flexibility to minimize the cost to industry. I continue to believe that we must take action on the national level now to slow the progression of climatic change. The costs of inaction are prohibitive across the country and in my home State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin's top officials acknowledged that climate change was a concern years ago. Nat Robinson, administrator of the State government's Energy Division in the administration of Governor Thompson, stated back in September of 1997, ``There was a time when the possible human influence on the atmosphere was hotly debated by scientists and lay persons alike. That time is past.'' In response, my home State has become one of the first with a statewide plan to address global warming. Numerous signs suggest that the climate in Wisconsin may already be changing, and that the actions that the State of Wisconsin has taken are justified. UW-Madison scientist John Magnuson led a dozen other scientists in examining actual climate data recorded by a wide variety of sources around the world over the past 550 years. These data documented a steady 150-year warming trend in global temperatures. For example, the ``ice season'' of Dane County's Lake Mendota has decreased 22 percent since the mid-1800s. Similarly, the Aldo Leopold Foundation in Baraboo concluded that spring is arriving a week earlier than it did 62 years ago based on when various plants are flowering. The Union of Concerned Scientists released a series of studies in April 2003 on climate change in the Great Lakes Region. That report states that by 2030 Wisconsin summers will feel like southern Illinois', and by the end of the century, Wisconsin's summer climate will resemble that of current-day Arkansas, with our winters like current day Iowa. This will cause a huge change in our life in Wisconsin, in our climate and ecosystems, in our ability to grow crops, in our need for additional summertime cooling for our residents. These are huge and costly challenges, and Wisconsin can't solve them alone. The pollutants emitted to the air know no political boundaries, and the effects are global, as well as local, in scope. Unfortunately, this administration has chosen to step away from our current commitments on climate change and has not recognized state efforts on climate change. I too shared concerns about the Kyoto protocol, and joined with the Senate in support of a 98 to 0 vote on the Byrd resolution. That resolution called upon the State Department to seek meaningful commitments during the Kyoto negotiation process to reduce climate change from developing countries such as China and India that have the potential to develop using significant amounts of fossil fuels. I supported that resolution because I wanted any additional U.S. commitments to be to an agreement that addressed all current and future sources of climate change worldwide. That vote was not a repudiation of my belief that the U.S. must meet its current commitments. Meeting our international commitment is important, especially at a time of strong anti-American sentiment abroad and challenges to U.S. leadership. Some of that sentiment and some of those challenges are a direct response to the Bush administration's misguided policies. Even our staunchest friends are troubled by the administration's inclination for unilateral action, its inconsistent words and deeds, and its dismissive response to their legitimate concerns. Being part of the international community means engaging constructively with like-minded nations to build strong, sustaining institutions and alliances--and bringing emerging powers into this community so future conflict becomes less likely. The Bush Administration has demonstrated an unhealthy disregard for the opinions of fellow nations--a disregard that has squandered some of the support we received after the September 11, 2001, attacks and diminished our influence around the world. The administration's approach to global warming is one such area. Though the United States produces about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases and will be affected badly by climate change, the Bush Administration has shown no interest in doing anything about the problem. That undermines our stature and credibility and it causes an unnecessary rift with our allies. Constituents have approached me again and again at the town hall meetings I hold all over Wisconsin every year to share their concerns when the U.S. pulled out of the Kyoto negotiations, and I believe that they make a very strong point. The most powerful Nation in the world must speak with a clear and consistent voice and lead all nations to face major global challenges together. The U.S. Government has paid dearly for pulling out of the Kyoto protocol and rejecting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Although each of these agreements was imperfect, each became more so when the United States moved to the sidelines. Helping to shape credible international institutions is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of confidence in U.S. strength and ideals. By disengaging, this administration has marginalized U.S. policies, interests, and values. For these reasons, I support the McCain-Lieberman legislation. The U.S. should proceed to implement the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we need legislation to do just that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to remember our friend Paul Wellstone, who died a year ago this month. All of us feel his loss so acutely here in this body. But his voice still echoes in this Chamber, and his spirit and fierce dedication to justice live on. What so many of us loved about Paul was that unparalleled passion he had for doing what was right. That still inspires me today, as it inspires so many others. And it is just one more reason to be thankful to Paul, and to honor his memory. I think of Paul often as issues come before the Senate about which he cared so deeply. Earlier this month, as we observed Mental Illness Awareness Week, I thought of all Paul did to advocate for mental health parity throughout his time here, and what a vital contribution he made to getting affordable medical treatment to people suffering from mental illnesses. I have been proud to support this issue when it has come to the floor, and last week I joined the entire Democratic caucus in urging the majority leader to take up and pass the Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003. We must ensure that mental illnesses are treated the same way as other physical illnesses by insurers. Paul also fought to stop U.S. companies that move their headquarters to ``tax haven'' countries to avoid paying U.S. taxes from getting Federal procurement contracts. I am proud to be a part of the effort to move that forward. I also am proud to help carry on Paul's work in the fight for a good public education for every child. Paul believed, as I do, that every child is entitled to a good education no matter his or her circumstances in life. He called this ``equality of opportunity.'' I was proud to work with him on the issue of standardized testing. He and I agreed that over-testing of our public school students is not the cure-all for public education. I hope that my efforts to return authority for decisions about how often to test students to the States and local school districts will, in some small way, build upon Paul's legacy of fighting for a level playing field for all students. These are just a few of the causes Paul worked on, and just a few of the ways that he lives on in this body, and in the lives of the countless Americans he touched through his lifetime. We can still hear his voice echo in this chamber, urging all of us on to build a more just world. Let us honor Paul's memory by heeding his words, and carrying on the great work of our dear friend.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senate's responsibility to scrutinize and confirm Presidential nominees is an important one, and never more so than when we are considering who should oversee the agency that, as its name indicates, is designed to protect the country's environment. The individual charged with this responsibility will advise the President on setting the direction for our national efforts to protect the environment. This person will have the power to decide whether to nurture and conserve, or to develop and destroy our Nation's great resources. Throughout my career, I have committed myself to a career of environmental stewardship. I have tried to cast votes and offer legislation that fully reflect and respond to the importance and lasting legacy of America's environmental needs. I thus take this vote very seriously. At the same time, I also have another tradition to defend and uphold. I have committed myself to playing a constructive role with respect to the Senate's duty to provide advice and consent on the President's nominees for Cabinet or other senior executive branch positions. I take that role seriously as well. As the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Mike Leavitt would be charged with unique and historic responsibilities, which will be as important as they are far reaching. In varying ways, all Americans will be affected by his decisions. As the Nation's principal environmental agency, the EPA has responsibility for the protection of air and water resources, for the clean up of toxic wastes, and for the regulation of the quality of our environment. That is why I am sensitive to the concerns of some that Governor Leavitt will not live up to this responsibility for environmental stewardship if his nomination is confirmed. I have been at odds with some of Governor Leavitt's environmental management decisions, and I am concerned that his background might cloud his judgement and objectivity on a number of important issues and place him at odds with members of the conservation community and with this Senator. While I am concerned with Mr. Leavitt's professed unfamiliarity with many of the laws that I regard as critical for the promotion of a balanced environmental policy, I am somewhat heartened by his comments that he will give this position ``the full measure of his heart.'' I am encouraged by this commitment to listen to the views of all stakeholders and all points of view and make, in his words, environmental protection a national ``ethic.'' I will take Mr. Leavitt at his word--that he will devote his time and energy to the proper enforcement of the EPA's policies, rather than circumventing or repealing laws which preserve our dwindling resources, that he will attempt to address the pollution that makes our air unfit to breathe and our water unsafe to drink, and that he will protect our land and water resources. I intend to hold him to his word. I also will act in accordance with what I feel is the proper constitutional role of the Senate when it comes to confirming Presidential nominees for positions advising the President. I believe that the Senate should allow a President to appoint people to advise him who share his philosophy and principles. My approach to judicial nominations, of course, is different--nominees for lifetime positions in the judicial branch warrant particularly close scrutiny. For these reasons, I will support Governor Leavitt's nomination today. However, in doing so, I fully recognize that I have an ongoing responsibility to oversee the institution with stewardship of our environmental quality to ensure that it lives up to its duties. The Senate does not, by confirming Mr. Leavitt, discharge its responsibility to protect our resources and ensure that our environmental laws are enforced. I feel a responsibility to listen to the voices of the many Wisconsinites and others who are deeply concerned about this administration's environmental record. I am hopeful that these voices will be heard by Mr. Leavitt and I will be vigilant in ensuring that Governor Leavitt takes his responsibilities with the utmost seriousness.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on August 31, 2002, two American schoolteachers and one Indonesian citizen who were working at an international school for the children of Freeport McMoRan's mine employees were killed, and eight more Americans were wounded, when they were ambushed on a mountain road in Indonesia. Indonesian garrisons reportedly controlled all access to the remote road where the attack occurred. Police reports indicated that the Indonesian military was very likely involved in the attack, but the investigation was then turned over to that same military, where it has stalled. The Indonesian military, to date, has proven unwilling to fully cooperate with the FBI. The survivors of the attack and the families of the murdered want their government to insist that Indonesia cooperate in uncovering the truth about the ambush and in bringing those responsible to justice. The Senate should support them. The House already has. Congressman Hefley of Colorado offered an amendment linking resolution of this issue to Indonesia's access to the International Military Education and Training program when the House considered the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. His amendment was accepted by unanimous consent. The Senate should send an equally unequivocal signal. Today I offered an amendment, with the support of Senators Campbell and Wyden, to do just that. I appreciate the support of the managers, Senators McConnell and Leahy, who have accepted this amendment into the larger bill. I also appreciate the efforts of Senator Allard, who shares my interest in this issue. My amendment is not out of step with current policy. I would like to call my colleagues' attention to an article from the October 23 edition of the Australian Financial Review. The article states that, during their recent talks in Bali, ``Mr. Bush told Mrs. Megawati military relations could not resume until Jakarta had completed a full investigation into the killing of two Americans near the Freeport mine in Timika in Indonesia's Papua province last year.'' Our President was right to make that point. There can be no ``business as usual'' when it comes to the murder of American citizens, and there can be no ``business as usual'' until the FBI has received full cooperation, and any perpetrators uncovered by the investigation are held accountable for their actions. This amendment simply makes it clear that the Senate wholeheartedly endorses that policy. It states that the full normalization of the military relationship between the United States and Indonesia cannot begin until the FBI has received full cooperation, not partial cooperation, in its investigation, and individuals found to be responsible are brought to justice. I am pleased that the Senate has taken action to make certain that our resolve is firm and our signal perfectly clear. Amendment No. 2020

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on this amendment to cancel the scheduled pay raise for Members, I want to note it is possible at some point the Senator may raise a point of order under rule XVI that this amendment constitutes legislating on appropriations. That is a nondebatable question so I would like to take this opportunity to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Is there a defense of germaneness available for this amendment?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. There it is. This amendment is germane to the underlying measure. In fact, it is clearly germane. As some may know, the pay raise provisions for general scheduled Federal employees directly impact the automatic pay adjustment for Members. Without the provisions included in the underlying bill, Members' pay would be less than it would be otherwise. I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. There is no legitimate point of order that might be raised. This is the pay raise vote for the year. The amendment is germane to the underlying bill, and I wanted to make that crystal clear in the event some might try to portray this vote on this issue as a purely procedural vote. My amendment is very straightforward. It would simply eliminate the roughly $3,400 pay raise for Members of Congress that is scheduled to go into effect next January. Put simply, this is the wrong time for Congress to give itself a pay hike. Our economy is still recovering from the recent slowdown. The financial markets have been rocked, wiping out a large portion of the life savings and retirement accounts of many families. Thousands of workers were laid off and have not returned to work, and families face increasing financial pressures. After finally balancing our budget, we are now facing record annual deficits. CBO reports our deficit for the fiscal year that just ended on September 30 was an all-time record $374 billion. If we do not count the Social Security surpluses, and I do not think we should count them, the deficit is nearly $530 billion. For the current fiscal year, CBO projects a unified budget deficit of $480 billion. Without counting Social Security, the deficit is projected to be $636 billion. Those figures do not include, of course, the $87 billion in additional funding the President has requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the next 5 years, CBO projects the budget deficits to total $1.4 trillion. Without using Social Security surpluses, the deficits are projected to total $2.4 trillion. The budget spends all of the Government's general revenues and goes well beyond that, running through all of the Social Security trust fund balances. That is something we should do only to meet the most critical national priorities. I submit a $3,400 pay raise for Members is not a critical national priority. No one can argue this pay raise is justified because Members have not had a pay raise in a while. This is the fifth pay raise in as many years. On January 1, 2000, Members received a $4,600 pay raise. On January 1, 2001, Members received a $3,800 pay raise. On January 1, 2002, Members received a $4,900 pay raise. On January 1, 2003, Members received a $5,000 pay raise, and unless we stop it, on January 1, 2004, Members will receive a $3,400 pay raise. That will mean that as of next January, Members will have received five consecutive pay hikes totaling over $21,000. Members will be receiving an annual salary that is $21,000 higher than they did in 1999 because of automatic pay raises. Now, $21,000 is more than the average annual Social Security benefit for a retired worker and spouse. It is more than the average annual Social Security benefit for a disabled worker, spouse, and child. It is more than someone working minimum wage could make in a year and a half. While Congress is receiving all of these pay raises, the rest of the country has not been so fortunate. The most recent employment report we have from the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the number of unemployed is nearly 9 million people and the unemployment rate is 6.1 percent. The number of long-term unemployed is over 2 million, the highest levels in over a decade. I think that bears repeating. The number of long-term unemployed is 2 million people. So I ask, How can Congress give itself a $3,400 pay raise while nearly 9 million people are unemployed and 2 million have been out of work for more than half of a year? It was recently announced that Social Security recipients will be receiving only the most modest cost-of-living adjustment. The average retiree will be receiving a COLA of about $19 per month or $228 per year. I should add, half of the Social Security COLA will be eaten up by a hike in Medicare premiums. It will not be lost on the millions of retirees that while they are getting a COLA of $228 in 2004, Members of Congress will be giving themselves a pay hike of $3,400. This automatic stealth pay raise system is just wrong. As I have noted before in discussing this matter, it is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. That this power is so unusual is a good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly and exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, amendment, and a vote in the Record. That is why this process of pay raises without accountability must end. I think it is wrong. I believe it may be unconstitutional. The 27th amendment of the Constitution states: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. I recognize some of my colleagues may want a pay raise, and I certainly understand that feeling. I do not suppose there is anyone who is working today who would not want a pay raise. Two years ago, a colleague said to me that Members deserved a pay increase because of all that we had been through. I strongly disagree with that assessment, but I understood the sentiment. I mention all of this because I firmly believe even those who favor a pay hike should support an open and public vote on the increase. Certainly having a vote on the record for a pay hike is better than the stealth pay raise that takes place with no action. Standing up and making a case before the voters is far better than letting the pay raise take effect. I, for one, would be interested to hear someone explain just why Congress should get a $3,400 pay raise in the face of record budget deficits, an economic downturn, and record unemployment. Who knows. Maybe somebody can actually make the case, but we really should scrap the current stealth pay raise system, and I have introduced legislation to stop this process. The amendment I offer today does not go that far. All it does is stop the pay raise that is scheduled to go into effect in January, the fifth pay raise in 5 years. Let's stop this backdoor pay raise and then let's enact legislation to end this practice once and for all. I ask for the yeas and nays.