Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote for passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill that has been debated over the past several weeks. I do so, however, with great reservations about many of the provisions in the bill. I am voting for this measure for two principal reasons. First, I believe that we owe our seniors a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I believe such a benefit is long overdue for our Nation's seniors. For years we have promised them we would give them the crucial help they need with their skyrocketing prescription drug costs. And I believe that it is finally time to deliver on that promise. It has taken Congress too many years to act on this pressing need. We have been debating for years about the best way to provide this benefit, and I am afraid that if we do not take the opportunity in front of us today, it will take us even longer to provide seniors the help they deserve. Our seniors cannot wait any longer. The costs of prescription drugs are soaring, and the financial toll they take on our seniors means that too often seniors must choose between eating and taking the medication that will help them live productive, healthy lives. Our seniors should not have to make that choice. They contributed to the Medicare system over their lifetimes. That system, which is supposed to provide health care to all seniors, needs to be able to help them obtain the prescription drugs they need to preserve their health. The second reason I am voting for this benefit is that it takes a big step in addressing what I see as one of the biggest flaws of the current Medicare system--the geographic inequities within the Medicare reimbursement system. We need to end Medicare's continued discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors. As I have previously discussed on this floor, Wisconsin seniors already receive the short end of the stick when it comes to Medicare. Wisconsinites pay the same payroll taxes to Medicare as all American workers do, but receive fewer benefits in return. Instead, Wisconsinites' Medicare dollars are used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries receive on average $4,318 in Medicare benefits per year, the eighth lowest in the country. By contrast, beneficiaries in the State with the greatest per capita reimbursement receive $7,209. This distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin. I thank the leadership of the Finance Committee for including provisions to begin to address this inequity in this prescription drug bill. But I know that we still have more to do to reverse the Medicare discrimination against States like Wisconsin. I am pleased that key provisions have been accepted that greatly improve this bill. The Senate adopted the Gregg-Schumer-McCain-Kennedy amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor and support, which will bring more competition to the prescription drug market by preventing pharmaceutical companies from blocking generic drugs from entering the market. This amendment is one of the only provisions that will help to bring cost savings to seniors. By adopting Senator Dorgan's amendment relating to the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada, the Senate will help seniors obtain affordable prescription drugs. This legislation helps both consumers who buy prescription drugs and businesses which sell them. I supported this provision, both in its earlier legislative form and in this amendment, because it is the right thing to do. Our seniors and other Americans in need of affordable prescription drugs deserve no less. I also supported Senator Enzi's amendment, which passed overwhelmingly, that will make sure that community pharmacies, like the ones in my home State of Wisconsin, can still operate within this new prescription drug program. Smaller pharmacies will be protected from being shut out by larger pharmacies through this amendment, and that means helping seniors to access the prescription drugs they need in their own communities. I also worked with Senator Allard on an amendment to provide regulatory relief for home health care providers that the Senate adopted. Our amendment enables home health care providers to spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork. This is particularly important at a time when some home health care providers are leaving the home health industry because of burdensome paperwork requirements. And I am pleased that an amendment I offered to bring some clarity to the Medicare Program for our seniors was adopted. The Medicare Program is already full of bureaucratic red tape, often creating barriers for seniors looking for basic information about their health care options. This prescription drug benefit is the biggest expansion of the Medicare Program since its inception in 1965. We are adding an entire new part to the program, and we need to help guide our seniors through it. My amendment is simple. It establishes a Medicare Beneficiary Advocate Office within the Department of Health and Human Services, with the sole function of providing clear information to all Medicare beneficiaries. The office will serve as a one-stop information source on all of Medicare for our seniors. This new office will provide a toll-free phone number, a regularly updated website and regional publications that will give our seniors all of the information they need to make informed health care decisions. That is the good news. But as I said earlier, I have many reservations about this bill. This is not the bill I would have proposed. This bill does not go far enough to deliver on our promise to give seniors a meaningful prescription drug benefit. It fails to provide any assistance after a senior's prescription drug costs total $3,450, until they spend another $1,850 on prescription drugs, or $5,300 total. And it adds insult to injury by making beneficiaries continue to pay a premium even during the time they receive no benefit. I am also troubled that this bill does not provide clear, uniform benefits and premiums for all seniors. Many aspects of the benefits provided in the bill remain uncertain, and will continue to remain uncertain after the plan goes into effect. Under this bill, the premiums are not defined. The premiums for the Medicare prescription drug plan will be dictated by the private insurers who will offer the plans. The only thing we know for sure is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the national average for premiums will be $35. However, those premiums may vary dramatically. Just look at Medicare HMO premiums. Medicare HMO premiums in Connecticut are $99, but in Florida they are only $16. Who will offer the plans is also uncertain. There is no guarantee that plans will be offered in regions where there may not be enough profit. History again shows us that private companies do not always find rural and smaller urban areas profitable enough to move in. All too often, private companies that do move into less desirable Medicare markets end up deciding to leave the region, leaving Medicare beneficiaries scrambling to figure out where they will turn for coverage. Furthermore, my understanding is that this plan only offers a guaranteed Medicare-administered plan, or ``fallback plan,'' if there are less than two private plans in a region. This means that, if only one private plan offers a prescription drug benefit in the region that includes Almena, WI, a Medicare beneficiary living in Almena may instead choose the Medicare-administered fallback plan. While on the fallback plan, my Almena constituent would become familiar with the medications that are included in their formulary and the cost of their premiums. If a second private plan subsequently decides to move into that region, my understanding is that my constituent will be dropped from the Medicare fallback plan, and forced to join one of the private plans even if those plans have higher premiums, or do not include their prescriptions in their formularies. Further, my Almena constituent can be forced to leave the plan that he or she has come to know, if that plan leaves the region. This leads to instability and uncertainty for seniors. Benefits are also uncertain under this proposal. Again, benefit packages will be determined by the private insurers who offer the plans. And we can assume, from experience with the Medicare+Choice Program, that the benefits will vary widely. I am concerned about what this may mean for States like my home State of Wisconsin, States that have had a difficult time attracting and keeping private Medicare plans. Some Medicare prescription drug plans may be able to offer more brand name drugs at a lower cost to beneficiaries, while others in less profitable areas may limit the amount of brand name drugs they can offer at affordable rates. I fear that as with Medicare HMOs, Wisconsin seniors may be faced with little choice with Medicare prescription drug plans. And I am concerned that the uncertainty in this bill regarding monthly premiums, the possible differences in benefits packages and the stability of private plans that will deliver these benefits may lead to more inequity for Wisconsin seniors. I was disappointed that Senator Durbin's amendment, the MediSAVE Act, was not adopted in the Senate. Senator Durbin's amendment, which I strongly supported, would have fixed most of the errors that exist in this bill. The MediSAVE Act would have made this benefit one that would truly help all seniors with all of their prescription drug benefit. Senator Durbin's proposal offered a meaningful, enhanced prescription drug benefit that would have covered all seniors regardless of whether their prescription drug costs are high, low, or somewhere in between. The MediSAVE Act not only put forth cost controls so that taxpayers as well as seniors could save money, but it also would have given seniors certainty. Seniors would have known exactly what their premiums and benefits were and would have the certainty of knowing that a Medicare-administered prescription drug benefit would be available to them, no matter what private plans were offered to them. Most importantly, the MediSAVE Act provided the certainty that a senior would have assistance with their prescription drug costs year-round and would never be caught in the so-called ``donut hole'' of coverage that this bill provides. I am voting for this bill because something, some help for our seniors with their pressing prescription drug costs, is better than nothing. I will support this legislation with the intention of working with my colleagues over the next 2 years to improve this bill and finally deliver on our promise to give seniors a meaningful prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, as a cosponsor of the Chronic Wasting Disease Financial Assistance Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to legislation, S. 1036, the Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003, that we introduced earlier this year. The House Resources Committee held a hearing on June 19, 2003 on the issue of chronic wasting disease, or CWD. At that hearing, state agency representatives argued strongly that Congress should create a new grant program to provide assistance to states for the management of CWD. They also expressed an interest in having those funds distributed using an existing distribution mechanism. This legislation responds directly to these comments. In total, the bill directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide $20.5 million in Federal grants to State and tribal governments for CWD management in wild deer and elk, $10.5 million more in resources than were included in the bill Senator Allard and I introduced earlier this year. The bill creates three new Federal CWD grant programs. The first program is a new nationwide CWD capacity grant, authorized at a total of $7.5 million. This program would provide grants to States so that they can fund CWD management programs. Preference would be given to States with comprehensive and integrated chronic wasting disease management programs involving all relevant state agencies. The second grant program would provide additional $10 million in grant assistance to states like Colorado and Wisconsin that already have detected chronic wasting disease in their wild deer and elk. These States need additional help. Wisconsin has undertaken significant measures to combat CWD at significant expense, and this program acknowledges that outbreaks are expensive to manage and require Federal financial assistance. Finally, the bill would create a third $3 million grant program to provide CWD management grants directly to tribal governments. To be eligible for these programs, States and tribes are given the ability under the bill to use an existing mechanism, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Assistance Act procedures to expedite the receipt of grant funds. This bill is needed because State wildlife departments and tribal governments do not have the financial resources to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding is urgently needed. Federal funding will help States and tribes to protect and safeguard our valued wild deer and elk from this disease. I look forward to working with the Senate to secure passage of this measure. This is a good bill, and it deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Allard, as a cosponsor of the Chronic Wasting Disease Financial Assistance Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to legislation, S. 1036, the Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003, that we introduced earlier this year. The House Resources Committee held a hearing on June 19, 2003 on the issue of chronic wasting disease, or CWD. At that hearing, state agency representatives argued strongly that Congress should create a new grant program to provide assistance to states for the management of CWD. They also expressed an interest in having those funds distributed using an existing distribution mechanism. This legislation responds directly to these comments. In total, the bill directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide $20.5 million in Federal grants to State and tribal governments for CWD management in wild deer and elk, $10.5 million more in resources than were included in the bill Senator Allard and I introduced earlier this year. The bill creates three new Federal CWD grant programs. The first program is a new nationwide CWD capacity grant, authorized at a total of $7.5 million. This program would provide grants to States so that they can fund CWD management programs. Preference would be given to States with comprehensive and integrated chronic wasting disease management programs involving all relevant state agencies. The second grant program would provide additional $10 million in grant assistance to states like Colorado and Wisconsin that already have detected chronic wasting disease in their wild deer and elk. These States need additional help. Wisconsin has undertaken significant measures to combat CWD at significant expense, and this program acknowledges that outbreaks are expensive to manage and require Federal financial assistance. Finally, the bill would create a third $3 million grant program to provide CWD management grants directly to tribal governments. To be eligible for these programs, States and tribes are given the ability under the bill to use an existing mechanism, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Assistance Act procedures to expedite the receipt of grant funds. This bill is needed because State wildlife departments and tribal governments do not have the financial resources to adequately confront the problem. Their resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease from spreading. Federal help in the form of management funding is urgently needed. Federal funding will help States and tribes to protect and safeguard our valued wild deer and elk from this disease. I look forward to working with the Senate to secure passage of this measure. This is a good bill, and it deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has been nearly 50 years since the Supreme Court ruled segregation in schools unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Then-Chief Justice Earl Warren said: ``We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' This week, the tenet of equality that lies at the foundation of the Brown decision was reaffirmed and strengthened. In fact, it is becoming more and more infused into our Nation's increasingly diverse identity. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that diversity is a compelling national interest and that race can be a factor in higher education admissions decisions. The Court upheld the admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School in Grutter v. Bollinger. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, on behalf of the 5-to-4 majority and citing Brown, wrote: ``This Court has long recognized that 'education . . . is the very foundation of good citizenship.'' Justice O'Connor and the Supreme Court found the use of race in the Michigan Law School admissions policy consistent with the aspirations of the 1954 Supreme Court in deciding Brown. O'Connor stated for the Court: In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions with which the law interacts . . . Access to legal education (and thus, the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogenous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America. The Court's decision keeps this country on a path toward the day when our children and our children's children will not be able to envision a pre-Brown v. Board America. In fact, Justice O'Connor cites the Brown opinion in writing the Grutter decision. Justice O'Connor's words reflect a powerful American value that is really a strength of our Nation--diversity. It is in the best interest of all Americans to seek diversity in all segments of our society, including educational institutions, the military, and the workplace. To fail to do so, in fact, would be to misrepresent our national identity. I am heartened, by the large number of amicus briefs filed in support of affirmative action. These briefs showed the Court the deep importance of diversity to so many people and institutions across the Nation. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to join Senator Kennedy and several of our colleagues in signing one such brief, urging the court to uphold the Bakke decision and support Michigan's admission policies. One of the greatest strengths of our Nation is its guarantee of equal educational opportunities for all students. Our Nation's colleges and universities are the envy of the world for their rigorous courses of study and high-caliber professors, but also for their enriching environment of students from a range of racial, ethnic, and social and economic backgrounds representing every part of America, if not the world. I am proud that the Court has affirmed the importance of campus diversity and deemed it a constitutionally permissible governmental interest. In the Grutter case, the Court decisively allowed race and ethnicity to be considered in combination with other factors in an admissions decision. I don't believe that the decision striking down the specific point system used in the undergraduate admissions policy will be a serious impediment to the implementation of race-sensitive admissions policies at colleges and universities. In the 50 years since the walls of segregation began to crumble, we have traveled many miles on the road toward guaranteeing civil rights to all Americans. But this week's decision affirming diversity as a compelling national interest--and thus declaring affirmative action constitutional and viable--confirms our Nation's progress in ways unmeasurable by miles or years. The Court's decision is more than a victory. It is a milestone. It is a testament to the strength of Brown and our Constitution's equal protection guarantees.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 8 months ago I took the floor in this Chamber to call attention to some disturbing trends with regard to democracy and civil liberties in Hong Kong. I said that Hong Kong's rulers, at the behest of Beijing, were set upon a path that risked destroying the spirit and vitality that make Hong Kong unique. I urged those who care about Hong Kong, and about freedom, to speak out and alert Hong Kong authorities to the error of their ways. Many did so. Today, I regret to report, Hong Kong is one step closer to becoming just another Chinese city. Hong Kong's Legislative Council is expected to vote into law next month antisubversion legislation that would significantly erode the barriers that insulate Hong Kong's residents from the antidemocratic legal concepts and practices of the People's Republic of China. As I said here last October, China's leaders pressured their hand- picked Chief Executive in Hong Kong, Tung Chee-Hwa, to introduce this legislation last year. Hong Kong authorities maintained that they had no choice but to comply, since Article 23 of the Basic Law that became Hong Kong's constitution after the territory reverted from British to Chinese control in 1997 required Hong Kong to adopt laws to protect national security. Many Hong Kong legal experts disagreed. But be that as it may, the same Basic Law says the territory will move toward electing its legislature and executive by universal suffrage. At present, only one-third of the legislators were chosen by direct popular vote, and only 800 of Hong Kong's 7 million residents were allowed to cast ballots in Tung Chee-Hwa's reelection as Chief Executive last year. The Government has yet to announce any plans to expand suffrage. The sequence of these steps is important. Pushing through legislation curtailing civil liberties to comply with Article 23 before establishing a democratic legislature per Article 68 violates the most fundamental tenet of popular rule--that governmental authority is derived from the consent of the governed. The Hong Kong authorities invited public comments on the legislation, both in its initial outline form and later detailed drafts. But despite serious objections from journalists, lawyers, chambers of commerce, human rights activists, religious groups, and other interested parties, the bill on which the Legislative Council is expected to vote next month reflects only minor revisions from the Government's original draft. Without a legislature accountable to the citizenry, the people were free to speak their views, but the Government was free to ignore them. As a result, most of the concerns I raised about the legislative proposal last October remain unaddressed: Definitions of offenses such as ``subversion,'' ``sedition'' and ``secession'' are extremely vague, permitting security officials to prosecute people arbitrarily, as they do on the Mainland. Merely ``handling'' publications the authorities consider to be ``seditious'' would be a criminal offense, as would ``intimidating'' the Government in Beijing or acting to ``disestablish'' the ``basic system'' of China--meaning the political monopoly of the Communist Party--or endangering China's ``stability.'' ``Inciting'' subversion, even if only through speech, would be criminalized. In China, workers have been given long prison sentences for ``inciting subversion'' for simply demanding to be paid. Others have received 10-year terms for criticizing the Government on the Internet. Hong Kong affiliates of organizations that Beijing decides threaten national security may be banned. This provision is likely to be used to ban Falun Gong, and conceivably it could be applied to the Roman Catholic Church if it does not renounce its ties to Rome. Hong Kong groups that monitor human rights and labor conditions in China have also been labeled ``hostile foreign elements'' by Mainland authorities and thus could be targeted. Police will be permitted to enter and search private residences and seize property without a warrant. Journalists and others could be prosecuted for the unauthorized disclosure of official secrets or information related to Hong Kong affairs that are the responsibility of the Central Government. Recall that for 5 months, Mainland authorities treated information about SARS as an official secret, and the world learned about the epidemic only after it spread to Hong Kong. Disclosing that information was clearly in the public's interest. But this bill does not allow a public interest defense, nor is there any counterbalancing right-to-know or freedom-of-information legislation. If this bill becomes law, how long will it take us to find out about China's next epidemic? These proposed revisions to Hong Kong's laws, demanded by Beijing, run counter to China's commitment in the 1984 Sino-British Declaration to preserve Hong Kong's civil liberties for at least 50 years following the handover. They would significantly undermine such internationally recognized basic human rights as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience, and potentially threaten freedom of religion and the right to due process as well. Hong Kong's democratic politicians, activists, attorneys, journalists, and other professionals are understandably alarmed about this legislation. To hear some of them tell it, passage of this bill will mean the end of Hong Kong as we know it. In reality, I suspect most Hong Kong residents would wake up on July 10 to find life in their city essentially unchanged. The effects of this legislation will appear only gradually and incrementally. The first to feel the impact will probably be groups on the margins of Hong Kong society, such as Falun Gong practitioners. Perhaps most Hong Kongers will say nothing, because they are not Falun Gong practitioners. But over time, they will come to find themselves living in a poorer place, and the world will be poorer as a result. If this legislation passes in its present form, it promises to make Hong Kong poorer in more ways than one. Last December, the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong wrote the Government to express its concern about the bill's potential impact on the free flow of information, which it said was essential for the operation of Hong Kong's markets and for maintaining its competitiveness as a business location. The letter came a few weeks after a senior analyst at Bank of China International resigned after China's Premier criticized one of his reports. The British Chamber of Commerce warned Hong Kong could become ``a much less favorable location for international business'' if investors could not obtain free and unfettered information. Some analysts have suggested that investment on the Chinese Mainland could suffer as well, since foreign firms operating in China often rely on their Hong Kong offices for uncensored information about the Mainland. Through the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, Congress made support for human rights and democratization in Hong Kong a fundamental principle of United States foreign policy. As a concrete expression of support for Hong Kong's continued autonomy, the act stipulated that Hong Kong would continue to receive the same treatment under most United States laws after the handover as it had before. However, it allowed the President to suspend that provision on a case by case basis, whenever he determined that Hong Kong was no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify being treated differently from the rest of China under a particular law. This is not a decision the President should take lightly. However, if the proposed legislation compromises the independence of Hong Kong's judicial system or the integrity of its financial markets, as some analysts fear, the President would have no choice but to review specific United States statutes to evaluate whether separate treatment for Hong Kong can still be justified. I hope we never get to that point. I hope that Hong Kong's freedom and its creativity can be preserved and that its people will be given more say in how they are governed, not less. For that reason, I urge those in the Hong Kong Government and Legislative Council who care about Hong Kong's future--and I am sure most of them do--to turn back from the course they are on before it is too late.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, Schumer, McCain, Kennedy and others in introducing the Gregg-Schumer- McCain-Kennedy Amendment to the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill. As we all know, the sky-rocketing cost of prescription drugs is a problem deeply affecting senior citizens across the country. During my listening sessions and travels around my State of Wisconsin, health care, and specifically the cost of prescription drugs, continue to be the number one issue on people's minds. The problem of access to affordable prescription drugs is particularly acute among Wisconsin senior citizens who live on fixed incomes. Nationally, prescription drugs are senior citizens' largest single out-of-pocket health care expenditure, and the amount they are spending is rapidly increasing: this year, the average senior spends $996 a year for their prescription drugs. This is expected to rise to $1,147 in 2004. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill on which this amendment is based, the Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act. This important legislation will improve access to prescription drugs, and make them more affordable for our Nation's seniors. By closing a series of loopholes that are hindering true competition in the prescription drug market, this legislation will bring lower-cost generic drugs to the market faster, passing on approximately $60 billion in savings to consumers over the next ten years. A Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit is absolutely necessary, and the debate we are having on this bill is an important one. But there are no real cost-control measures for the rapidly escalating costs of prescription drugs. This amendment is truly a cost-savings measure for not only our Nation's seniors, but also all Americans who need prescription drugs. This amendment offers a way to help halt the rising costs of prescription drugs, without costing the taxpayers a dime. Drug companies have every right to profit from their innovations. We need drug companies to continue the important research that brings life-saving drugs to the market. But once a prescription drug patent expires, we cannot allow the drug companies to keep renewing their patents for frivolous reasons, denying consumers affordable access to a generic alternative.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment and want to detail the reasons for my support. The amendment strikes subtitle B of title IV of the bill, the section on deployment of new nuclear plants. This section would provide new loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear plants. In addition to providing the nuclear industry loan guarantees, the Senate Energy Bill appears to also authorize the Federal Government to enter into power purchase agreements to buy power back from new reactors--potentially at rates above market prices. I think subtitle B goes too far and the amendment to strike is necessary for several reasons. First, the bill places no ceiling on these loans, making the Federal Government liable, according to the Congressional Research Service, for between $14-$16 billion in loan guarantees. Second, I feel strongly that if private investors are not willing to put their own money on the line to support new nuclear plants, then the Federal Government should not put taxpayers' money at risk either. Yet, under the provisions currently included in the Senate bill, taxpayers would be required to subsidize up to 50 percent of the cost of constructing and operating 8,400 megawatts of power. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the risk of default would be ``well above 50 percent.'' I feel that $14-$16 billion is a lot of money to gamble on an investment that has a 50/50 risk of failure. Finally, as I have expressed in the past, I am concerned that our current nuclear waste storage program is of insufficient size to handle our current nuclear waste problem. I do not think it is wise to build more plants, when we do not have enough storage for our current waste. Yucca Mountain is not authorized at a size that is big enough to take all of the current nuclear waste. Among the reasons that I opposed the Yucca Mountain resolution was its insufficient size. I was concerned that my home state of Wisconsin would go back on the list as a possible site for a large-scale nuclear repository. Constructing new nuclear plants does nothing to relieve those concerns, and instead makes it more likely that we will have a growing nuclear waste problem for which we will need a permanent storage solution, putting Wisconsin back at risk. I think this amendment makes fiscal and policy sense, and deserves the support of the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, today I draw my colleagues' attention to the situation in Zimbabwe, where courageous citizens continue to protest the political repression and economic collapse that have plunged their country into crisis. Since 2000, President Mugabe has made a series of decisions intended to tighten his grip on power regardless of the cost to the country, trampling on the independence of the judiciary, harassing the independent media, manipulating the political process, intimidating opposition supporters, destroying the economy, and exacerbating a food crisis. A very real and legitimate issue--the need for meaningful land reform--was for a time employed as a fig leaf for the regime. But it has long been clear that this government is not interested in justice, only in power. Last week's general strike has been the latest manifestation of public dissatisfaction. Reports from the region indicate that security forces are violently suppressing efforts to demonstrate in the streets, using rubber clubs, rifle butts, water cannons, tear gas, and live ammunition to disperse crowds, according to the Associated Press. Some 300 people have been arrested, including opposition parliamentarians. At this difficult time, it is important that the people of Zimbabwe know that the world is watching, and that like the Zimbabweans demanding change, the international community has not lost hope for the country. I was proud to work with the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, on the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, a bill which was passed into law in the last Congress. This legislation makes it clear that when the rule of law is restored in Zimbabwe, and when the civil and political rights of citizens are respected, the United States will come forward to help the country recover, rebuild. We will continue to fight the AIDS pandemic that is taking such a terrible toll on Zimbabwean society. I look forward to the day when we can follow through on that commitment, Mr. President, and help Zimbabwe to realize its tremendous potential as an engine of growth and model of participatory democracy in the region. Time after time, news reports confirm that Zimbabwe is full of patriots--citizens who refuse to allow their country to be hijacked by a self-serving cabal, independent journalists who risk torture when they seek to report the truth rather than the ruling party line, parents who want their children to grow up in a Zimbabwe free from repression and corruption. These people deserve our support and our admiration.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Ituri Province. Recently, international attention has been focused on the alarming ethic violence in the region, where thousands have been killed in the past year. Credible reports suggest that over 50,000 people have died in Ituri since 1999, and a half a million more have been displaced. For years, this horror was lost in the larger tragedy of Congo's conflict, in which over 4 million people are estimated to have lost their lives. Clashes between Hema and Lendu militia forces in Ituri escalated recently as external actors fuel the fire with increasingly sophisticated arms and support, essentially waging proxy wars at the expense of Congolese civilians. The reports from the region are truly appalling, featuring horrific murders, mutilation, cannibalism, rape, and the use of child soldiers. The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo, which has no mandate or capacity to enforce peace, has been reduced to struggling to to protect the civilians who have fled in desperation to U.N. sites in Bunia, but their capabilities are severely limited, and most civilians frantically searching for help and security are left with no help at all. Congo's suffering is more than a humanitarian crisis. It is a massively destabilizing force in Africa. The war has drawn in other states and provided lucrative opportunities for international criminals. We cannot forget that our security is at risk when these shadowy forces are making gains. The pattern of massive human rights abuses and constant destabilization has to stop. I recently offered an amendment to the foreign assistance authorization bill in the Foreign Relations Committee designed to bolster U.S. support for activities in central Africa aimed at pursuing justice and accountability, deterring abuses, and holding those responsible for such abuses accountable for their actions. That is one small step toward a constructive policy in the region over the long-term. But with regard to Ituri, the U.S. must take action urgently today. On May 30, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the Secretary-General to reinforce the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the northeastern town of Bunia. France has agreed to lead the multinational force, and while our relationship with France has certainly not been an easy one lately, their leadership on this issue is admirable. The United States should provide all appropriate assistance to this mission, and I am grateful to be joined by Senator Alexander, Senator Biden, and Senator Lugar in making that point clear in communications to the administration. We have spent a great deal on MONUC to date, but if we do not take action to defuse this explosive situation, if we stand by and let militia forces rip apart the province in a struggle for power and mineral wealth, then I am at a loss as to how to explain this investment. The U.S. must also work closely with other international actors to move forward on a process of disarmament and a meaningful political solution to the conflict, so that the respite that may be offered by this new force is not short-lived. Perhaps most importantly, the U.S. must take concrete steps to insist that the government in Kinshasa and the governments of Rwanda and Uganda stop use their influence with the parties to stop the violence. We cannot simply stand by, reading reports of grotesque violence and massive suffering, and claim that there is nothing we can do. There is actually a great deal of work to be done. We should start today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday the Special Court for Sierra Leone unsealed an indictment of President Charles Taylor of Liberia. Taylor is accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and serious violations of international humanitarian law. I commend the Court for taking its mandate seriously and for following the evidence where it led--directly to a sitting head of state. I have long been a strong supporter of accountability mechanisms in Sierra Leone--both the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation that will address the horrible crimes committed by the foot soldiers in the field--soldiers who were, all too often, children. I have worked to ensure that the United States provides appropriate financial support to these mechanisms, and I have raised the importance of our political support at the highest levels. West Africa must break the cycle of violence and impunity, and all of us in the international community have a role to play in that effort. The Special Court is charged with prosecuting those who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Sierra Leone since November 1996. For over a decade, Sierra Leone was one of the most insecure places on Earth. Civilians not only suffered from deprivation and displacement, they also had to contend with the forced recruitment of child soldiers, widespread and brutal sexual violence, and horrifying murders and mutilations. Those responsible for these crimes abandoned all human decency in their simple quest for power and wealth. The indictment announced yesterday had been sealed for months, but for years there has been no secret about one basic fact--Charles Taylor is a war criminal. I said so years ago, and it remains true today. He should be brought before the Court and held accountable for his actions. I also strongly support continued American efforts to isolate and pressure the Taylor regime. But at the same time, the situation of the Liberian people cannot be overlooked. Pressuring and condemning Taylor is not a complete policy toward this troubled and volatile country. The armed rebel groups currently fighting for dominance in Liberia have proven all to willing to prey on Liberian civilians in their own lust for power. We must ask ourselves, what will Liberia look like in 10 years, and what will that mean for the Liberian people, for the West African region, and for international criminal networks? What steps can be taken today to influence that outcome? And then we must muster the will and the means to act before the trend most recently exemplified by crisis in Cote d'Ivoire dominates the region.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the majority and minority leaders, Mr. Frist and Mr. Daschle, on renewable motor fuels. Others may support this amendment for different reasons, but I support the amendment because of its potential to increase motor fuels supply, especially in the Federal reformulated fuels, or RFG, program. This amendment includes provisions that I, and my Wisconsin House colleagues, Congressman Paul Ryan and Mark Green, have long advocated to address supply shortages that the Midwest has experienced in recent years. This amendment makes significant changes to the Clean Air Act motor fuels programs that will increase the supply of cleaner fuels nationwide. It bans methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, which is no longer used in my home State of Wisconsin. MTBE, as others will likely discuss in detail, is a reformulated gasoline additive that has contaminated drinking water supplies nationwide. The amendment also contains a mandate to increase the supply of ethanol to 5 billion barrels by 2012 both to replace MTBE as an oxygenate in reformulated gasoline and to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. It also would allow Governors the ability to increase reformulated gasoline supply by opting their entire State into the reformulated fuels program, and increasing the market demand for RFG in their State. The amendment also has a provision to increase the amount of reformulated gasoline by reducing the number of boutique fuel blends. The bill reduces the number of Federal reformulated fuel blends by creating a single set of standards. This would broaden the supply from which Wisconsin could draw in times of tight supply. If enacted, this amendment would improve fungibility of RFG nationwide, by standardizing volatile organic compound, VOC, reduction requirements. In practice, when combined with the renewable fuels mandate, this would enable States like Wisconsin that use Federal RFG to draw on supplies of Federal RFG from other areas, such as St. Louis and Detroit, if necessary. The ability to rely on other sources of RFG is especially important when sudden supply shortages arise due to unexpected events such as refinery fires or breakdowns which the Midwest has also experienced in recent years. This amendment is important because, at present, southeastern Wisconsin cannot draw on RFG from other areas because the Chicago/ Wisconsin RFG formula is not used elsewhere in the country. This amendment would help address this boutique fuel problem by bringing other areas that use Federal RFG in line and standardizing VOC reduction requirements and requirements for the production of renewable fuels such as ethanol--the Chicago/Wisconsin area is the only part of the country that uses solely ethanol in its blend of RFG. As the use of ethanol blended RFG becomes more widespread, supply problems will become easier to address. This benefits Wisconsin drivers because easing supply shortages will help put an end to severe price spikes, and drivers nationwide by continuing to supply them with RFG that meets Federal Clean Air Act standards in light of State bans on MTBE. So far, Mr. President, in light of military conflict in the Middle East, we have been lucky that we have avoided significant increases in gas prices so far this year. But, for folks in Wisconsin, the thought of another approaching summer unfortunately dredges up memories of the high gas prices that have plagued our families in recent years. The Senate must take preventative action today to make sure gas prices stay under control, and our this amendment will help do that. By scrapping the multiple Federal fuel blend requirements and replacing them with a more simplified, streamlined system, this measure will work to make gas supplies more stable and keep prices at the pump within reason. This is a good amendment, and it deserves the support of the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. Three years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' Under the direction of Secretary Ray Boland, the program encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the United States military. As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored six events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries. The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine. The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the VA. These are Federal benefits that we owe to our veterans and it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse to halt or reduce these efforts. The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 11,000 Wisconsin veterans are unaware of benefits that may be owed to them, it is troubling to think how many veterans around our country are also unaware of them. We can and should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe. In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach.'' My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. Currently funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding with other crucial VA programs. I have long supported efforts adequately fund VA programs. We can and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim processed. Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding. Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative agreements with State Departments of Veterans Affairs regarding outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are awarded to State departments under this program could be used to enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits process. State departments that receive grants under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities. I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives of our Nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the Wisconsin Department of Disabled American Veterans; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans Association; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. Three years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' Under the direction of Secretary Ray Boland, the program encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the United States military. As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored six events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries. The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine. The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the VA. These are Federal benefits that we owe to our veterans and it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse to halt or reduce these efforts. The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 11,000 Wisconsin veterans are unaware of benefits that may be owed to them, it is troubling to think how many veterans around our country are also unaware of them. We can and should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the globe. In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach.'' My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration. Currently funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding with other crucial VA programs. I have long supported efforts adequately fund VA programs. We can and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim processed. Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding. Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative agreements with State Departments of Veterans Affairs regarding outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are awarded to State departments under this program could be used to enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits process. State departments that receive grants under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities. I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives of our Nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the Wisconsin Department of Disabled American Veterans; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Wisconsin Paralyzed Veterans Association; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of America. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for the purpose of a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It sounds like a good plan. I hope that is done while I offer my amendment.

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, in offering this straightforward amendment. Our amendment would simply extend the pay- as-you-go law that has been in force in one way or another since 1990. On October 16 of last year, Senators Conrad, Domenici, Gregg, and I joined to offer an amendment to extend the budget process. The Senate agreed to our amendment, but with a modification that limited the extension to April 15. During debate on the budget resolution, a number of us offered an amendment to extend the critical budget process rules, known as pay-go, and I was pleased that the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Nickles, accepted our amendment. I regret that this absolutely critical budget rule was dropped in the final version of the budget resolution. In its place, the conference committee approved a far weaker set of rules. In fact, instead of acting to restrain the fiscal appetites of Congress, the rules established in the budget resolution actually whet those appetites. They carve out an enormous exception in the pay-go rules, exempting over one-and-a-half trillion dollars in tax cuts and spending increases from the sensible restraints we had long imposed on ourselves. The result is that we are currently legislating in an environment that is almost completely unconstrained by any budget discipline at all. Were our budget position stronger than it is, the lack of budget restraint would be troubling enough. But given the extremely serious fiscal challenges we face, the inadequate budget rules adopted in the budget resolution are simply and grossly irresponsible. The last two years have seen a dramatic deterioration in the government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs-- balancing the nation's fiscal books. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. With the adoption of the budget resolution, we are now facing unified budget deficits of $1.7 trillion through 2013. That is a dramatic swing of nearly $7 trillion, just in the space of a little more than two years. And without counting Social Security, we are expected to run deficits of $4.5 trillion through 2013 under the policies outlined in the budget resolution. And many have noted that the assumptions on which those projections are based are overly optimistic, that in particular they assume spending levels that Congress is unlikely to observe. This kind of budgeting is absolutely reckless. There is no other word for it. And the lack of adequate rules compound the damage. We must stop running these debilitating deficits. We must stop running deficits because they cause the government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. We must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits. When the government in this generation chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle our kids with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. And that is not right. That is why I am offering this amendment to reinstate the budget statute under which we operated for many years. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. This amendment would simply return us to the pay-go budget discipline that was in effect until September of last year. It would reinstate the across-the-board sequester law that imposed some useful budget discipline during the 1990s. That is what this amendment would do. It is the least that we should do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound budgeting. We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other government programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We must continue the discipline of the budget process.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if Senator Cantwell wishes to speak, I would want to reserve an opportunity for that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, is it necessary for me to move to waive the point of order at this point?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield back my time, Mr. President. I assume this would be the appropriate time for me to move to waive the point of order?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, those of us who came here in the early 1990s found an incredible fiscal mess in this country. And we believed--so many of us worked on both sides of the aisle; and it was bipartisan--that without these kinds of budget rules, we never would have been able to get the deficit eliminated and actually have a surplus by the early part of this decade. That is why it is so important that we restore this statutory language and move in the direction of fiscal discipline. I do appreciate the words and the actions of the chairman of the Budget Committee. He has shown a genuine interest in trying to get these rules in place. I appreciate his commitment to work with us on a bipartisan basis to do it. I can tell you that this is not the first effort in this regard. I worked all last year with Senators from both sides of the aisle to try to figure this out. Senator Gregg, Senator Phil Gramm, and others tried every approach we could to make sure these rules would be in place. Unfortunately, it did not work. So there is no lack of willingness on this side of the aisle to work together to restore these budget rules. I think a good chance to do that is right now, on this amendment today, on a bipartisan basis to get some fiscal discipline to return. I thank the Senator from Delaware. He has been absolutely determined since he came to the Senate to help us restore these kinds of rules and have some kind of fiscal discipline. Finally, as I yield time to the Senator from North Dakota, who in my view has been the leading advocate for fiscal discipline in this body over many years, I am grateful to his leadership and commitment to have these rules in place. Even though it is possible that we won't prevail on this amendment today, I do believe there is a bipartisan interest in trying to resolve this problem. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.