Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Let me take a few minutes to explain why. First, I want to discuss the background of this nomination, which I think is an important factor for the Senator to consider. The DC Circuit, to which Mr. Estrada has been nominated, as many people have said, is widely regarded as the most important Federal circuit. It has jurisdiction over the actions of most Federal agencies. Many of the highest profile cases that have been decided in recent years by the Supreme Court concerning regulation of economic activity by Federal agencies in areas such as the environment, health and safety regulation, and labor law, went first to the DC Circuit. In the area of administrative law and the interpretation of the major regulatory statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and even the Federal Election Campaign Act, the DC Circuit is the last word, as the Supreme Court accepts relatively few cases on appeal from the circuit courts. The DC Circuit is now evenly split, and has been for some time, between nominees of Democratic and Republican Presidents. There are four judges who were appointed by Republicans and four by Democrats, and there are four vacancies. In the last Congress of President Clinton's term, he made two nominations that were never acted upon by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In one case, the committee held a hearing but never scheduled a vote, and in another, the Clinton nominee was not even given the courtesy of a hearing. Now we hear that President Bush is not only going to fill those two seats, but also two others that Republicans have argued for years did not need to be filled at all because of the court's supposedly smaller workload in comparison to other circuits. I have heard this time and again in the Judiciary committee, we do not need these positions filled. Now that there is a Republican Senate, suddenly they are going to be filled. So this nomination becomes a pivotal nomination, and this circuit could very quickly become divided 8 to 4 between Republican appointees and Democratic appointees. Again, this is the context where President Clinton's nominees were not given a chance to have a vote. I am disappointed that the Bush administration has not been willing to extend an olive branch on this circuit in particular. There are enough vacancies to accommodate both of the pending nominees and the two nominations by President Clinton who were treated so badly in the 107th Congress. But that does not seem likely to happen. It is worth mentioning as well that seats on the DC Circuit have also in recent years served as springboards for the Supreme Court. Three of the current nine justices on the Supreme Court, Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, and Thomas, first sat on the DC Circuit. Many commentators and activists, on the right and the left, believe that Mr. Estrada is being groomed for a Supreme Court appointment. For all of these reasons, I believe it is our duty to give this nomination very close scrutiny. Unfortunately, Mr. Estrada has not made this task easy. In fact, by failing to answer questions at his hearing candidly and completely, he has made it even more difficult. Unlike many of the circuit court nominees that the Judiciary Committee has reviewed so far, Mr. Estrada is not a judge on a lower court, with a record of judicial opinions that we can review to get an idea of his views and his judicial philosophy for this lifetime appointment. Unlike some of the other nominees we have seen, he is not a law professor, with extensive written work that we can review and about which we can ask questions. He is a private attorney, with no published writings since law school. The Justice Department has refused to let the committee see his memos from when he worked in the Solicitor General's office, which may or may not be revealing of his views. This is where we are: we were left with the hearing to explore with Mr. Estrada directly the question of what kind of judge he would be on the D.C. circuit. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I attended much of that hearing. Mr. Estrada steadfastly refused to help us get a sense of his views. And his way of resisting the committee's legitimate inquiry was, in my mind, extraordinary. I have been on that committee for over 8 years and have never quite seen this. He took the position that he could not express an opinion about a case that had already been decided by the Supreme Court unless he took the time to review not only the opinion of the court, which for many would be sufficient, but all the briefs and the arguments of the parties, and also, and I'm quoting here from one of his answers: ``[doing] all the legwork of investigating every last clue that the briefs and the arguments offer up.'' Mr. Estrada says he has to do all that just to give his reaction to a decision of the Supreme Court. That is not the type of approach I have seen most people take when being up for a nomination in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The result? Mr. Estrada gave us no evidence of the kind of judge he would be. For me, given the importance of his circuit and the history of appointments to this circuit, that is a big problem. The Senate has a right to complete and responsive answers to its questions before confirming someone to a life term on such an important court. In a few areas, we have something to go on because Mr. Estrada undertook pro bono representation of a group called the Center for Community Interest on whose board he served. Unfortunately, even though this is one of the few pieces of information we have, I was not reassured by what I learned. Mr. Estrada not only defended an anti- loitering statute ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, but on a radio program he took a very aggressive stance in dismissing the arguments made against the statute. He even went so far as to suggest there was something improper about the fact that this legal challenge had been brought, and that attitude carried over in his arguments in a challenge to another anti-loitering ordinance, which Mr. Estrada argued that the NAACP did not have standing to challenge the law. I was also not satisfied with Mr. Estrada's answers to questions concerning his role in helping to screen law clerk applicants for Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court. Allegations have been made that Mr. Estrada saw himself as an ideological gatekeeper of sorts, with the task of making sure no one was too liberal for his tastes to be a clerk for the Justice. After first asserting the comments ascribed to him were meant as a joke, Mr. Estrada then gave very careful lawyerly answers to follow-up questions. I cannot say for certain that he was untruthful. I am not saying that. But he certainly was not forthcoming. And this is the pattern throughout the process of trying to examine this nomination of Mr. Estrada. Both to this area and in answers to questions concerning specific decisions of the courts or legal principles, I think the Senate has the right and duty to demand more openness and responsiveness from someone whose public record is so thin and who has been nominated for such an important judicial position. Let me be clear, I very much want to be fair about something such as this. I probably would vote to confirm Miguel Estrada to a Federal district court judgeship. He has a distinguished academic and employment record. But for this crucial seat on this crucial court, we need to be confident that a nominee, if confirmed, will be fair, impartial, and not devoted to advancing an ideological agenda. Based on the record before us, I do not have that confidence in Mr. Estrada. I must, therefore, reluctantly oppose his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend Senator Byrd for introducing a very sensible resolution, S. Res. 28, expressing the sense of the Senate that the United Nations weapons inspectors should be given sufficient time for a thorough assessment of the level of compliance by the Government of Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 of 2002 and that the United States should seek a United Nations Security Council resolution specifically authorizing the use of force before initiating any offensive military operations against Iraq. I am pleased to join several colleagues in cosponsoring it. I want to be clear about one point on which I may disagree with Senator Byrd. S. Res. 28 states that U.N. weapons inspectors have failed to obtain evidence that would prove that Iraq is in breach of the terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. While there is little public information suggesting that weapons inspectors have turned up much in the way of evidence of any kind, they have made some important disclosures in their recent report, and it is clear that Iraq has failed to meet Resolution 1441's requirement that Iraq make a complete declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as information about its ballistic missiles and other delivery systems. The report that was submitted by the Government of Iraq omitted a great deal of information, and the ``unknowns'' left for the international community to consider are very serious matters. Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 1441. But this issue does not dissuade me from supporting Senator Byrd's admirable resolution. Fundamentally, this resolution recognizes that the threshold for starting a war through unilateral military action should be very high. It should require the presence of an imminent threat, or a solid connection to al-Qaida, in which case unambiguous U.S. action is already, and rightly, authorized. Based on the information available to me, I have determined that we have not reached that point. I wholeheartedly agree with the resolution's assertion that the U.S. and others should work to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means of disarming Iraq. I also agree that the U.S. should seek authorization from the Security Council before pursuing the last resort of military action in Iraq. Should we reach a point at which the use of force appears to be the only option, we should try to increase the legitimacy of any action and decrease the potential costs pursuing this multilateral approach. While calling for exhaustive diplomatic efforts, ongoing inspections work, and a multilateral approach, S. Res 28 also asserts that the United States should continue to actively seek to bring peace to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, and notes that the United States should redouble its efforts to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attack. These are important issues to keep at the forefront of U.S. policy in the weeks and months ahead. Overall, the resolution presents a reasonable approach to a difficult issue, and I believe that it reflects many of the concerns that I am hearing from my constituents in Wisconsin. Their voices and their questions belong at the center of our discussion about Iraq. I believe that this resolution helps to move my constituents' very serious concerns closer to that central role.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend our President for the historic commitment to fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic that he articulated in the State of the Union address. As a 10-year member of the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs-- and over half of those years have been as either the ranking minority member or the chairman--I have seen the terrible unfolding of the pandemic. I have read and repeated the numbing statistics that grow more horrifying every year. I have met with orphans, the sick, the dying, the mourning. I have met with doctors and nurses overwhelmed by the task before them, public health officials impassioned in their pleas for more assistance, volunteers aching for the plight of the children they care for each day. I believe that I understand the magnitude of this crisis as well as anyone can comprehend something so big and so devastating. And I also understand that what the President promised to do is a vast leap forward, a truly visionary step toward doing what is right. It is in our interest, and in the interest of global stability. But it is also simply the right thing to do, to refuse to turn away from human suffering on a grand scale, to take action, to set meaningful goals and provide the resources and the will to achieve them. This is a noble undertaking. It is a constructive and humane act at a time when, too often, we feel surrounded by the forces of destruction. The President deserves our praise. I hope that his words will be transformed into action soon. Congress certainly will be interested in understanding how the Administration plans to phase in additional spending, because the need is urgent and we cannot keep pushing our responsibility off into the future. It is critically important that pressing humanitarian and development priorities will not be robbed to finance this important initiative. And I hope that we take greater advantage of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria than we have in the past so that we can leverage our dollars for maximum impact. But the bottom line is that this is a truly historic step, which is the only appropriate response to a historic crisis. We should celebrate this initiative. And then we should roll up our sleeves get to work on making it as effective as possible.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 36 cents per mile. At the time when government is asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship on charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. At a listening session I held last summer, one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that in 2001, 54 volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. The Department noted that their volunteer drivers provided 4,676 rides, and drove nearly 126,000 miles. They also delivered 9,385 home-delivered meals, and nearly two-thirds of the drivers logged more than 100 miles per month in providing these needed services. Together, volunteers donated over 5,200 hours last year, and as the Department notes, at the rate of minimum wage, that amounts to over $27,000, not including other benefits. As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 36 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence. This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill passed in 1999 that was vetoed by President Clinton. At the time of the 1999 measure, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. The offset provision would impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 on failure to report interest in foreign financial transactions. During the 107th Congress, that provision was included in the CARE Act legislation by the Senate Finance Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, the mileage reimbursement level currently permitted for businesses is 36 cents per mile. At the time when government is asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is posing a very real hardship on charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. At a listening session I held last summer, one organization, the Portage County Department on Aging, explained just how important volunteer drivers are to their ability to provide services to seniors in that county. The Department on Aging reported that in 2001, 54 volunteer drivers delivered meals to homes and transported people to medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. The Department noted that their volunteer drivers provided 4,676 rides, and drove nearly 126,000 miles. They also delivered 9,385 home-delivered meals, and nearly two-thirds of the drivers logged more than 100 miles per month in providing these needed services. Together, volunteers donated over 5,200 hours last year, and as the Department notes, at the rate of minimum wage, that amounts to over $27,000, not including other benefits. As many of my colleagues know, the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years. This has increased pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for lagging federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit, though, increasingly poses a barrier to obtaining those contributions. Portage County reports that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. The comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is currently 36 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees over double the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence. This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 107th Congress. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses. It is essentially the same provision passed by the Senate as part of a tax bill passed in 1999 that was vetoed by President Clinton. At the time of the 1999 measure, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimated that the mileage reimbursement provision would result in the loss of $1 million over the five-year fiscal period from 1999 to 2004. The revenue loss was so small that the JCT did not make the estimate on a year by year basis. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. The offset provision would impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 on failure to report interest in foreign financial transactions. During the 107th Congress, that provision was included in the CARE Act legislation by the Senate Finance Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to mourn the loss of a fellow Wisconsinite, a wife, mother, daughter, sister, and friend. This extraordinary woman, Laurel Clark of Racine, WI, was a physician, a Navy Commander, and an astronaut who was flying her first space mission aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. When that craft broke apart over the blue Texas sky on Saturday morning, we lost this incredible woman and her six crew mates. I extend my deepest sympathy to Dr. Clark's husband and son and to her family and friends. Dr. Clark, the oldest of four children, was born in Iowa and grew up in Racine, WI. She graduated from William Horlick High School in 1979 and went on to attend the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she studied zoology and was an active member of Gamma Phi Beta Sorority. She earned her undergraduate degree in 1983, and her medical degree, also from the University of Wisconsin, in 1987. Dr. Clark joined the U.S. Navy after medical school and became a diving doctor, participating a number of submarine missions. She was selected to train as an astronaut in 1996, and she and her husband relocated to Houston, TX, home of the Johnson Space Center. Dr. Clark's first shuttle mission was postponed several times, and after years of training and anticipation, she and her crewmates lifted off from Cape Canaveral on January 16 for a 16-day microgravity research mission. Aboard the Columbia, Dr. Clark was a mission specialist who conducted numerous medical experiments, often using herself as a test subject. An e-mail message that Dr. Clark sent to her brother from space noted that she enjoyed looking down on her home planet and seeing familiar sights such as Wind Point on Lake Michigan. Dr. Clark's professional journey took her from the depths of the Earth's oceans to the vast reaches of outer space. She truly reached for the stars and made incredible contributions to our country. Dr. Laurel Clark and her crewmates were tragically taken from us too soon, and we will always treasure her legacy of scientific exploration and discovery and her commitment to her family, friends, and country.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries. This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices. Last year, I introduced this same legislation, and with the help of a wide range of organizations and other Senators, we put this issue on the front and center in Congress. I am pleased that a number of Committees are looking at this issue and considering holding hearings in the coming weeks. With these hearings coming up, I want once again to bring this proposal to my colleagues attention. And as the Committee process works itself forward, I expect that we will discover additional issues to address that will strengthen the provisions in my legislation. But this legislation is where Congress should begin its efforts to promote competition, diversity, and localism in radio. I love radio. But, over the last year, I have learned that concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry has made it difficult for individuals, artists, and organizations to find outlets to express their creativity and promote diversity. Music and local news carried over the radio can help society to consider some of the most serious issues affecting our Nation: issues like war and peace, issues like social justice. If the already diminishing number of gatekeepers of radio content chooses not to air controversial music because it may turn off advertisers, one of the most universal mediums to engage in dialogue will be lost. Regardless of our point of view, we must retain the ability of radio to show the diverse range of voices that form our culture. I have heard many stories about the effects of this concentration. But perhaps the most compelling was at the annual Congressional Black Caucus event last year, when two people who have been involved in radio for decades told me about the real life importance of diversity in radio. They spoke about the importance of the locally-owned media that helped raise public awareness of the campaign of the late Harold Washington to become the first black mayor of Chicago. They said that the main avenue for many in the central city to hear about the campaign was through locally-owned radio stations. If an out-of-State corporation controlled the programming of these radio stations, would this political pioneer have received the same coverage? I have also heard a great deal from religious organizations about how consolidation harms their ability to reach out in their communities. They have said that we must get to the root of the problem by curbing anti-competitive practices that make it difficult for locally-owned, independent radio stations to prosper. I also learned about the story of Everett Parker, who during the civil rights movement of the 1960s was a pioneering defender of public interest in broadcasting. In Dr. Parker's most famous crusade, he and the United Church of Christ went to Jackson, MS, to challenge the license renewals of stations that were blocking coverage of the civil rights movement, even though African-Americans constituted almost half of the audience. By failing to cover the civil rights movement, the station failed all of the citizens of Jackson by limiting access to information on issues of public importance. So, joining with the local NAACP, the group went to the Federal Communications Commission and challenged the licenses of the Jackson stations. The case went all the way to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which took away the station's license. What makes this case so significant is that it established the right of any American to petition the Commission, instead of limiting such petitions to commercial interests. The radio airwaves continued to be owned by the public. Radio is a public medium. It must serve the public good. We must promote localism and diversity on our airwaves and crack down on anti-competitive practices that are a result of concentration in the radio and concert industry. We must address negative consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which opened the floodgates for consolidation and led to anti- consumer and anti-competitive practices. Just consider how the rise in ticket prices coincided with the passage of the Telecommunications Act. Following the passage of the Act, and the resulting consolidation of the radio and concert industry, ticket prices went through the roof! Before the passage of the 1996 Act, ticket prices were increasing at a rate slightly higher than the Consumer Price Index. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, ticket prices have increased at a rate almost 50 percentage points higher than the Consumer Price Index. From 1996 to 2001, concert ticket prices rose by more than 61 percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased by just 13 percent. During the debate of the 1996 Act, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, independent radio stations, and local communities. Passage of this Act was an unfortunate example of the influence of soft money in the political process. I have consistently said that this Act was bought and paid for by soft money, by unlimited contributions by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to the political parties. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers. That's why I am pleased to re-introduce this legislation, the Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which would reduce the levels of concentration and curb some of these anti-competitive practices. My legislation prohibits those who own radio stations and concert promotion services or venues from leveraging their cross-ownership to hinder competition in the industry. For example, if an owner of a radio station and a promotion service hinders access to the airwaves of a rival promoter or artist, then the owner would be subject to penalties. My legislation will also help to curb the concentration that leads to these anti-competitive practices. It would strengthen the FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to scrutinize the mergers of any radio station ownership group that reaches more than 60% of the nation. My legislation would also curb consolidation on the local level by preventing any upward revision of the limitation on multiple ownership of radio stations in local markets. The bill would also prohibit the current shakedown system, where the big radio corporations are said to leverage their market power to require payments from artists in exchange for playing their songs. And it would also close a loophole that allows large radio ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' through a third party. In these cases, they control the station through a third party, but the stations are not counted against their local ownership cap. Songs and ideas should not be broadcast on the radio based on how much money has changed hands. Airplay should be based on good songs and good ideas what the local audience wants to hear. My legislation would slow the levels of concentration and address a number of concerns that I have heard from artists and others, although it does not address all the issues facing our communities. Over the coming months, I hope that my colleagues will give this issue their attention, both on the floor and in committee. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that we can work together to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting independent radio stations, local concert promoters, and artists on a level playing field. People should have choices, listeners should have a diversity of options, and Americans should be able to hear new and different voices. Radio allows us to connect to our communities, to our culture, and to our democracy. It is one of the most vibrant mediums we have for the exchange of ideas, and for artistic expression. We must fight to preserve it, and together I believe we can do just that. Radio is a public medium, and we must ensure that it serves the public good. That's a democratic vision of American radio well worth fighting for.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries. This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices. Last year, I introduced this same legislation, and with the help of a wide range of organizations and other Senators, we put this issue on the front and center in Congress. I am pleased that a number of Committees are looking at this issue and considering holding hearings in the coming weeks. With these hearings coming up, I want once again to bring this proposal to my colleagues attention. And as the Committee process works itself forward, I expect that we will discover additional issues to address that will strengthen the provisions in my legislation. But this legislation is where Congress should begin its efforts to promote competition, diversity, and localism in radio. I love radio. But, over the last year, I have learned that concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry has made it difficult for individuals, artists, and organizations to find outlets to express their creativity and promote diversity. Music and local news carried over the radio can help society to consider some of the most serious issues affecting our Nation: issues like war and peace, issues like social justice. If the already diminishing number of gatekeepers of radio content chooses not to air controversial music because it may turn off advertisers, one of the most universal mediums to engage in dialogue will be lost. Regardless of our point of view, we must retain the ability of radio to show the diverse range of voices that form our culture. I have heard many stories about the effects of this concentration. But perhaps the most compelling was at the annual Congressional Black Caucus event last year, when two people who have been involved in radio for decades told me about the real life importance of diversity in radio. They spoke about the importance of the locally-owned media that helped raise public awareness of the campaign of the late Harold Washington to become the first black mayor of Chicago. They said that the main avenue for many in the central city to hear about the campaign was through locally-owned radio stations. If an out-of-State corporation controlled the programming of these radio stations, would this political pioneer have received the same coverage? I have also heard a great deal from religious organizations about how consolidation harms their ability to reach out in their communities. They have said that we must get to the root of the problem by curbing anti-competitive practices that make it difficult for locally-owned, independent radio stations to prosper. I also learned about the story of Everett Parker, who during the civil rights movement of the 1960s was a pioneering defender of public interest in broadcasting. In Dr. Parker's most famous crusade, he and the United Church of Christ went to Jackson, MS, to challenge the license renewals of stations that were blocking coverage of the civil rights movement, even though African-Americans constituted almost half of the audience. By failing to cover the civil rights movement, the station failed all of the citizens of Jackson by limiting access to information on issues of public importance. So, joining with the local NAACP, the group went to the Federal Communications Commission and challenged the licenses of the Jackson stations. The case went all the way to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which took away the station's license. What makes this case so significant is that it established the right of any American to petition the Commission, instead of limiting such petitions to commercial interests. The radio airwaves continued to be owned by the public. Radio is a public medium. It must serve the public good. We must promote localism and diversity on our airwaves and crack down on anti-competitive practices that are a result of concentration in the radio and concert industry. We must address negative consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which opened the floodgates for consolidation and led to anti- consumer and anti-competitive practices. Just consider how the rise in ticket prices coincided with the passage of the Telecommunications Act. Following the passage of the Act, and the resulting consolidation of the radio and concert industry, ticket prices went through the roof! Before the passage of the 1996 Act, ticket prices were increasing at a rate slightly higher than the Consumer Price Index. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, however, ticket prices have increased at a rate almost 50 percentage points higher than the Consumer Price Index. From 1996 to 2001, concert ticket prices rose by more than 61 percent, while the Consumer Price Index increased by just 13 percent. During the debate of the 1996 Act, I joined a number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, independent radio stations, and local communities. Passage of this Act was an unfortunate example of the influence of soft money in the political process. I have consistently said that this Act was bought and paid for by soft money, by unlimited contributions by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to the political parties. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers. That's why I am pleased to re-introduce this legislation, the Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act, which would reduce the levels of concentration and curb some of these anti-competitive practices. My legislation prohibits those who own radio stations and concert promotion services or venues from leveraging their cross-ownership to hinder competition in the industry. For example, if an owner of a radio station and a promotion service hinders access to the airwaves of a rival promoter or artist, then the owner would be subject to penalties. My legislation will also help to curb the concentration that leads to these anti-competitive practices. It would strengthen the FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to scrutinize the mergers of any radio station ownership group that reaches more than 60% of the nation. My legislation would also curb consolidation on the local level by preventing any upward revision of the limitation on multiple ownership of radio stations in local markets. The bill would also prohibit the current shakedown system, where the big radio corporations are said to leverage their market power to require payments from artists in exchange for playing their songs. And it would also close a loophole that allows large radio ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' through a third party. In these cases, they control the station through a third party, but the stations are not counted against their local ownership cap. Songs and ideas should not be broadcast on the radio based on how much money has changed hands. Airplay should be based on good songs and good ideas what the local audience wants to hear. My legislation would slow the levels of concentration and address a number of concerns that I have heard from artists and others, although it does not address all the issues facing our communities. Over the coming months, I hope that my colleagues will give this issue their attention, both on the floor and in committee. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that we can work together to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting independent radio stations, local concert promoters, and artists on a level playing field. People should have choices, listeners should have a diversity of options, and Americans should be able to hear new and different voices. Radio allows us to connect to our communities, to our culture, and to our democracy. It is one of the most vibrant mediums we have for the exchange of ideas, and for artistic expression. We must fight to preserve it, and together I believe we can do just that. Radio is a public medium, and we must ensure that it serves the public good. That's a democratic vision of American radio well worth fighting for.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding is that I am to be allotted 5 minutes in response to Senator Bond's comments on my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers for their fairness in light of the fact that we were going to have a minute on each side. I appreciate the understanding that I do want to respond to Senator Bond's remarks. Senator Bond apparently has not actually read what my amendment does with regard to the Indonesian military and the IMET Program. Obviously, there is a terrorism threat in Indonesia today, as Senator Bond indicated. That is one of the conditions this amendment is all about. It is about making sure that Indonesia cooperates with us in fighting terrorist attacks, such as the ones that were so awfully perpetrated on the people in Bali. What is even more troubling about Senator Bond's remarks is that he doesn't even mention the fact that apparently the Indonesian military was involved in an incident in Papua which killed American citizens. Are we only going to be upset when American citizens are killed in Yemen and Kuwait or are we going to respond and expect standards of help and behavior from countries when our citizens are killed in a place such as Indonesia? All this amendment does is try to make sure, as we continue our relationship with Indonesia--yes, a fledgling democracy--that we actually have accountability of that Indonesian military with which we would be involved. I am very troubled when we see the failure of cooperation with the FBI's reasonable request to deal with this awful murder of our citizens. We need a message to be sent clearly to the Indonesian Government, and in particular to the Indonesian military, that as the FBI returns to try to do this investigation again, we will get cooperation. The whole point here is not that we are trying to cut off military help and assistance; it is that there have to be two preconditions to make sure it is a legitimate enterprise in which to be involved. One is that the Indonesian Government and military has to help us in dealing with terrorism; secondly, they need to help us get to the bottom of this awful massacre that occurred. If Senators don't believe me, I refer them to the letter of Patricia Lynn Spier of Colorado, whose husband was brutally murdered in this incident. Ask her and the other families whether they think it is appropriate for the Indonesian military to investigate itself with regard to this incident or whether they should cooperate with the FBI. Despite the attempt to distort what this amendment is about, my amendment is simple. Until the President determines that Indonesia is committed to fighting terrorism and committed to cooperating and investigating the murder of American citizens, my amendment would deny Indonesia access to IMET, though it would--I emphasize this to the Senator from Missouri--permit access to expanded IMET courses that are relevant to military reforms. So, yes, we want to promote a good relationship with the military in Indonesia, if these preconditions are met. We are going to continue counter-terrorism training, expanded IMET sales of nonlethal defense articles, officer visits, educational exchanges, and port visits. We are not cutting off these items.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I have the floor, Mr. President. Let's be clear, because the Senator from Missouri did not mention this. Last August, two Americans were killed and eight were wounded in an ambush in West Papua, Indonesia. Indonesia's police investigated, and their report concluded that the Indonesian military was very likely responsible for the deaths of these Americans. When the investigation was turned over to the Indonesian military, it exonerated itself and it failed to fully cooperate not only with the Indonesian authorities but with our own FBI. Some may say this amendment cuts off ties to the Indonesian military when we need a strong coalition to fight terrorism. But nothing in my amendment will prohibit important national security programs, including counterterrorism training. Why would we hesitate? Why would we hesitate to condition one element--only one element--of our relationship with the Indonesian military on a demand that we simply get to the bottom of this incident? Real partners in the fight against terrorism do not murder American citizens and do not conspire to cover up such murders. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do I have?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I have had daily contact with a wide variety of individuals we are concerned with, including some the Senator mentioned. I have been involved in this issue of Indonesia and East Timor for 10 years, since I have been a Member of the Senate and a member of the Subcommittee on Asia. I think I have a right to speak on this as much as the Senator from Missouri. When it comes to the deaths of American citizens, they should be cooperating with the FBI.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I support the Wyden-Feinstein Amendment. This amendment would represent a critical first step towards addressing the concerns that so many of our citizens have about one specific data-mining system, the Total Information Awareness program in the Department of Defense. The amendment would require specific congressional authorization before the Total Information Awareness program could be deployed. Time after time at listening sessions I told throughout my home State of Wisconsin people have expressed serious concerns about the prospect of data mining. People want a government that can protect us, but not at the expense of our most cherished liberties. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure of data-mining is capable of maintaining and accessing extensive files containing both public and private Government records on each and every American. The Total Information Awareness program represents a dangerous step that threatens some of the very freedoms that we are fighting to preserve in the fight against terrorism. Through comprehensive data mining, as envisioned by the Information Awareness office at the Department of Defense, everything from people's video rentals or drugstore purchases made with a credit card to their most private health concerns could be fed into a computer and monitored by the Federal Government. It is important to emphasize that this amendment is only a first step. I will continue to fight for further congressional oversight and action on the important issue of data mining. The administration must suspend not only the Total Information Awareness program but all other data-mining initiatives in the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security until Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of aggressive data mining comes at too high a price for our privacy and personal liberties. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to address the importance of maintaining a commitment to affirmative action in college admissions programs. President Bush, unfortunately, took our nation a step backward when he announced last week that his administration would file an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court opposing the admissions policies of the University of Michigan. The President apparently believes that college admissions decisions should never consider the race of applicants, even though he also says that he supports the pursuit of campus diversity. In 1978, in University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that campus diversity can be a ``compelling governmental interest'' that justifies reasonable, narrowly tailored affirmative action programs at universities. The Supreme Court said that colleges and universities cannot use quotas to achieve campus diversity, but affirmed that campus diversity can be a worthy goal of college admissions policies. In December 2002, the Supreme Court, for the first time since its Bakke decision, agreed to review two cases that challenge a university's affirmative action programs--Grutter v. Bollinger, which involves the admissions program at the University of Michigan Law School, and Gratz v. Bollinger, which involves the undergraduate admissions program at the University of Michigan. Some, including President Bush, have criticized affirmative action programs in higher education, like those in place at the University of Michigan, as ``quota'' programs. They are simply wrong. These affirmative action programs do not set quotas or numerical targets for admitting a certain number of students of a particular race or ethnicity. In fact, the Bakke decision long ago prohibited colleges from employing a quota system. So, for President Bush to suggest that this is a question of whether to support a quota system is a mischaracterization of the issue before the Court. Some critics have also wrongly stated that affirmative action programs admit students primarily on the basis of race. According to the Washington Post, the President stated that the University of Michigan's admissions system selected students ``primarily on the basis of the color of their skin.'' But again, this is simply not an accurate description of the current law or of how students are admitted to the University of Michigan. Rather, in most affirmative action programs for college or graduate school admissions, race is simply one of numerous factors that can be considered by admissions officers to create a diverse student body. For example, under the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, the University considers the entire background of the applicant. Students are evaluated on a 150 point scale to determine their fitness for admission. The vast majority of these points--110 of 150 points--are awarded based on academic achievement. That means grades, test scores, and curriculum. The University also considers other factors like leadership, service, and life experiences. Only 20 points can possibly be awarded on the basis of race. A student who is socioeconomically disadvantaged can also earn 20 points but students cannot earn 20 points for both race and being socioeconomically disadvantaged. Thus, the University does not have a quota or numerical target for minority students, nor does the University admit students primarily on the basis of race. Like the University of Michigan, most colleges and universities generally give academic records--such as college grades and standardized test scores, the caliber of high school attended, and the rigor of the student's chosen curriculum--the greatest weight in determining whether a student gains admission. But other factors--such as extracurricular activities, race, athletic talent, geographic diversity, or whether students are related to alumni--are also frequently given consideration in the college admissions process. Many colleges give preferences to the children of alumni, and these preferences will often work to the disadvantage of people of color. So, race can be a factor but is not the sole factor in determining admission to college. I am especially disappointed in the Bush Administration's decision to oppose affirmative action programs because the President has said that he is committed to equal educational opportunities for all America's children. The President has said that education is one of his top priorities. Yet, he has now turned his back on many of the students he promised to help. By submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court favoring the abolition of affirmative action programs, the President sends the message that he opposes creating higher education opportunities for minority students, who do not always have the same educational opportunities at the secondary school levels as white students. I might add, that I believe Congress also has an important responsibility to ensure equal access to higher education. I strongly believe that Congress can do more to ensure that students meet the costs of today's college education. That is why Senator Collins and I have recently called for a doubling of Pell Grant funding by 2010. Pell grants are an important support for all low income students, regardless of race. In fact, if it were not for the Pell grant program, many low income students would not have the chance to attend college at all. The Pell grant, however, does not cover what it once did. The price of a college education at both public and private institutions has increased dramatically. Congress needs to increase the funding of the Pell grant program to keep up with the increasing costs of higher education. One of the greatest strengths of our nation is its pursuit of equal educational opportunities for all students. Our nation's colleges and universities are the envy of the world for their rigorous curricula and high-caliber professors, but also for their enriching experience of learning in an environment with students who represent a range of racial, ethnic, and social and economic backgrounds representing every part of America, if not the world. I am deeply disappointed that the President decided to put the government of the United States of America on the wrong side of the case where the Supreme Court will address this crucial issue. I hope that the Court will affirm the importance of campus diversity and uphold affirmative action admissions policies that allow colleges and universities to achieve this important diversity.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in the support of Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine's amendment to increase U.S. support for the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As a 10-year member of the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs--and over half of those years have been as either the ranking minority member or the chairman--I have seen the terrible unfolding of the pandemic. I have read and repeated the numbing statistics that grow more horrifying every year. In 2002 alone, 3.1 million people died of AIDS. Five million were infected with HIV over the course of the year, and 42 million people were living with the virus by the end of the year. Ten million children have been orphaned by AIDS, and that number is expected to quadruple in the next 10 years. And I have seen the reality of these statistics in individual faces; I have met with orphans, with the sick, with the dying, and with the mourning. And while most of my own experience with this disaster has been in the African context, this is not only an African problem. In India, China, Russia, and the countries of the Caribbean, the terrible statistics have begun their own march steadily upward as the pandemic is taking hold. The devastation is all the more appalling each year not just because the numbers grow, but because each year we have more tools at our disposal to fight this catastrophe. We know more about what works in terms of prevention and public awareness; we have improved treatment protocols and developed more effective methods for stopping the transmission of HIV from mother to child. But we still have not developed the will to scale up our activities and to use these tools on a grand scale. The world simply must do more. Whole communities are being gutted-- robbed of their core of productive adults. Whole societies--whole countries, even--are at risk. I urge my colleagues to consider the magnitude of the crisis, consider the human tragedy involved, consider the consequences of massive destabilization in the developing world, and to support this amendment. It is not going to solve the problem before us, but it is a step in the right direction, and we must take these steps at our every opportunity.

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Leahy, Wyden, Boxer, and Durbin be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a very simple amendment to this bill. This amendment restricts Indonesian participation in the International Military Education and Training program, or IMET, limiting that participation to Expanded-IMET only, until the President can determine that Indonesia is doing two things--demonstrating a commitment to assist U.S. efforts to combat terrorism and taking effective measures, including cooperating with the FBI, to bring to just those members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and militia groups against whom there is credible evidence of involvement in the August attack on American citizens. On August 31, 2002, two American schoolteachers and one Indonesian citizen who were working at an international school for the children of Freeport McMoRan's mine employees were killed, and eight more Americans were wounded when they were ambushed on a mountain road in Papua, Indonesia. Press reports indicate that Indonesian garrisons control all access to the remote road where the attack occurred. The attackers sprayed their targets with automatic weapons--weapons that would be rare to find in the hands of separatists in the area. Police reports indicated that the Indonesian military was very likely involved in the attack, but the investigation was then turned over to the military, which, not surprisingly, has proven unwilling to investigate itself, and unwilling to fully cooperate with the FBI. In November, the Washington Post reported that intelligence agencies had obtained information indicating that, prior to the ambush, senior Indonesian military officials discussed an operation targeting Freeport and intended to discredit Papuan separatists. The survivors of the attack, and the widows of the murdered, want their government to pressure the Indonesians to uncover the truth about the attack and to bring those responsible to justice. This Senate should support them. I want to be very clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not cut off military contacts with Indonesia. Rather, it explicitly states that nothing in the amendment shall prohibit important national security contacts and programs, including counter- terrorism training, sales on non-lethal defense articles, officer visits, port visits, participation in conferences, or educational exchanges. The amendment explicitly permits Indonesian civilians and military personnel to participate in the expanded-IMET program, which offers a wide range of courses highly relevant to the reform efforts so important to the future of the military in Indonesia's new democratic system. I believe that the United States should work with Indonesia to support such reforms, and should work within Indonesia and other states around the world in making the coalition against terrorism ever stronger. The October 12 terrorist attack in Bali made plain that international terrorism threatens Indonesia just as it threatens the rest of the world, and I am encouraged by the many positive steps that Indonesia has taken in the wake of that horrific event--steps to track down those responsible using solid law enforcement methods, and broader steps to acknowledge the reality of international terrorism's link to Indonesia. These efforts marked a welcome change from an initial reluctance in Jakarta to acknowledge the fact on the ground. More work remains ahead. The International Crisis Group recently published a powerful report on the Jamaah Islamiyah terrorist network, a group that is linked to dozens of attacks across Southeast Asia and that is believed by intelligence officials to be associated with al Qaeda. It is my hope that cooperation with Indonesia will continue to grow stronger. But I also believe that our relations with Indonesia and the Indonesian military cannot be characterized by a business-as-usual approach until they have made a commitment to cooperate in investigating the murder of American citizens. In late December, when American citizens were brutally murdered in Yemen, the White House spoke plainly, stating that ``it is our intention to bring to justice any and all people who were responsible for these murders.'' The White House was right to make that perfectly clear, and I take them at their word. And it is all the more important in the Indonesian case--where one of the institutions of the state may well be responsible for the murder of American citizens, where we find a long history abusive and extortionate military practices and an urgent need for military reform--it is all the more important, in this case, the U.S. make its intentions plain. We must be equally clear with the Indonesians, equally resolute in our commitment to get to the bottom of the murders in Papua. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort, and support this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will be allotted a moment to summarize prior to the vote on the amendment tomorrow.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the minority whip, what is the intention?