Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, later this year, the Senate will consider the first reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Opportunity and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act. This law ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and created our current federal welfare program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, program. I supported the legislation that created TANF because I believed that the welfare system was failing recipients and their families and that we needed to do better. Now, seven years later, the welfare rolls are again on the rise and it is clear that improvements need to be made to the TANF program in order to achieve the goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and moving recipients into well-paying, sustainable jobs. As we all know, each State's welfare program is different, and the implementation of these programs often varies from provider to provider and from county to county. While we encouraged state-level innovation with the 1996 law and should continue to encourage it with our reauthorization legislation, we should also ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients. I am deeply concerned that a client who applies for or receives benefits in one part of Wisconsin may not be getting the same treatment as another applicant or client in a different part of my State. The bill that I introduce today, the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act, would improve Federal fair treatment and due process protections for applicants to and clients of State TANF programs by addressing gaps in current law in three areas: access to translation services and English as a Second Language education programs, sanction notification and due process protections, and data collection and analysis. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. In order for low-income parents whose primary language is not English to understand their rights with respect to availability of benefits, to comply with Federal and State TANF program rules, and to move from welfare to work, we should ensure that translation services and English as a Second Language classes are available. My bill would require states to provide interpretation and translation services to low-income parents who do not speak English, and provides that the standards currently used in the food stamp program would be used to determine when the requirement to provide such services would be triggered for TANF-funded programs. States would also be required to advise adults who lack English proficiency of available programs in the community to help them learn English, and to allow individuals who elect to enroll in such programs to participate in them. Individuals who participate in such activities on a satisfactory basis would be considered to be engaged in work activities and these activities would be counted towards the work participation rates. If we are not only to reduce the welfare rolls but to reduce poverty and to ensure that low-income parents find sustainable jobs, we must ensure that these parents have access to education and training, including ESL classes, and that this training counts toward the work requirement. I support efforts to expand the number of activities that TANF clients are permitted to count as work, and my bill would add ESL classes to that list. In addition, I am concerned about reports of unfair sanctioning and case closures across the country. We should make every effort to minimize discrimination in the application of sanctions and the termination of benefits. My bill would require that, prior to imposing a sanction, States inform individuals of the reasons for the sanction and what individuals may do to come into compliance with program rules to avoid the sanction. It also would stipulate that sanctions may not continue after individuals have come into compliance with program rules, and that individuals be informed of all other services and benefits for which they may be eligible during the period of the sanction, and of their rights under applicable State and Federal laws. Finally, this bill would require States to perform enhanced data collection and analysis so that we can get a better picture of the people who apply for and receive TANF benefits and those who leave the welfare rolls. I share the concern that has been expressed by a number of my constituents regarding the lack of comprehensive, uniform data about State welfare programs, including information on those who apply for benefits and those who have left the welfare rolls. My bill would require States to collect and manage data in a uniform way; to disaggregate the data based on a larger number of subgroups, including race, ethnicity/national origin, gender, primary language, and educational level of recipient; to include information on work participation and about applicants who are diverted to other programs; and to track clients whose cases are closed. In addition, the federal Department of Health and Human Services would be required to include a comprehensive analysis broken down by these same data groups in its annual report on the TANF program. The Department would also be required to perform a longitudinal study of program outcomes that includes data on applicants for assistance, families that receive assistance, and families that leave assistance during the period of the study. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be required to protect the privacy of individuals and families applying for or receiving assistance under state TANF programs when data on such individuals and families is publicly disclosed by the Secretary. These enhanced requirements are not meant to impose an additional burden on the states. Rather, they are intended to measure the success of the program in a more comprehensive and transparent manner. This legislation is supported by a broad array of more than 40 organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the American Association of University Women, the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Community Change, Hmong National Development, Inc., the National Association of Social Workers, the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, the National Council of Churches, the National Council of La Raza, the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Urban League, Nine to Five, and the Welfare Law Center. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, later this year, the Senate will consider the first reauthorization of the 1996 Personal Opportunity and Work Responsibility Reconciliation Act. This law ended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and created our current federal welfare program, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, program. I supported the legislation that created TANF because I believed that the welfare system was failing recipients and their families and that we needed to do better. Now, seven years later, the welfare rolls are again on the rise and it is clear that improvements need to be made to the TANF program in order to achieve the goal of breaking the cycle of poverty and moving recipients into well-paying, sustainable jobs. As we all know, each State's welfare program is different, and the implementation of these programs often varies from provider to provider and from county to county. While we encouraged state-level innovation with the 1996 law and should continue to encourage it with our reauthorization legislation, we should also ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients. I am deeply concerned that a client who applies for or receives benefits in one part of Wisconsin may not be getting the same treatment as another applicant or client in a different part of my State. The bill that I introduce today, the Fair Treatment and Due Process Protection Act, would improve Federal fair treatment and due process protections for applicants to and clients of State TANF programs by addressing gaps in current law in three areas: access to translation services and English as a Second Language education programs, sanction notification and due process protections, and data collection and analysis. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. In order for low-income parents whose primary language is not English to understand their rights with respect to availability of benefits, to comply with Federal and State TANF program rules, and to move from welfare to work, we should ensure that translation services and English as a Second Language classes are available. My bill would require states to provide interpretation and translation services to low-income parents who do not speak English, and provides that the standards currently used in the food stamp program would be used to determine when the requirement to provide such services would be triggered for TANF-funded programs. States would also be required to advise adults who lack English proficiency of available programs in the community to help them learn English, and to allow individuals who elect to enroll in such programs to participate in them. Individuals who participate in such activities on a satisfactory basis would be considered to be engaged in work activities and these activities would be counted towards the work participation rates. If we are not only to reduce the welfare rolls but to reduce poverty and to ensure that low-income parents find sustainable jobs, we must ensure that these parents have access to education and training, including ESL classes, and that this training counts toward the work requirement. I support efforts to expand the number of activities that TANF clients are permitted to count as work, and my bill would add ESL classes to that list. In addition, I am concerned about reports of unfair sanctioning and case closures across the country. We should make every effort to minimize discrimination in the application of sanctions and the termination of benefits. My bill would require that, prior to imposing a sanction, States inform individuals of the reasons for the sanction and what individuals may do to come into compliance with program rules to avoid the sanction. It also would stipulate that sanctions may not continue after individuals have come into compliance with program rules, and that individuals be informed of all other services and benefits for which they may be eligible during the period of the sanction, and of their rights under applicable State and Federal laws. Finally, this bill would require States to perform enhanced data collection and analysis so that we can get a better picture of the people who apply for and receive TANF benefits and those who leave the welfare rolls. I share the concern that has been expressed by a number of my constituents regarding the lack of comprehensive, uniform data about State welfare programs, including information on those who apply for benefits and those who have left the welfare rolls. My bill would require States to collect and manage data in a uniform way; to disaggregate the data based on a larger number of subgroups, including race, ethnicity/national origin, gender, primary language, and educational level of recipient; to include information on work participation and about applicants who are diverted to other programs; and to track clients whose cases are closed. In addition, the federal Department of Health and Human Services would be required to include a comprehensive analysis broken down by these same data groups in its annual report on the TANF program. The Department would also be required to perform a longitudinal study of program outcomes that includes data on applicants for assistance, families that receive assistance, and families that leave assistance during the period of the study. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would be required to protect the privacy of individuals and families applying for or receiving assistance under state TANF programs when data on such individuals and families is publicly disclosed by the Secretary. These enhanced requirements are not meant to impose an additional burden on the states. Rather, they are intended to measure the success of the program in a more comprehensive and transparent manner. This legislation is supported by a broad array of more than 40 organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the American Association of University Women, the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Community Change, Hmong National Development, Inc., the National Association of Social Workers, the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, the National Council of Churches, the National Council of La Raza, the National Organization for Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Urban League, Nine to Five, and the Welfare Law Center. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the nomination of Timothy Tymkovich to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the Judiciary Committee, and I will do so again today. I would like to take a few minutes to explain my decision. I cannot support the nomination of Mr. Tymkovich because I am not convinced that he will give all those who appear before him a fair and impartial hearing. I am concerned that he lacks a commitment to apply and uphold our Constitution's equal protection guarantees, especially in protecting gay Americans from discrimination. In 1996, in a case called Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Colorado ballot initiative that sought to overturn city ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. As solicitor general of Colorado, Mr. Tymkovich defended the ballot initiative on behalf of the State. Obviously, I know it was his job to do that. But I am concerned that it is his personal belief--his personal belief--that gay Americans do not have a right to equal protection and equal justice under the laws, and he did not convince me he would put aside those personal beliefs when he becomes a judge. Mr. Tymkovich wrote a law review article that was published in 1997 by the University of Colorado about the Romer decision. In this article, which, I might add, he wrote and published after he left his job as Colorado's solicitor general, he, in my view, went beyond representing his client and actually presented his personal views. He forcefully promoted the view that laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation in activities like employment, housing, and education in places like Denver, Aspen, and Boulder somehow conferred ``special rights or protections'' on gays and lesbians. Let me quote a bit from his article. He wrote: A number of governmental entities in Colorado had granted special rights or protections to homosexuals and bisexuals: the cities of Denver, Boulder, and Aspen enacted ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in jobs, housing, and public accommodations; the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had moved to extend the state's civil rights act to ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation; the governor of Colorado issued an order prohibiting job discrimination for state employees based on sexual orientation and began to fashion ``sensitivity'' training for the state's executive branch; and public educational institutions had begun adopting policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mr. Tymkovich's view is that employers and landlords have the ``liberty,'' or right, to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation. He wrote: Eliminating the liberty of landlords and employers to take account of homosexuality send the unmistakable message that homosexual behavior, like race, is a characteristic which only an irrational bigot would consider. By restoring government neutrality of this difficult and divisive moral issue, Amendment 2 promotes freedom and diversity by allowing different groups in the community to hold, and act on, different views on this question. I sought to question Mr. Tymkovich about this. And when I attempted to probe Mr. Tymkovich at his confirmation hearing about his view that civil rights laws like the city ordinances at issue in Romer somehow confer ``special rights'' on gay Americans, he was suddenly and, to me, almost inexplicably evasive. I was frustrated with Mr. Tymkovich's reluctance to answer questions that would reveal his thought process. I was interested in his views on an important issue for our Nation--civil rights and the distinction he saw between rights for African Americans and rights for gay Americans. Even though he had already shared his personal views on the question of gay rights in a law review article--a public forum--he suddenly seemed reluctant to discuss those views with the committee. I asked Mr. Tymkovich a question as follows: As you discussed in your article, you believe that the Supreme Court was wrong to be hostile to the political decision of a majority of Colorado voters who supported adoption of the Colorado amendment. You state that Colorado voters made ``a seemingly good-faith policy choice.'' If I understand you correctly, you agree with Justice Scalia's dissent in Romer and that the court improperly injected itself into a political debate. Is that your view? That was the conclusion of my question. Here was Mr. Tymkovich's initial response: Senator, that's an excellent question, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and reflect on the issue below. As you know from your participation in this body, there are important issues of public policy debate that cross party lines or are bipartisan and very difficult issues. In Colorado, the question of whether or not to add sexual orientation to State and local anti-discrimination laws has been a very important and ongoing political debate in our State. And certainly, Amendment 2 was in part within that context and dialogue. And certainly many people respectfully disagreed with the legislative pronouncement there, and I think the point I was trying to make in those remarks and certainly in the case is that the courts were not a good forum for airing sort of political or legislative policy-type arguments, and that the courts are best able to address a constitutional principle when they have the concrete facts and law before them and not sort of rhetorical or legislative-type pronouncements. The Amendment 2 case had a strong mix of sort of a policy debate in that sense, and I think my comment was that the policy debate and certainly the arguments we made to the courts is that that would be better left to the political process. I then followed up by saying: I am taking that as a yes, that you agree with Justice Scalia that the Court improperly injected itself into a political debate. Do you believe that the Court should have-- is that fair? Mr. Tymkovich responded: Senator, I think Justice Scalia accepted some of the presentation of the State, but then rejected others. So I don't wholly agree or disagree with the dissent in the case, but it does reflect some of the arguments that were made. I then asked: Do you agree with that point? Mr. Tymkovich responded: I agree--the presentation that the state made to the Supreme Court was that it was a policy debate and not subject to the Supremacy Clause of the equal protections. But, again, as I testified earlier, that argument, that presentation was not accepted by the Court, and regardless of my personal views, I am perfectly capable and willing to impartially apply that precedent. The reason I am going through this is that it is important to make a record for this point. Mr. Tymkovich and I then had a dialog that lasted quite a few pages of the transcript where I repeatedly asked him to discuss his personal views on this issue, not simply the position he had argued on behalf of the State, given that he had discussed them in the law review article. He essentially refused to answer the question. I ask unanimous consent that the full transcript of my questioning of Mr. Tymkovich be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this kind of evasive testimony only makes it more difficult to analyze whether or not a nominee is well suited for a position on a Federal appeals court. I was also troubled by Mr. Tymkovich's insistence that the Romer case presented a political question and should not have been decided by the courts. The courts have played an important role in ensuring civil rights for all Americans. If our Nation left all questions of civil rights to the legislatures, school segregation might still be practiced in parts of the country today. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, the Supreme Court did its job by injecting itself in a contentious political debate and protecting the right of African Americans to equal education. I understand that these are President Bush's nominees and that he has the right to nominate whomever he wants to the bench. But as much as it is our duty to fill vacancies in the Federal judiciary, it is also our duty to give great scrutiny to those nominees who have a record that calls into question their ability to give all those litigants who would appear before them a fair and impartial hearing. I am more than pleased to vote to confirm judicial nominees that are fair-minded and supported by a consensus of Senators and the legal community, and, once again, I urge the President to send such nominees to the Senate. I have voted in favor of three previous Bush nominees to the Tenth Circuit, but I do not believe that Mr. Tymkovich is the right person for this seat. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. On behalf of myself, Senator Chafee, and Senator Carper, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. This is the pay-as-you-go amendment. We extend the pay- as-you-go system that has been in place since 1990 as adjusted for the reconciled levels just adopted in the Breaux amendment. This amendment says tax cuts or entitlement spending increases, if they are beyond the $350 billion for which the Senate just voted, do have to be deficit neutral. This is a system that has worked well since 1990. It has helped keep deficits in check. It was suspended in times of surplus, and we got ourselves into the current deficit jam. The budget resolution before the Senate, however, creates a giant exception to pay-as-you-go for everything the budget assumes. Basically, it says pay-as-you-go, but for the first $900 billion they are free, they are on the house. They are not free. We should not take money from Social Security revenues. We should not just bill our children's generation, robbing them of their choices. We need to return to the ethic that we will pay for what we get. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his willingness to accept the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. This amendment, which I offer with Senators Corzine, Durbin, Graham of Florida, and Hollings, would create a reserve fund to set aside $100 billion, an amount well within the range of available estimates, to fund military action and reconstruction in Iraq. We would pay for this by reducing the amount we would budget for tax cuts in the period covered by the budget resolution. No one is certain how much the war with Iraq will actually cost, but we can be certain such a war will not be free. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that the total cost could range from $129 billion to $683 billion. Today's Wall Street Journal reports a supplemental appropriations request is expected shortly that will ask for $80 billion and that will cover just the first 30 days of the war. The day before yesterday the President said the war may be longer and more difficult than some predict. Plainly, we are talking about a major enterprise and one for which we should budget. We are in a war. The budget must reflect it. This is no time for business as usual. We should prepare responsibly for that which is right before our eyes. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to bring a small measure of relief to the families of our brave military personnel who are being deployed for the ongoing fight against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other missions around the country and around the world. The men and women of our Armed Forces undertake enormous sacrifices in their service to our country. They spend time away from home and from their families in different parts of the country and different parts of the world, and, too often, are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their dedicated service. The ongoing deployments for the fight against terrorism and for the campaign in Iraq are turning upside down the lives of thousands of active duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families as they seek to do their duty to their country and honor their commitments to their families, and, in the case of the reserve components, to their employers as well. As of March 29, more than 212,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel were on active duty, and thousands more can expect to be activated in the coming days and weeks. Some of my constituents are facing the latest in a series of multiple activations and deployments for family members who serve our country in the military. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and safe return. Our men and women in uniform face these challenges without complaint. But we should do more to help them and their families with the many things that preparing to be deployed. Often, military personnel and their families are given only a couple of days' notice that their units will be deployed. These dedicated men and women then have only a very limited amount of time to get their lives in order. For members of the National Guard and Reserve, this includes telling their employers that they will be deployed for, in many cases, up to a year, and will be away from their jobs. I want to commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty. In preparation for a deployment, military families often have to scramble to arrange for child care, to pay bills, to contact their landlords or mortgage companies, and take care of other things that we deal with on a daily basis, from stopping the newspaper to making sure that their plants are watered and that their pets are cared for while they are gone. The legislation that I introduce today would allow eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits for issues relating to our resulting from their deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. I was proud to cosponsor and vote for the lgislaiton that created the Family and Medical Leave Act FMLA, in the early days of my service to the people of Wisconsin as a member of this body. This important law allows eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of child, the placement of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or a child. Some employers offer a portion of this time as paid leave in addition to other accured leave, while others require workers to use accrued leave or sick time for this purpose. Since its enactment in 1993, the FMLA has helped more than 35 million American workers to balance responsibilities to their families and their careers. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2.2 million and 6.1 million people took advantage of these benefits in 1999-2000. Our military families sacrifice a great deal. Active duty families often move every couple of years due to transfer and new assignments. And as we rely more heavily on National Guard and Reserve personnel for more and more deployments that are longer in duration, the burden on their families also increases. This legislation has the support of a number of military organizations, including the Wisconsin National Guard, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States. We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do all we can to support them in this difficult time. I hope what this bill will bring a small measure of relief to our military families. 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 to bring a small measure of relief to the families of our brave military personnel who are being deployed for the ongoing fight against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and other missions around the country and around the world. The men and women of our Armed Forces undertake enormous sacrifices in their service to our country. They spend time away from home and from their families in different parts of the country and different parts of the world, and, too often, are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their dedicated service. The ongoing deployments for the fight against terrorism and for the campaign in Iraq are turning upside down the lives of thousands of active duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families as they seek to do their duty to their country and honor their commitments to their families, and, in the case of the reserve components, to their employers as well. As of March 29, more than 212,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel were on active duty, and thousands more can expect to be activated in the coming days and weeks. Some of my constituents are facing the latest in a series of multiple activations and deployments for family members who serve our country in the military. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and safe return. Our men and women in uniform face these challenges without complaint. But we should do more to help them and their families with the many things that preparing to be deployed. Often, military personnel and their families are given only a couple of days' notice that their units will be deployed. These dedicated men and women then have only a very limited amount of time to get their lives in order. For members of the National Guard and Reserve, this includes telling their employers that they will be deployed for, in many cases, up to a year, and will be away from their jobs. I want to commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty. In preparation for a deployment, military families often have to scramble to arrange for child care, to pay bills, to contact their landlords or mortgage companies, and take care of other things that we deal with on a daily basis, from stopping the newspaper to making sure that their plants are watered and that their pets are cared for while they are gone. The legislation that I introduce today would allow eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits for issues relating to our resulting from their deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. I was proud to cosponsor and vote for the lgislaiton that created the Family and Medical Leave Act FMLA, in the early days of my service to the people of Wisconsin as a member of this body. This important law allows eligible workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the birth or adoption of child, the placement of a foster child, to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or newly placed foster child, or to care for their own serious health condition or that of a spouse, a parent, or a child. Some employers offer a portion of this time as paid leave in addition to other accured leave, while others require workers to use accrued leave or sick time for this purpose. Since its enactment in 1993, the FMLA has helped more than 35 million American workers to balance responsibilities to their families and their careers. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2.2 million and 6.1 million people took advantage of these benefits in 1999-2000. Our military families sacrifice a great deal. Active duty families often move every couple of years due to transfer and new assignments. And as we rely more heavily on National Guard and Reserve personnel for more and more deployments that are longer in duration, the burden on their families also increases. This legislation has the support of a number of military organizations, including the Wisconsin National Guard, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States. We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do all we can to support them in this difficult time. I hope what this bill will bring a small measure of relief to our military families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as such time I am allowed to offer an amendment, I intend to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Corzine. This is an amendment I actually offered in the Budget Committee. I thought we had a good debate on it. It goes to the heart of what is happening at this moment on which so many Americans are focusing and on which so many people in the world are focusing. This Nation has gone to war with Iraq. Our thoughts are first and foremost with the men and women who serve our country in the Armed Forces. While we debated the wisdom of going to war with Iraq, and I personally have questioned whether it is a good idea, there can be no debate or doubt about the dedication of our troops and devotion to our country or the honor they do us through their sacrifice. We all hope in earnest for a speedy victory and for the safe and quick return of those men and women. If we fail to prepare in this budget for the fact of this war in Iraq, we will be engaging in wishful thinking. Worse, we will be failing to think at all. The notion that this budget does not provide anything for this enormous undertaking that is occurring is really troubling and really is not what you can call honest budgeting. I will concede no one is really certain how much the war with Iraq will actually cost, but we can be certain this war will be far from free. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the President's former adviser for economic policy, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated the cost of the war would be $100 billion to $200 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office estimates, the initial deployment of troops and equipment would cost about $14 billion; the first month of combat would cost $10 billion, and then with each subsequent month of combat costing $8 billion per month. To return troops and equipment to their home bases after the war some people believe would cost $9 billion, and any postwar occupation of Iraq would cost between $1 billion and $4 billion, Mr. President, per month--per month. Using CBO's figures, if we make some ballpark assumptions that active military combat will last for 2\1/2\ months and that the following reconstruction and occupation would last another 2 years, we are talking about something between $69 billion and $141 billion. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that the cost of combat from 1 to 6 months would be $18 billion to $85 billion, and the cost of reconstruction for 5 years would range from $25 billion to $105 billion. Adding all the potential costs identified by the center, it would lead to total cost estimates ranging on the low end from $129 billion to $683 billion on the high end. Plainly, we are talking about a major enterprise, and obviously it is one for which we should budget. The amendment I offer on behalf of myself and the senior Senator from New Jersey will create a reserve fund to set aside $100 billion. That is an amount well within the range of the available estimates I was highlighting in order to fund this military action and reconstruction in Iraq. We pay for this action by reducing the amount that we would budget for cutting taxes in the period covered by the budget resolution--a simple proposition. The amount of $100 billion would be put in a reserve fund so we can honestly estimate a budget for the war in Iraq, and that would come out of the tax cut that is contemplated. When we are conducting a war, the budget must reflect it. We cannot blithely go along as if this were a time for business as usual. We should budget responsibly for what is happening right before our eyes. When I am able to actually offer this amendment, I will strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The American people will be extremely supportive, obviously, of our troops in this effort as it is conducted. What they will not understand, though, is if we pretend that this will cost nothing, that we will pass a budget in the midst of this war effort pretending that the war in Iraq will not be an expensive proposition. We owe them that. We owe them honesty at this historical and very significant moment, and we must set aside a reasonable estimate of funds to cover the cost of this enormous undertaking. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds to respond to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in response to the Senator's remarks, the reason these wars were not budgeted for in the past is that they were obviously not foreseen. They occurred after the budget resolution occurred. We have known about this war and the imminent reality of it for some time. We are actually seeing it undertaken as we speak, and we are doing the budget resolution right now. There simply is no hard and fast rule against being honest in budgeting. That is all we are calling for, and this is an appropriate occasion when we can and should budget for the war.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last October, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq and believe it was right that, in recent months, the country debated the wisdom of using military action against Iraq at this time. But the commencement of military action unites us as we focus on our ongoing support for our troops. I am confident in their abilities and I hope for their safe and quick return to their families. Even more so now that this action has begun, my thoughts, and the thoughts of all Americans, are with our service men and women, and with their families. I am pleased that the Senate is taking this opportunity to formally go on record in support of our brave men and women in uniform with this resolution. The dedicated men and women of our military spend time away from their homes and families in different parts of the country and the world, and, too often, are placed into harm's way in order to protect the American people and our way of life. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their selfless service. The war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism are turning upside down the lives of tens of thousands of Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve personnel and their families. These men and women seek to do their duty to our country and honor commitments to their families, and, in the case of the National Guard and Reserves, to their employers. As of March 19, more than 212,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel were on Active Duty. Some Wisconsinites are facing the latest in a series of multiple activations and deployments for family members. Others are seeing their loved ones off on their first deployment. All of these families share in the worry and concern about what awaits their relatives and hope, as we do, for their swift and safe return. We owe it to our military personnel and their families to do everything that we can to support them in this difficult time. I will continue to work to ensure that our troops and their families have the resources that they need, both to combat our adversaries and to provide for their families, during this tumultuous time and when they return home.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, a precious friend of mine and of progressive causes passed away earlier this week. Dorothy Shannon died early on the morning of Wednesday, March 19, 2003. She was 85. Dorothy was one of the dearest friends anyone could have. She was a fiercely loyal Democrat who was a long-time, prominent fixture in the Wisconsin political scene when I first ran for public office over 20 years ago. As it was to so many candidates, Dorothy's support, and that of her husband Ted, was crucial to me in that first campaign, and they have been staunch supporters and advisors ever since. Growing up in a union household in Toledo, OH, during the Great Depression, Dorothy's activism came naturally to her. She came out of the Roosevelt Democratic tradition, and it stayed with her. She would remind me to ``be a Democrat, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt.'' After her serving in the Navy during World War II, she earned her masters in early childhood education at Yale, where she met and married Ted. They moved to Madison in 1950 and had lived there ever since. As Dorothy told national columnist John Nichols, it did not take her and Ted long to get involved in Democratic politics. She recalled how one day, when they were living in university housing, a young fellow named Bill Proxmire knocked on their door, and asked them to sign up to join the Wisconsin Democratic Party. Ted and Dorothy joined Bill Proxmire and a few other hardy souls, that included such future notables as Carl Thompson, Jim and Ruth Doyle, and Gaylord Nelson. They formed the core of what was to become the modern Wisconsin Democratic Party. Ted and Dorothy helped put Bill Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson in the U.S. Senate, as they helped me over three decades later. Long before I ran for the U.S. Senate, though, Ted and Dorothy helped me win in my first race, for the Wisconsin State Senate, and they were at every event I ever had for the next 20 years. No matter what the weather, no matter what their health was, they were always there, always encouraging me. Dorothy's commitment to progressive causes inspired many, and in the early 1980s, Democrats in Dane County made her their cochair, along with a friend of hers, Jim and Ruth Doyle's son. This past January, 20 years later, Dorothy attended the inauguration of the Doyles' son, Jim Doyle, as Governor of Wisconsin. As was noted in her obituary, Dorothy chaired the Mondale-Ferraro Presidential campaign in Dane County, and she was credited with helping to organize the largest public rally in support of the Democratic ticket that year. I was at that rally. I remember it well. Everyone who was there will remember it for the rest of their lives. It was a remarkable outpouring of energy, idealism, and hope for the future, and as such it was the perfect embodiment of Dorothy's qualities. John Nichols reported that last August, at an antiwar rally and march in Madison, Dorothy was seated in the middle of the crowd. He noted that ``when the crowd prepared to parade off to Vilas Park, several folks said goodbye to the white-haired activist. `Goodbye?' asked Shannon. `Oh, no, I'm ready to march.' '' As Nichols wrote, ``Dorothy Shannon was always ready to march. And rally. And campaign.'' No matter what the progressive cause or issue, Dorothy was there. She was steadfast in her commitment, and it extended well beyond party politics. She served on the Middleton Plan Commission, and was active in the League of Women Voters, the University League, and Friends of Pheasant Branch. It is still hard for me to fully grasp Dorothy's passing. I have known Ted and Dorothy Shannon for half of my life. And that is how we all thought of them. Ted and Dorothy. We always said their two names as one word. If you wanted to mention just one of them, it took a little effort. It slowed up the conversation. Now, Dorothy is gone, and conversations will be slowed all around Wisconsin. I offer my deepest condolences to Ted and his family. I will always remember Dorothy, my dear friend, and cherished supporter.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to support this amendment which is similar to one I offered in the Budget Committee. It would strike the reconciliation instruction to the Energy Committee contained in the budget resolution before us. This instruction requires the Energy Committee to produce $2.15 billion by reporting out legislation by May 1, 2003, with the assumption that they open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Management of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain has been hotly debated for many years. Some Senators, like myself, believe that this area should be designated as a Federal wilderness area. Other Senators believe that this area should be explored for its oil potential. I support this amendment because I believe that the fate of the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is a question of Federal National Wildlife Refuge management, not budgetary policy. If a Senator believes that oil reserves which may be located under the coastal plain are needed today, or 20 years from now, for reasons of enhancing this country's energy security, then the fate of the refuge is a question of energy policy, not budgetary policy. No matter where a Senator might consider himself or herself in the discussion over the fate of the refuge, and this issue was debated at length during the Senate's consideration of the energy bill last year, no Senator has said that the primary reason to change the management of the refuge was because we just needed the revenue. In fact, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Nickles, again stated, when I offered my amendment in committee, that these instructions are included in the budget resolution because Arctic drilling is needed to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and produce oil, not for purposes of revenue. I know there are strongly held views on this topic, and I do not intend here to go into all the reasons why I have concerns about the possibility of oil drilling in the refuge. Other Senators who join in offering this amendment will be making that case and making it effectively. I feel that the fate of the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge is too important to become a number in the budget process. I also think that, for several reasons, Senators who support drilling in the refuge should support this amendment and object to using the budget resolution and reconciliation to achieve that goal. As Senators know, debate on a reconciliation bill and all amendments, debatable motions, and appeals related to it is limited to a total of 20 hours. After 20 hours, debate ends. Consideration of amendments then may continue without any debate. I am concerned that using a fast track procedure like reconciliation to open the refuge exposes the Senate to criticism that we are using the refuge revenues in part for tax cuts, or to authorize new spending programs. Particularly, the Senate may be accused of dispensing refuge revenues in unrelated accounts to gain political support for refuge drilling. Our constituents may also be concerned that we will have to spend a great deal to implement a drilling program in the Arctic refuge because much of the infrastructure needed to bring oil from the refuge to the rest of the country does not exist today. As well, I am concerned that some Senators are supporting drilling in the refuge because they feel that it can be done in an ``environmentally safe'' way or they feel that it should be done jointly with energy efficiency, oil savings, and alternative energy programs to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. Reconciliation limits the way in which Senators who are concerned about these issues, and who do not serve on the Energy Committee, are able to address those issues on the floor. ``It'' cuts it off. You cannot have a real debate about what should be done. It is simply a budget number. The Congressional Budget Act explicitly prohibits the offering of nongermane amendments to a reconciliation bill. If a Senator felt that the Energy Committee's reconciliation bill opening the refuge did not go far enough to regulate environmental impacts associated with Arctic drilling, or to promote alternative energy in light of Arctic drilling, the Senator may not be able to offer amendments on the floor to improve the bill. Such amendments, which might improve the bill from an environmental standpoint, might well be considered extraneous because they do not raise revenue. I would caution all members of the Senate who have committed to support Arctic drilling only in certain cases, or only if certain other legislative or regulatory actions take place, to think seriously about whether reconciliation serves their interests and their constituents' interests. Finally, I oppose using reconciliation because I believe it is being used to limit consideration of a controversial issue. The American people have strongly held views on drilling in the refuge, and they want to know that the Senate is working to pass legislation to manage the area appropriately in a forthright and open process. That will not be achieved if reconciliation instruction on the Arctic refuge is included in the resolution before us. I urge support for my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support amendment No. 272, which is similar to one I offered in the Budget Committee. It would strike the reconciliation instruction to the Energy Committee contained in the budget resolution before us. This instruction requires the Energy Committee to produce $2.15 billion by reporting out legislation by May 1, 2003, with the assumption that they open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Management of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain has been hotly debated for many years. Some Senators, like myself, believe that this area should be designated as a Federal wilderness area. Other Senators believe that this area should be explored for its oil potential. I support this amendment because I believe that the fate of the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is a question of Federal National Wildlife Refuge management, not budgetary policy. And if a Senator believes that oil reserves which may be located under the coastal plain are needed today or 20 years from now, for reasons of enhancing this country's energy security, then the fate of the refuge is a question of energy policy, not budgetary policy. No matter where a Senator might consider himself or herself in the discussion over the fate of the refuge--and this issue was debated at length during the Senate's consideration of the energy bill last year-- no Senator has said that the primary reason to change the management of the Refuge was because we just needed the revenue. In fact, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Nickles, again stated, when I offered my amendment in committee, that these instructions are included in the budget resolution because Arctic drilling is needed to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and produce oil. I know there are strongly held views on this topic, and I do not intend here to go into all the reasons why I have concerns about the possibility of oil drilling in the refuge. Other Senators who join in offering this amendment will be making that case. I feel that the fate of the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is too important to become a number in the budget process. I also think that, for several reasons, Senators who support drilling in the refuge should support this amendment and object to using the budget resolution and reconciliation to achieve that goal. As Senators know, debate on a reconciliation bill and all amendments, debatable motions, and appeals related to it is limited to a total of 20 hours. After 20 hours, debate ends. Consideration of amendments then may continue without debate. I am concerned that using a fast track procedure like reconciliation to open the refuge exposes the Senate to criticism that we are using the refuge revenues in part for tax cuts or to authorize new spending programs. Particularly, the Senate may be accused of dispensing refuge revenues in unrelated accounts to gain political support for refuge drilling. Our constituents may also be concerned that we will have to spend a great deal to implement a drilling program in the Arctic Refuge because much of the infrastructure needed to bring oil from the Refuge to the rest of the country does not exist today. As well, I am concerned that some Senators are supporting drilling in the refuge because they feel that it can be done in an ``environmentally safe'' way or they feel that it should be done jointly with energy efficiency, oil savings, and alternative energy programs to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. But reconciliation limits the way in which Senators who are concerned about these issues, and who do not serve on the Energy Committee, are able to address those issues on the floor. The Congressional Budget Act explicitly prohibits the offering of nongermaine amendments to a reconciliation bill. If a Senator felt that the Energy Committee's reconciliation bill opening the refuge did not go far enough to regulate environmental impacts associated with Arctic drilling, or to promote alternative energy in light of Arctic drilling, the Senator may not be able to offer amendments on the floor to improve the bill. Such amendments, which might improve the bill from an environmental standpoint, might well be considered extraneous because they do not raise revenue. I would caution all Members of the Senate who have committed to support Arctic drilling only in certain cases, or only if certain other legislative or regulatory actions take place, to think seriously about whether reconciliation serves their interests and their constituents' interests. Finally, I oppose using reconciliation because I believe it is being used to limit consideration of a controversial issue. The American people have strongly held views on drilling in the refuge, and they want to know that the Senate is working to pass legislation to manage the area appropriately in a forthright and open process. That will not be achieved if reconciliation instruction on the Arctic Refuge is included in the resolution before us. I urge support for the amendment of the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to comment on the execution of Louis Jones, Jr., earlier today by the Federal Government. Louis Jones was a highly decorated 22-year Army veteran, including service to our nation as an Army Ranger. He rose through the ranks to reach the top of enlisted personnel and retired with an honorable discharge in 1993 as a Master Sergeant. After serving on active duty in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield, Mr. Jones returned to the United States and began experiencing symptoms consistent with gulf war syndrome. He exhibited personality and behavior changes, including increased hostility, aggression, and a tendency to fixate irrationally. In 1995, in a Federal district court in Texas, Louis Jones, Jr., an African-American, was convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnaping and murder of an airwoman at Goodfellow Air Force Base in Lubbock, TX. There is no question that Mr. Jones committed this horrific crime. Mr. Jones did not dispute his guilt. But what Mr. Jones requested, and what I believed he should have had, was further examination of his medical condition and its potential role in the crime he committed. Evidence of his brain damage was not available at his trial, as scientific research about the effects of exposure to toxins during the gulf war was still in its early stages. Since his trial, however, extensive research on gulf war syndrome and its symptoms has revealed brain damage as one possible result of exposure to toxins during the gulf war. Dr. Robert Haley, one of the Nation's most renowned researchers and experts on gulf war syndrome, has now concluded that Mr. Jones's symptoms were consistent with those of a subset of gulf war syndrome patients who were exposed to particularly toxic chemical agents during the gulf war. Had the jury known of Mr. Jones mental condition and that his condition was the result of service in the gulf war, it is very possible that the jury would have returned a sentence other than death. It is unconscionable that the Federal Government would execute a gulf war veteran who displayed the symptoms of gulf war syndrome at the time of the crime, but was denied a fair opportunity to use this evidence to argue for a sentence other than death. On the eve of war, and especially on the eve of another war in the Persian Gulf region where more than 200,000 brave American men and women are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation, President Bush could have taken a small step for fairness and justice. He could have stayed the execution to allow further medical testing and examination. I believe that President Bush should have done more. He should not have gone forward with this execution in the face of increasing concerns about the fairness of the Federal death penalty system. Today, more than 2 years after the U.S. Department of Justice released a survey showing geographic and racial disparities in the Federal death penalty system, we still do not have an explanation of why who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the region of the country where the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Janet Reno was so disturbed by the results of this survey that she ordered a further, in- depth study of the results. Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged to continue that study, but we still await the results. And while we await the results of this study, we have also learned that the Justice Department appears to be seeking the death penalty more aggressively in Federal cases. Attorney General Ashcroft appears to be pursuing consistency in the application of the Federal death penalty nationwide by seeking it more aggressively in jurisdictions where Federal prosecutors have infrequently requested authorization from the Attorney General to seek the death penalty. In other words, he seems intent on making the Federal system replicative of States that aggressively pursue the death penalty States like Texas, which this week is scheduled to execute its 300th inmate in the modern death penalty era. I am very concerned that the Attorney General's apparent determination to increase death penalty prosecutions, including sometimes overriding decisions of local prosecutors, increases the risk that the Federal Government could execute an innocent person. Former Federal prosecutors have said that ``they need to take every last precaution to avoid the risk of condemning an innocent person to death.'' Last week I sent a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft expressing my grave concern about these issues and asking him to answer several questions about the Justice Department's decision-making process in death-eligible cases. There is no punishment in our criminal justice system more worthy of careful review and absolute certainty before we carry it out than capital punishment. Each time the Federal Government carries out the ultimate punishment while so many questions remain unanswered, it erodes confidence in the justice system. The case of Louis Jones, Jr., is no exception. His case is plagued by particularly troubling circumstances that also cast doubt on the fairness of the Federal death penalty system. The existing cracks in our Federal death penalty system seem to be widening, and new ones are appearing, further weakening the foundation of our justice system. Today, with the execution of Mr. Jones, our Federal criminal justice system has taken a step backward. Our goals of fairness and equal justice under law were not met, and the American people's reason for confidence in our Federal criminal justice system was diminished. I urge my colleagues to support a temporary freeze on executions to allow a thorough, nationwide review of the fairness of the administration of the death penalty. I urge my colleagues to support the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the above-referenced letter in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness. I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government. I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah. Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.'' I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. Identical in its designations to legislation sponsored in the other body by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, it is the culmination of more than 17 years and five Congresses of effort in the other body beginning with the legislative work of our recent deceased colleague, the former Congressman from Utah, Mr. Owens. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters. Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.'' Wisconsinites are watching this test cane closely. I believe, that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. For example, some in my home state believe that among federal lands that comprise the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests there are lands that are deserving of wilderness protection. These federal properties are incredibly important, and they mean a great deal to the people of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want to know that, should additional lands in Wisconsin be brought forward for wilderness designation, the type of protection they expect from federal law is still available to be extended because it had been properly extended to other places of national significance. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness insures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Third, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the federal government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. Finally, I support this bill because I believe that there will likely be action during this Congress to develop consensus legislation to protect the lands contained in this proposal. We all need to be involved in helping to forge that consensus in order to ensure the best stewardship of that land. As many in this body know, the BLM has completed a review of the lands designated in the bill sponsored in the 106th Congress by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and adjacent areas. BLM has found that 5.8 million acres of lands, slightly more than the acreage of the old bill, meet the criteria for wilderness protection under the Wilderness Act. While the re-inventory is not a formal recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation, it suggests that there are and should be more lands in play as the debate over wilderness protection in Utah moves forward. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original co-sponsor of legislation to designate more than one million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands in Utah as wilderness. I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government. I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the BLM lands of Southern Utah. Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that Congress's Omnibus Parks legislation. It contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home state of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.'' I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. Identical in its designations to legislation sponsored in the other body by Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, it is the culmination of more than 17 years and five Congresses of effort in the other body beginning with the legislative work of our recent deceased colleague, the former Congressman from Utah, Mr. Owens. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers and sightseers to hunters. Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin would co-sponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti- environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid areas.'' Wisconsinites are watching this test cane closely. I believe, that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. For example, some in my home state believe that among federal lands that comprise the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and the Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests there are lands that are deserving of wilderness protection. These federal properties are incredibly important, and they mean a great deal to the people of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want to know that, should additional lands in Wisconsin be brought forward for wilderness designation, the type of protection they expect from federal law is still available to be extended because it had been properly extended to other places of national significance. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness insures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise. Third, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the federal government for the people of the United States. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. Finally, I support this bill because I believe that there will likely be action during this Congress to develop consensus legislation to protect the lands contained in this proposal. We all need to be involved in helping to forge that consensus in order to ensure the best stewardship of that land. As many in this body know, the BLM has completed a review of the lands designated in the bill sponsored in the 106th Congress by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and adjacent areas. BLM has found that 5.8 million acres of lands, slightly more than the acreage of the old bill, meet the criteria for wilderness protection under the Wilderness Act. While the re-inventory is not a formal recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation, it suggests that there are and should be more lands in play as the debate over wilderness protection in Utah moves forward. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to the historic developments that have unfolded in Sierra Leone in recent days. On Monday, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a body charged with bringing to justice those most responsible for the horrific war crimes that occurred in that country, issued its first indictments. Seven people were indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of international humanitarian law: Foday Sankoh, Johnny Paul Koroma, Sam Bockarie, Issa Hassan Sesay, Alex Tamba Brima, Morris Kallon, and Sam Hinga Normam. The subjects of these initial indictments--ranging from infamous RUF leader Sankoh to former junta leader Koroma to Cabinet Minister Norman--clearly illustrate the commitment of the Court and of Sierra Leone to genuinely break with the past, and to firmly asset the illegitimacy of all of the abuse and atrocities of the past, not just that portion committed by one faction or another. Five of the indicted individuals are under arrest today; two remain at large. I urge the international community to ensure that they are found, arrested, and turned over to the court. This development is an important step toward breaking the cycle of violence and impunity in West Africa--a cycle that plunged the people of Sierra Leone into a long national nightmare from which they have only begun to recover. That same cycle is responsible for the ongoing suffering of the people of Liberia, and now threatens the once-stable country of Cote d'Ivoire. It is true that fear of accountability may provoke some actors to try to disrupt the progress made in Sierra Leone thus far, but the history of that beautiful country has shown that turning a blind eye to the abuses of the past only ensures more in the future. The people of Sierra Leone are bravely pursuing justice. They deserve international support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose the nomination of Jay Bybee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I was not able to attend the hearing that was held on Mr. Bybee because of Secretary Powell's presentation that morning to the United Nations. So I submitted written questions, as did a number of my colleagues. Unfortunately, I have to say after reviewing Mr. Bybee's response to those questions that his unwillingness to provide information in response to our inquiries is striking. On more than 20 occasions, Mr. Bybee refused to answer a question, claiming over and over again that as an attorney in the Department of Justice he could not comment on any advice that he gave at any time. This is unfortunately becoming a very familiar refrain of nominees before the Judiciary Committee. I say unfortunate because it puts many of us in the position of having to oppose nominees because they have not been forthcoming. This was not the approach taken by at least some Bush nominees in the last Congress. Michael McConnell, for example, was forthcoming in his testimony and answers to written questions. He convinced me that he would put aside his personal views if he were confirmed to the bench. There is an extensive body of legal work both written by or at least signed off on by this nominee, in this case unpublished Office of Legal Counsel opinions. The administration and the nominee are acting as if they are irrelevant to the confirmation process. A nominee cannot simply claim that he or she will follow Supreme Court precedent and ask us to take that assurance on faith, when there are written records that may help us evaluate that pledge, but the nominee refuses to make those records available. Only three OLC opinions had been made publicly available since Mr. Bybee's confirmation to head that office. That is extraordinary, given that 1,187 OLC opinions dating back to 1996 are publicly available. This is a dramatic change in the Department's practice, a change that did not occur until this nominee was confirmed to be Assistant Attorney General for the office. While there may be some justification for releasing fewer opinions since 9/11, the wholesale refusal to share with the public and Congress important OLC decisions affecting a wide range of legal matters is, to say the least, troublesome. But the failure to make OLC opinions available to the Judiciary Committee during the consideration of a nominee for a seat on a circuit court is unacceptable. Even White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, in a letter Mr. Bybee cites in his written responses, agrees that there is no universal bar to disclosure of OLC opinions. Gonzalez wrote that: No bright-line rule historically has governed, or now governs, responses to congressional requests for the general category of Executive Branch ``deliberative documents.'' The administration should be able to agree to an acceptable procedure to allow the Judiciary Committee to review Mr. Bybee's OLC opinions. Given the recent history of many OLC opinions being made public, it is hard to believe that there are no opinions authored by Mr. Bybee that could be disclosed without damaging the deliberative process. Indeed, it is very hard to give credence to the idea that OLC's independence would be compromised by the release of some selection of the opinions of interest to members of the Judiciary Committee or the Senate. Without the OLC memos, important questions about the nominee's views on how far the Government can go in the war on terrorism, enforcing the rights of women, enforcing the rights of gays and lesbians, and other important issues do not just remain unanswered, they apparently remain off-limits. One of Mr. Bybee's responses may explain the reluctance to make any OLC materials available. In his response to a question from Senator Biden about why DOJ did not create an independent Violence Against Women Office at DOJ as required by Congress in a bill passed last year, Mr. Bybee left the impression that OLC may have either intentionally omitted or ignored the key portions of the legislative history in crafting its opinion. In a series of questions from Senator Biden about his involvement in DOJ's decision on the VAWO, Mr. Bybee was given the opportunity to clarify his view of the law and correct what appears to be a clearly erroneous interpretation of the legislative history. Instead he seems to try to downplay the importance of his office's legal analysis on the decision. He states at one point: The structure of the letter would thus indicate that legislative history had no significant bearing on its analysis or conclusion. The members of the Judiciary Committee are entitled to better. How can we be confident that Mr. Bybee will put aside his personal policy views and fairly interpret and apply the law as passed by this body, when it seems that his office crafted a legal opinion designed to allow the Department of Justice to willfully ignore clear legislative intent? Perhaps the legal opinion itself will shed some light on this question, but we are not being permitted to see it. Mr. Bybee also mischaracterized many of his own writings and speeches and failed to directly answer most of the questions put to him about them, claiming he would simply follow existing Supreme Court precedent. As we all know, the Supreme Court has not answered every legal question. It is our circuit court judges that are routinely in the position of having to address novel legal issues, not the Supreme Court. For example, I asked Mr. Bybee about his views, published in a law review article, that we should consider repealing the 17th Amendment which provides for the direct election of Senators. The nominee now simply states that Senators should be popularly elected, almost claiming he had never argued to the contrary in his article. His answers to my questions about this article were evasive, not forthcoming. Another telling example is his response to a series of questions from Senator Edwards about a 1982 article in which he criticized the IRS decision to deny tax exempt status to Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory practices. The article is full of statements revealing a disdain for anti-discrimination policies and warned of a parade of horribles should the government continue to use its spending power to advance such policies. Yet, in his written responses, Mr. Bybee seems to deny the very clear meaning of his written words. He goes so far as to claim that he was only commenting on the Government's change in position in the case and not the very important public policy issue at the heart of the case. That, it seems to me, is an adventurous reading of the article, at best. Based on Mr. Bybee's unwillingness to answer any question about his views on a wide range of issues, his distortion of his own limited but telling written record, and the failure of the administration to provide any of his numerous OLC opinions to the Judiciary Committee for review, I must vote no on his nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce a Senate companion to a joint resolution already introduced in the House by Congressman Sherrod Brown of Ohio. This resolution is quite simple. It requires the President to report to Congress on the potential costs and consequences of military action in Iraq before ordering the United States Armed Forces to war in Iraq. This is a resolution that simply requires that this country know what it is we are getting into before, not after, war breaks out. Of course, it is my hope, and I very much believe the President when he asserts that it is his hope, that there will be no war. But judging from the administration's statements and Iraq's behavior, with each passing day it becomes more and more likely that the United States will engage in a major military operation in Iraq. It is entirely possible that we will undertake this operation without a great deal of international support. And while I have no doubt in my mind that our admirable men and women in uniform will be successful in any military engagement, I do have doubts about whether or not the American people truly understand the magnitude of the task the country is setting for itself--not only with regard to the military engagement itself, but with regard to occupation and reconstruction. I do not believe that Americans have been told much about what the future holds beyond the most optimistic of scenarios, and frankly I do not believe that Congress has heard much about the full range of potential scenarios either. This resolution would require that the President provide that information before ordering our men and women in uniform to war in Iraq. The resolution asks for a full accounting of the implications for homeland security of initiating military action against Iraq. It asks for an accounting of the implications for the fight against terrorism. It asks for an accounting of the implications for regional stability in the Middle East, and for an accounting of the implications of war in Iraq for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This resolution recognizes that there may be positive and negative implications to consider. It does not pre-judge these issues. But it does acknowledge that Members of Congress, the elected representatives of the people, should be privy to the thinking of our experts and leaders in the executive branch about the effect of war in Iraq on all of these issues. It is our responsibility to weigh these questions, to weigh the consequences of starting a war. And, while I do not doubt for a moment the skills and competence of our brave service men and women, I do know that their efforts alone are not enough to ensure a lasting victory. It is crucial to the ultimate success of U.S. policy, that the American people understand the potential risks and the potential rewards of this national undertaking. We are considering the American military occupation of a major Middle Eastern country, and we are considering this in a very dangerous time. This country must have its eyes open before we move forward. This resolution also requires that the administration explain to Congress the steps that the United States and our allies will take to ensure that any and all weapons of mass destruction will be safeguarded from dispersal to other rogue states or international terrorist organizations. If the goal is disarmament, then defeating Saddam Hussein's forces is not going to accomplish the mission at hand. Do we know where the WMD sites are? One would assume that we would share that information with the inspectors if we had it. But if we do not, how will we ensure that WMD and the means to make them are not dispersed across Iraq's borders, or sold off to the highest bidder, in the event of invasion. Saddam Huessein's order is despicable and dangerous. But disorder is dangerous too. Again, we need to understand the risks, and we need to understand the plan. This resolution requires the Administration to explain the plan for stabilization and reconstruction. Earlier this week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on reconstruction in Iraq. We had hoped to get answers to some of the basic questions that senior officials from the State and Defense Departments were utterly unable to respond to as recently as February. But the Administration canceled the appearance of General Jay Garner, the director for the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, who was slated to come before the committee. And so the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate is left scanning the newspapers to get a sense of Administration plans, extrapolating from tidbits in the press to understand potential costs, and quizzing very capable experts--but experts not privy to Administration planning--about the universe of possibilities. This is simply unacceptable. This resolution calls for the Administration to clearly report to Congress on the nature and extent of the international support for military action against Iraq and the impact of military action against Iraq on allied support for the broader war on terrorism. I believe that this is the single most important issue before us. I know that I disagree with some of my colleagues on the wisdom of the Administration's policy in Iraq. But I am certain that none of us disagree on the proposition that the first priority of all of us in government must be the fight against terrorism. And we all know that we cannot fight terrorism alone. But I have heard directly from foreign officials who are telling me that it will be more difficult for them to be strong supporters of the fight against terrorism if the U.S. acts in Iraq without the United Nations' approval. This resolution calls on the Administration to explain clearly the steps that it will take to protect United States soldiers, allied forces, and Iraqi civilians from any known or suspected environmental hazards resulting from military operations. Everyone in this body has heard from veterans of the Gulf War who suffer and struggle even today, long after their period of sacrifice for their country should have ended. Based on what we know from these veterans, it is entirely reasonable to demand a plan now, not after the fact. The resolution also calls for the Administration to provide estimates of the American and allied military casualties, Iraqi military casualties, and Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from military action against Iraq, and measures that will be taken to prevent civilian casualties and adhere to international humanitarian law. I know that America is a resilient society and a resolute society. But I am not at all sure that Americans have been prepared for anything but the best-case scenario, and that is a disservice to the American people and a disservice to our military. This resolution calls for an estimate of the full costs associated with military action against Iraq, including, but not limited to, providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people and to neighboring nations in light of possible refugee flows, reconstructing Iraq with or without allied support, and securing long-term political stability in Iraq and the region insofar as it is affected by such military action. I can tell you that right now in the Budget committee, we are flying blind, trying to make fiscally responsible decisions for the future while the Administration remains unwilling to provide an honest accounting of what this war will cost, or what it will cost to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraq, or what the long process of reconstruction will cost. We know that these are not small figures. And unfortunately, it looks as though we will be proceeding without a great deal of international support, meaning less burden-sharing and more shouldering of this cost on our own. And that is why this resolution also calls for an accounting of the anticipated short and long term effects of military action on the United States economy and the Federal budget. I feel strongly that we should have demanded this information long ago. But we continue to ask, because Congress continues to have constitutional responsibilities. And I continue to hear from a tremendous number of my constituents who are deeply concerned about the prospect of a war with Iraq. The sources of their concern and their views on the issue vary, but in virtually all cases, they want to understand the range of options before us, and they are demanding more information about the costs and commitments they will incur as a result of decisions that we make here. They are right to insist on that information, to insist that we exercise some foresight here and wrestle honestly with the consequences that may follow from taking military action. Without such a discussion, we cannot hope to answer the most important question before us--will a given course of action make the U.S. more or less secure in the end. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to insist that the Administration provide this information before war breaks out. I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq last fall, because I was uncomfortable with the Administration's shifting justifications for war, dissatisfied with the vague answers available at the time relating to our plans for dealing with weapons of mass destruction and reconstruction in Iraq, and most of all, because I was concerned that this action would actually alienate key allies in the fight against terrorism. But even those who voted differently surely must believe that we have a responsibility to anwser these questions now, and to share the answers with our constituents, so that this great country is operating not on wishful thinking or simple ignorance, but with an understanding of the facts before us, and the awesome task ahead.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce a Senate companion to a joint resolution already introduced in the House by Congressman Sherrod Brown of Ohio. This resolution is quite simple. It requires the President to report to Congress on the potential costs and consequences of military action in Iraq before ordering the United States Armed Forces to war in Iraq. This is a resolution that simply requires that this country know what it is we are getting into before, not after, war breaks out. Of course, it is my hope, and I very much believe the President when he asserts that it is his hope, that there will be no war. But judging from the administration's statements and Iraq's behavior, with each passing day it becomes more and more likely that the United States will engage in a major military operation in Iraq. It is entirely possible that we will undertake this operation without a great deal of international support. And while I have no doubt in my mind that our admirable men and women in uniform will be successful in any military engagement, I do have doubts about whether or not the American people truly understand the magnitude of the task the country is setting for itself--not only with regard to the military engagement itself, but with regard to occupation and reconstruction. I do not believe that Americans have been told much about what the future holds beyond the most optimistic of scenarios, and frankly I do not believe that Congress has heard much about the full range of potential scenarios either. This resolution would require that the President provide that information before ordering our men and women in uniform to war in Iraq. The resolution asks for a full accounting of the implications for homeland security of initiating military action against Iraq. It asks for an accounting of the implications for the fight against terrorism. It asks for an accounting of the implications for regional stability in the Middle East, and for an accounting of the implications of war in Iraq for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This resolution recognizes that there may be positive and negative implications to consider. It does not pre-judge these issues. But it does acknowledge that Members of Congress, the elected representatives of the people, should be privy to the thinking of our experts and leaders in the executive branch about the effect of war in Iraq on all of these issues. It is our responsibility to weigh these questions, to weigh the consequences of starting a war. And, while I do not doubt for a moment the skills and competence of our brave service men and women, I do know that their efforts alone are not enough to ensure a lasting victory. It is crucial to the ultimate success of U.S. policy, that the American people understand the potential risks and the potential rewards of this national undertaking. We are considering the American military occupation of a major Middle Eastern country, and we are considering this in a very dangerous time. This country must have its eyes open before we move forward. This resolution also requires that the administration explain to Congress the steps that the United States and our allies will take to ensure that any and all weapons of mass destruction will be safeguarded from dispersal to other rogue states or international terrorist organizations. If the goal is disarmament, then defeating Saddam Hussein's forces is not going to accomplish the mission at hand. Do we know where the WMD sites are? One would assume that we would share that information with the inspectors if we had it. But if we do not, how will we ensure that WMD and the means to make them are not dispersed across Iraq's borders, or sold off to the highest bidder, in the event of invasion. Saddam Huessein's order is despicable and dangerous. But disorder is dangerous too. Again, we need to understand the risks, and we need to understand the plan. This resolution requires the Administration to explain the plan for stabilization and reconstruction. Earlier this week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on reconstruction in Iraq. We had hoped to get answers to some of the basic questions that senior officials from the State and Defense Departments were utterly unable to respond to as recently as February. But the Administration canceled the appearance of General Jay Garner, the director for the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, who was slated to come before the committee. And so the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate is left scanning the newspapers to get a sense of Administration plans, extrapolating from tidbits in the press to understand potential costs, and quizzing very capable experts--but experts not privy to Administration planning--about the universe of possibilities. This is simply unacceptable. This resolution calls for the Administration to clearly report to Congress on the nature and extent of the international support for military action against Iraq and the impact of military action against Iraq on allied support for the broader war on terrorism. I believe that this is the single most important issue before us. I know that I disagree with some of my colleagues on the wisdom of the Administration's policy in Iraq. But I am certain that none of us disagree on the proposition that the first priority of all of us in government must be the fight against terrorism. And we all know that we cannot fight terrorism alone. But I have heard directly from foreign officials who are telling me that it will be more difficult for them to be strong supporters of the fight against terrorism if the U.S. acts in Iraq without the United Nations' approval. This resolution calls on the Administration to explain clearly the steps that it will take to protect United States soldiers, allied forces, and Iraqi civilians from any known or suspected environmental hazards resulting from military operations. Everyone in this body has heard from veterans of the Gulf War who suffer and struggle even today, long after their period of sacrifice for their country should have ended. Based on what we know from these veterans, it is entirely reasonable to demand a plan now, not after the fact. The resolution also calls for the Administration to provide estimates of the American and allied military casualties, Iraqi military casualties, and Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from military action against Iraq, and measures that will be taken to prevent civilian casualties and adhere to international humanitarian law. I know that America is a resilient society and a resolute society. But I am not at all sure that Americans have been prepared for anything but the best-case scenario, and that is a disservice to the American people and a disservice to our military. This resolution calls for an estimate of the full costs associated with military action against Iraq, including, but not limited to, providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people and to neighboring nations in light of possible refugee flows, reconstructing Iraq with or without allied support, and securing long-term political stability in Iraq and the region insofar as it is affected by such military action. I can tell you that right now in the Budget committee, we are flying blind, trying to make fiscally responsible decisions for the future while the Administration remains unwilling to provide an honest accounting of what this war will cost, or what it will cost to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraq, or what the long process of reconstruction will cost. We know that these are not small figures. And unfortunately, it looks as though we will be proceeding without a great deal of international support, meaning less burden-sharing and more shouldering of this cost on our own. And that is why this resolution also calls for an accounting of the anticipated short and long term effects of military action on the United States economy and the Federal budget. I feel strongly that we should have demanded this information long ago. But we continue to ask, because Congress continues to have constitutional responsibilities. And I continue to hear from a tremendous number of my constituents who are deeply concerned about the prospect of a war with Iraq. The sources of their concern and their views on the issue vary, but in virtually all cases, they want to understand the range of options before us, and they are demanding more information about the costs and commitments they will incur as a result of decisions that we make here. They are right to insist on that information, to insist that we exercise some foresight here and wrestle honestly with the consequences that may follow from taking military action. Without such a discussion, we cannot hope to answer the most important question before us--will a given course of action make the U.S. more or less secure in the end. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to insist that the Administration provide this information before war breaks out. I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq last fall, because I was uncomfortable with the Administration's shifting justifications for war, dissatisfied with the vague answers available at the time relating to our plans for dealing with weapons of mass destruction and reconstruction in Iraq, and most of all, because I was concerned that this action would actually alienate key allies in the fight against terrorism. But even those who voted differently surely must believe that we have a responsibility to anwser these questions now, and to share the answers with our constituents, so that this great country is operating not on wishful thinking or simple ignorance, but with an understanding of the facts before us, and the awesome task ahead.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose S. 3, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, and instead will support a constitutionally sound alternative. Mr. President, I understand that people on all sides of this issue hold sincere and strongly held views. I respect the deeply held views of those who oppose abortion under any circumstances. Like most Americans, I would prefer to live in a world where abortion is unnecessary. I support efforts to reduce the number of abortions through family planning and counseling to avoid unintended pregnancies. I have always believed that the decisions in this area are best handled by the individuals involved, in consultation with their doctors and guided by their own beliefs and unique circumstances, rather than by government mandates. I support Roe v. Wade, which means that I agree that government can restrict abortions when there is a compelling State interest at stake. I have previously voted to ban postviability abortions unless the woman's life is at risk or the procedure is necessary to protect the woman from grievous injury to her physical health, which is why I will again be voting for the Durbin alternative to S. 3. Since the Senate last debated this issue in 1999, the Supreme Court has ruled on a statute that is almost identical to the language of the bill before us today. In June 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court held that the State law, a Nebraska statute, banning so-called partial birth abortions was unconstitutional. The Court found that the law was so vague and overbroad that it posed an undue burden on a woman's right to choose by encompassing safe and common abortion procedures used prior to viability. The Court also found that, even in banning abortion procedures after viability, the State must include an exception for the health of the mother. The Senate now has the Supreme Court's guidance, as we consider legislation regulating late-term abortions. This is guidance that the Senate did not have when we previously debated legislation like S. 3. I feel very strongly that Congress should seek to regulate abortions only within the constitutional parameters set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet in light of the Supreme Court's 2000 decision, the bill before us today, S. 3, is unconstitutional on its face. It is so vague and overbroad that it, too, could unduly burden a woman's right to choose prior to viability. I might add that I would have preferred that S. 3 had been first reviewed by the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, rather than having been brought straight to the Senate floor. The Judiciary Committee should hold hearings and review the bill prior to its consideration by the full Senate. This is especially important because the Supreme Court has now struck down a law that is almost identical to the bill before us today. There have been no hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider this bill since the Court's Carhart decision. Perhaps, if the Judiciary Committee had more thoroughly reviewed this legislation, it would have reported a bill that could have withstood constitutional scrutiny. The Durbin alternative amendment would ban abortions by any method after a fetus is viable, except when serious medical situations dictate otherwise. I support the Durbin amendment because it recognizes that, in some circumstances, women suffer from severely debilitating diseases specifically caused or exacerbated by a pregnancy, or are unable to obtain necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition while carrying a pregnancy to term. The exceptions in the Durbin amendment are limited to conditions for which termination of the pregnancy is medically indicated. It correctly retains the option of abortion for mothers facing extraordinary medical conditions--such as breast cancer, preeclampsia, uterine rupture, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma--for which termination of the pregnancy may be recommended by the woman's physician due to the risk of grievous injury to the mother's physical health or life. By clearly limiting the medical circumstances where postviability abortions are permitted, the Durbin amendment protects fetal life in cases where the mother's health is not at such high risk. In contrast, S. 3 provides no exception at all to protect the health of the mother. I understand that the Carhart decision did not define the health exception or limit it to grievous physical injury. I recognize that it is not clear whether the narrow health exception contained in the Durbin amendment would be upheld, if it comes before the Court. To date, I have supported this narrow definition of the exception necessary to protect the physical health of the woman because I believe that it strikes the right balance between preserving a woman's right to choose and concerns that abortion procedures late in pregnancy should only be used in rare circumstances. I voted for the Daschle amendment in the 105th Congress and the Durbin amendment in the 106th Congress and again in this Congress, because they reflect this position. The Durbin amendment properly seeks to ensure that the exceptions to the ban on postviability abortions are properly exercised. It requires a second doctor to certify the medical need for a postviability abortion. The second doctor requirement will ensure that postviability abortions take place only when continuing the pregnancy would prevent the woman from receiving treatment for a life-threatening condition related to her physical health or would cause a severely debilitating disease or impairment to her physical health. The Durbin alternative strikes the right balance between protecting women's constitutional right to choose and the right of the state to protect future life after viability. It protects a woman's physical health throughout her pregnancy, while insisting that only grievous, medically diagnosable conditions justify aborting a viable fetus. Both fetal viability and women's health would have been determined by the physician's best medical judgement, as they must be, in concurrence with another physician. I hope that, as the Senate considers this bill and the proposed amendments, we do so in full recognition of the strong feelings about this issue on all sides. We should respect these differences and strive to legislate in this area in a way that is constitutionally sound. That is why I will oppose S. 3 and instead will support the Durbin substitute amendment.