Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, has the other side yielded back their time?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, of which I am a cosponsor. I have long been concerned about the costs and benefits associated with the process by which the Federal Government contracts out work. In particular, I am concerned about the lack of data on whether these contracts actually achieve real savings for taxpayers, and about the effects of outsourcing on the pay and benefits of Federal workers. I do not oppose contracting out. Such a process is often appropriate. I am concerned, however, that the arbitrary quotas proposed by the Office of Management and Budget will encourage Federal agencies to circumvent the existing public-private competition process for contracting out work without regard for what is the best use of taxpayer dollars. Contracting out affects the jobs of thousands of dedicated Government employees each year. These men and women deserve the chance to compete for this work--and for their jobs--on a level playing field. The amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland would prohibit OMB from using numerical targets to privatize jobs currently filled by Federal employees. It would not prevent Federal agencies from contracting out. Instead, it would ensure that contracting decisions are based on what is best for American taxpayers, rather than on arbitrary quotas set by OMB. The language included in the Mikulski amendment was adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee last year as part of the fiscal year 2003 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. It was also adopted overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives by a vote of 261-166 during that body's consideration of the fiscal year 2003 Treasury- Postal appropriations bill. I remain concerned about the administration's push to contract out hundreds of thousands of Federal jobs with little regard for true public-private competition. Late last year, OMB released its proposed changes to the Circular A-76 process, that, if adopted, would result in the privatization of 850,000 Federal jobs nearly half of the Federal workforce. The proposed revisions would allow agencies to contract out jobs currently held by Federal employees without public-private competition. In addition, the proposal would force agencies to privatize work without competition if they fail to meet arbitrary deadlines for contracting out work. The proposal further undermines competition by rarely allowing Federal employees to compete for new work or work that is currently being done by contractors. It would also switch to a so-called ``best value'' system of competition, rather than continuing the current cost- based system that takes into account quality of work. OMB's proposal does nothing to improve the tracking of costs and benefits of contracted work or to ensure that there is oversight to determine whether the contractors are providing quality services or otherwise complying with the terms of their contracts. Further, once a contractor has been awarded a job, there is no mechanism to recompete the work at a later date to ensure that taxpayers are actually receiving the best work for the best price. I agree that the Federal contracting system needs reform. But to rush to outsource the positions of nearly half of the Federal workforce in an arbitrary manner, and without allowing these dedicated workers to compete to keep their jobs, is shortsighted. We should proceed cautiously to ensure that the contracting process is fair to Federal workers and that it actually results in a quality, cost-effective product for taxpayers. OMB's current plan for arbitrary quotas and little public-private competition will not achieve these goals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to underscore the importance of the issue that Senator Nelson has raised today. Some 38 million Africans are threatened with starvation in the coming months. In a six- country region encompassing Zambia and Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique, Swaziland and Lesotho, 25 percent of the population is urgently in need of assistance. This food crisis is striking a tremendously vulnerable population that has already been devastated by HIV/AIDS, compounding the difficulty of African families' struggle for survival. In the Horn of Africa, almost half of Eritrea's population is at risk, and Ethiopia stands on the brink of a crisis rivaling that of the mid-1980s. I have served on the Subcommittee on African Affairs since I came to the Senate, and spent over half of my tenure here as either the ranking minority member or chairman of that subcommittee. I have watched this crisis unfold over the past year with horror. The United States and the international community must act now to address this crisis; delay will mean death for too many innocent families. But we must also work in the months and years ahead to address some of the underlying causes of food insecurity in Africa, so that we can reduce communities' vulnerability to natural factors affecting harvests. Certainly we need to join with the many Africans who want to ensure that misguided policies and decisions are examined, discarded, and not repeated--from the tremendously destructive policies pursued by the Zimbabwean government, to corrupt practices affecting food stocks in Malawi, to the impact of the government's national service program on the agricultural sector in Eritrea. And certainly we need to ensure that assistance is distributed responsibly, fairly, and efficiently. But we also need to help African societies reinvigorate their agricultural sectors, by working to get small farmers the technical assistance, infrastructure, and opportunity that they need to succeed. In July of last year, I asked the GAO to examine some of the causes contributing to the southern African food crisis, and to evaluate the efficacy of our response, so that we can improve our performance and prevent crises in the future. Unfortunately, the World Food Program has warned that early indicators suggest drought may continue to plague the region in the year ahead. I am looking forward to the GAO's final report, and hope that it can point the way toward proactive steps that we can take to work with our African partners on this issue. As another step in this broader, long-term effort, this week I am introducing a resolution calling on USAID to give adequate attention to land tenure issues as the agency pursues efforts to bolster agricultural development and fight hunger, and I hope to work with my colleagues on other initiatives aimed at addressing underlying causes of chronic food insecurity in the months ahead. Too often, we think of Africa only as a troubled continent, full of flood and famine, war and deadly disease. But I have traveled widely on the continent, and I have met with energized and committed Africans from government officials to businessmen to community activists. There is no lack of good partners on the continent, and there is no absence of promise or potential. Our commitment to get serious about these issues now can lead to meaningful success, improving the lives of millions of Africans and bolstering food security in the region. These long-term initiatives deserve Congress's support, but we will be working with profoundly weakened partners in our every effort--be it counterterrorism initiatives or programs aimed at increasing trade and investment--if we do not address this immediate emergency. Senator Nelson is right to sound the alarm about this crisis now, while we have an opportunity to act and to help those people currently at risk. To help now is humane, it is right, and it is in our interest.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to support the National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003. I urge the House of Representatives to take prompt action to pass this critical legislation and for the President to support it. We have all heard the stories of parents who have found themselves trying to find a child who has been abducted, while fearing serious injury or even death. While local law enforcement officials work tirelessly to locate these children, the reality is that they are not always able to find a child in time without the help of the public. What has made the difference around the country in many communities is the Amber program, a system designed to get critical information to the general public that might lead to locating a child and his or her abductor before the worst can happen. The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 builds upon successful local programs and encourages other communities to develop Amber programs. The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 would enhance local programs by giving State and local communities help in apprehending an abductor who takes a child and then crosses State lines. In Wisconsin, there are three Amber programs in effect, in Madison, in La Crosse and in Green Bay. But, if a child is taken from Wisconsin and brought across State lines to another State, the local Amber programs have no uniform way to get critical information from one State to another. The National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 would allow communities the flexibility to develop Amber programs that are responsive to the needs of their areas and provide Federal assistance and coordination for local programs. The National Amber Alert Network Act would have the Department of Justice create a national coordinator to work on interstate issues, develop voluntary minimum standards for the issuance and dissemination of Amber alerts, and provide matching grants for the development and enhancement of local Amber alert plans. The cost of implementing the National Amber Alert Network Act of 2003 is small when we consider the price every parent and community must pay when children are not protected. I am hopeful the National Amber Alert Network Act will help local programs continue to reunite families and apprehend their abductors. (At the request of Mr. Leahy, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003. Like many Americans, I was surprised to learn during the last few months that the Department of Defense has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing a data- mining system called Total Information Awareness while permitting the progeny of Total Information Awareness to appear in places like the Department of Homeland Security. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance already underway by this Administration, this unchecked system is a dangerous step forward and threatens one of the values that we're fighting for, freedom. The Administration has a heavy burden of proof that such extreme measures are necessary. The Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003 would immediately suspend data-mining in the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security until Congress has conducted a thorough review of Total Information Awareness and the practice of data-mining. Without Congressional review and oversight, data-mining would allow the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and other government agencies to collect and analyze a combination of intelligence data and personal information like individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information collected on commercial or public databases. Through comprehensive data-mining, as envisioned with Total Information Awareness, 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. Using massive data mining, like Total Information Awareness, the government hopes to be able to detect potential terrorists. There is no evidence that data-mining will, in fact, prevent terrorism. And when one considers the potential for errors in data, for example, credit agencies that have data about John R. Smith on John D. Smith's credit report, the prospect of ensnaring many innocents is real. This approach might also lead to the same kinds of so-called ``preventive'' detentions that are unconstitutional and put more than 1,100 individuals in jail after September 11. Although none of these people were ever charged with orchestrating or aiding the attacks, they were often held for months on end, and went for weeks without access to counsel. There is every reason to be concerned that uncontrolled data- mining systems would lead to the same abuse of power. The Administration's assurances that a data-mining system will not abuse our privacy rights ring hollow, particularly to those of us who questioned the breathtaking new Federal powers in the USA PATRIOT Act. We heard these same assurances when the Administration pressed for enactment of that sweeping legislation in the months after September 11th, that the government would act with restraint to ensure that its application of the Act would not infringe on our liberties. The opposite has turned out to be true. In fact, some of the most serious infringements on our personal freedoms in the USA PATRIOT Act can now contribute to the data-mining effort. The USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to compel businesses to produce records about people who had only a remote contact with a person sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism, including sitting on an airplane with the suspect, or having used the same payphone as the suspect. Under the PATRIOT Act, any business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, financial records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the liberary. This information is exactly the kind of data that data-mining programs like Total Infomration Awareness will use when compiling its files on the American people. The danger of data-mining is compounded not only by provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, but also by the Administration's loosening of domestic surveillance restrictions for FBI agents last year, restrictions that were put in place following FBI abuses under J. Edgar Hoover. These various initiatives of the Administration are building on each other to give away more and more of our personal information, and give away more and more of our personal freedoms. It is reasonable to ask Americans to sacrifice some personal freedom like submitting to more extensive security screenings at airports. But should we allow the government to track our every move, from what items we purchase online, to our medical records, to our financial records, without limits and without accountability? I believe most Americans would say that that's a police state, not the America we know and love. We would catch more terroists in a police state. I don't doubt that. But that's not a country in which most Americans would want to live. Each time we have been told that government authorities would use restraint with its new powers, but Congress and the American people should not find comfort in these assurances, especially since they have been made by an Administration that has been operating in greater and greater secrecy. The Administration must suspend this massive data mining project until Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and personal liberties. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003. Like many Americans, I was surprised to learn during the last few months that the Department of Defense has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing a data- mining system called Total Information Awareness while permitting the progeny of Total Information Awareness to appear in places like the Department of Homeland Security. The untested and controversial intelligence procedure known as data-mining is capable of maintaining extensive files containing both public and private records on each and every American. Coupled with the expanded domestic surveillance already underway by this Administration, this unchecked system is a dangerous step forward and threatens one of the values that we're fighting for, freedom. The Administration has a heavy burden of proof that such extreme measures are necessary. The Data-Mining Moratorium Act of 2003 would immediately suspend data-mining in the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security until Congress has conducted a thorough review of Total Information Awareness and the practice of data-mining. Without Congressional review and oversight, data-mining would allow the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and other government agencies to collect and analyze a combination of intelligence data and personal information like individuals' traffic violations, credit card purchases, travel records, medical records, communications records, and virtually any information collected on commercial or public databases. Through comprehensive data-mining, as envisioned with Total Information Awareness, 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. Using massive data mining, like Total Information Awareness, the government hopes to be able to detect potential terrorists. There is no evidence that data-mining will, in fact, prevent terrorism. And when one considers the potential for errors in data, for example, credit agencies that have data about John R. Smith on John D. Smith's credit report, the prospect of ensnaring many innocents is real. This approach might also lead to the same kinds of so-called ``preventive'' detentions that are unconstitutional and put more than 1,100 individuals in jail after September 11. Although none of these people were ever charged with orchestrating or aiding the attacks, they were often held for months on end, and went for weeks without access to counsel. There is every reason to be concerned that uncontrolled data- mining systems would lead to the same abuse of power. The Administration's assurances that a data-mining system will not abuse our privacy rights ring hollow, particularly to those of us who questioned the breathtaking new Federal powers in the USA PATRIOT Act. We heard these same assurances when the Administration pressed for enactment of that sweeping legislation in the months after September 11th, that the government would act with restraint to ensure that its application of the Act would not infringe on our liberties. The opposite has turned out to be true. In fact, some of the most serious infringements on our personal freedoms in the USA PATRIOT Act can now contribute to the data-mining effort. The USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to compel businesses to produce records about people who had only a remote contact with a person sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism, including sitting on an airplane with the suspect, or having used the same payphone as the suspect. Under the PATRIOT Act, any business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, financial records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the liberary. This information is exactly the kind of data that data-mining programs like Total Infomration Awareness will use when compiling its files on the American people. The danger of data-mining is compounded not only by provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, but also by the Administration's loosening of domestic surveillance restrictions for FBI agents last year, restrictions that were put in place following FBI abuses under J. Edgar Hoover. These various initiatives of the Administration are building on each other to give away more and more of our personal information, and give away more and more of our personal freedoms. It is reasonable to ask Americans to sacrifice some personal freedom like submitting to more extensive security screenings at airports. But should we allow the government to track our every move, from what items we purchase online, to our medical records, to our financial records, without limits and without accountability? I believe most Americans would say that that's a police state, not the America we know and love. We would catch more terroists in a police state. I don't doubt that. But that's not a country in which most Americans would want to live. Each time we have been told that government authorities would use restraint with its new powers, but Congress and the American people should not find comfort in these assurances, especially since they have been made by an Administration that has been operating in greater and greater secrecy. The Administration must suspend this massive data mining project until Congress can determine whether the proposed benefits of this practice come at too high a price to our privacy and personal liberties. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to give my perspective on the recent decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to pardon four death row inmates and to commute the death sentences of 167 other death row inmates. His action effectively clears Illinois' death row, the eighth largest death row in the Nation. It is the broadest clemency of death row inmates ever granted by a Governor. I understand that there are some, particularly, State prosecutors and victims' families, who are unhappy with Governor Ryan's decision. I understand that victims' families who support capital punishment have, justifiably, very strong feelings. But these 167 inmates are not walking free. They won't be executed, but almost all of them will spend the rest of their lives behind bars without the possibility of parole. But it also means that if, in fact, it is shown in the near future they did not commit murder, they still have the chance to be set free. Many murderers do not receive the death penalty, even in Illinois. Indeed, the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment found that decisions to put these particular individuals on death row, while sparing others, were not made by a system that meets basic standards of fairness and justice. Fairness and justice, those are the principles that should guide our criminal justice system, especially the administration of the death penalty. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Governor Ryan's clemency decision, most Americans should be able to agree that the current system is broken. Even some State prosecutors in Illinois, who disagreed with Ryan's clemency decision, acknowledged that the people of Illinois must debate whether they want a death penalty at all, before debating what kinds of reforms the State should adopt. I think it is important to take a moment to review how Illinois reached this point because I think Congress and the Nation can learn a valuable lesson from Illinois' remarkable experience. Three years ago, Governor Ryan, a death penalty supporter, first made national headlines when he was the first Governor in the Nation to place a moratorium on executions. He did so after seeing irrefutable evidence that the system in Illinois risks executing the innocent. Since the death penalty was reinstated in Illinois in 1977, Illinois had executed 12 people. But, during this same time, another 13 death row inmates were found to be innocent and to have been wrongfully sentenced to death. I believe that Governor Ryan has showed uncommon courage. He acknowledged that the system is broken. But he did not stop there. He took steps to address the flaws in his State's death penalty system. First, he took the reasonable and necessary step of placing a moratorium on executions. He then created a blue ribbon commission, including former U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan, one of our former colleagues, Senator Paul Simon, and lawyer and novelist, Scott Turow. The Commission included both death penalty proponents and opponents. Governor Ryan instructed the Commission to review the State's death penalty system and to advise him on how to reduce the risk of executing the innocent and to ensure fairness in the system. After a 2-year long study, the Commission issued a comprehensive report and set forth 85 recommendations for reform of the Illinois death penalty system. These recommendations address difficult issues like inadequate defense counsel, executions of the mentally retarded, coerced confessions, and the problem of wrongful convictions based solely on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch or a single eyewitness. The Commission's work is the first, and, so far, only, comprehensive review of a death penalty system undertaken by a State or Federal Government in the modern death penalty era. When the Commission released its report last April, Governor Ryan again acted decisively. He supported its recommendations and urged the Illinois State legislature to implement the necessary reforms of the system. Unfortunately, the legislative session ended without the legislature passing even a single one of the Commission's 85 recommendations. Faced with the legislature's failure to act to fix the system and the fact that the fate of over 160 death row inmates remained in the balance, Governor Ryan took yet another bold, but reasonable step. He conducted clemency hearings and reviewed the records of each person on death row. He heard from victims' families, from prosecutors, from defense counsel, and from the families of death row inmates. After this careful and painstaking review, he pardoned four men whom he believed had compelling claims of innocence. Unable to conclude that the remaining sentences were not tainted by the problems with the system catalogued by the Commission, he decided to commute them to life in prison without parole. Governor Ryan's leadership on this issue is a model for the Nation, a legacy that I am convinced will live on long after he leaves office. He now joins Americans like former Supreme Court Justices Lewis Powell and Harry Blackmun, who supported capital punishment but later in their lives came to re-think their position on the issue. When the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as a form of cruel and unusual punishment in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, Justice Powell dissented from the majority position. He supported capital punishment. In fact, he later wrote the decision in McCleskey v. Kemp in 1987, which denied a challenge to the death penalty on the grounds that it was applied in a discriminatory manner against African Americans. In 1991, however, Justice Powell told his biographer that he had decided that capital punishment should be abolished. Late in his career on the Court, Justice Blackmun penned the following eloquent, frequently quoted dissent, in 1994: From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored--indeed, I have struggled--along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. Like Justice Powell, Justice Blackmun, and now Governor Ryan, it is my hope that other judges and public officials will take the time to reexamine the ultimate punishment our society imposes. Governor Ryan acted only after a lengthy study and a consideration of all the alternatives. In a civilized country committed to equal justice, I hope that other public officials, including my colleagues here in the Congress, can be strong enough to take the steps that Governor Ryan took to reconsider the flawed death penalty system in this country. Last week, the University of Maryland released a study showing significant racial and geographic disparities in the Maryland death penalty system. While this study is not a comprehensive review of the entire Maryland death penalty system, its disturbing findings should be reason enough to continue the moratorium on executions until the concerns raised by the study are addressed. More importantly, we know that the Illinois and Maryland experiences are not unique. With over 100 innocent people on death row across the Nation later exonerated in the modern death penalty era, some just days before they were scheduled to be executed, we know that the administration of the death penalty nationwide is seriously flawed. It is past time for Congress to meet its responsibility of ensuring fairness and justice in our criminal justice system, especially concerning the administration of the death penalty. Congress should place a moratorium on Federal executions and urge the States to do the same, while a National Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the death penalty systems at the Federal and State levels. I urge my colleagues to support my bill, S. 132, the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. Congress has an important responsibility to ensure that innocent people are not executed and that constitutional protections are respected in the administration of capital punishment across the country. Congress should not shirk this responsibility. It is time to take a timeout on executions and to conduct a thorough, top-to-bottom review of the death penalty, not only in Illinois or Maryland, but nationwide.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to a situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Last month, the parties to the bloody conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo signed an accord intended to end the country's 4-year civil war. But central Africans may not have much reason to celebrate yet, because unless this step is accompanied by meaningful new initiatives, the agreement promises little change from the insecurity and repression that have killed millions of their countrymen and dominated their lives throughout the conflict. As the outgoing chairman and incoming ranking Democratic member of the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have monitored events in the Congo in recent years, and I must share some of this skepticism. The international community has been eager to certify a withdrawal of foreign forces so that it could move the Congo file out of the international crisis bin and into the overstuffed stack of civil collapses. Consequently, the world has demanded very little of the signatories to this new accord. Meanwhile, the demands of the Congolese people appear to have not been taken into account at all. The agreement provides for Joseph Kabila, who was installed as President in Kinshasa after his father's assassination, to remain in the Presidency, and establishes four Vice-Presidential positions to accommodate his own party, the two major armed rebel groups, and the unarmed political opposition. But neither the President nor this bevy of Vice-Presidents can boast of any real political legitimacy, and thus far plans to ensure an eventual democratic transition have a feeble, wishful quality that suggests no one takes them terribly seriously. Intercommunal tensions in Eastern Congo continue to simmer violently in the context of atrocious governance, but this is treated as an extraneous and inconvenient detail. Violence continues to rage in the Ituri region, displacing tens of thousands, it is clear, killing many civilians caught in a brutal struggle for power between factions uninterested in any aspect of governance save the accumulation of power and riches. Evidence that virtually all parties now ensconced in an internationally sanctioned government have participated in rapacious exploitation of Congo's natural resources merited ambitious reports from a U.N. commission, but the United States appears to have largely ignored the commission's recommendations. Mr. President, I want to stress how important the commission's work truly is, in exposing the motives of the actors involved and revealing the extent to which the country's resources and future have been sold out to the highest bidder, leaving little for rebuilding the Congolese state and providing for the needs of the Congolese people. The commission's work should continue, and the U.S. should work with our partners in the international community to make its recommendations reality. But I want to underscore an important fact. Our failure to hold actors within Congo and within the Governments of Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe accountable for looting the country is a lesser crime than our failure to address the killing, rape, and deprivation that these forces inflicted on the Congolese. Despite the fanfare accompanying recent agreements, no one has meaningfully addressed the need to hold those responsible accountable for the horrific human rights abuses that have characterized this conflict. In fact, the international community has countenanced the slaughter of innocents with impunity throughout the region for years, and appears to have even lost its taste for making the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, established in the wake of the 1994 genocide, an effective and impartial body. To consider the history of the Congo is to confront an appalling litany of exploitation and manipulation--first orchestrated by Belgium's rapacious King Leopold, then by the American-backed kleptocrat, Mobutu Sese Seko. The Congolese people deserve finally to have a voice in decisions about their political leadership and some degree of control over their own destiny. But I fear that they are about to get more of the same--more harassment of civil society and the free press, more underdevelopment, and more thuggery disguised as authority. The hundreds of millions of dollars that the U.S. is devoting to peacekeeping in the Congo must be accompanied by real political leadership that underscores the need for accountability, improved governance, grassroots participation, and focused reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts. Without that leadership, the American people will have simply made a costly investment in continued injustice. The current approach is not merely morally reprehensible and fiscally irresponsible, it is also dangerous. In hearings I convened earlier this year, I tried to draw out the links between unstable and lawless swathes of Africa and international criminal networks--including terrorist networks. Experts have warned about the potential for terrorists to acquire uranium from central African sources. A free-for- all of corruption and instability is appealing to money-launderers, arms and mineral traffickers, and others who would prefer to keep their activities in the shadows. The spillover effects of sustained chaos in Congo are simply too serious to be ignored. The U.S. needs a coherent, long-term policy aimed at building stability and strengthening institutions.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this month our Nation will celebrate what would have been Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 74th birthday. It is right and fitting that on the third Monday of every January since 1986, Americans have paused from their work, school, or other activities to honor Dr. King and his legacy. Dr. King gave hope to millions of Americans and was a catalyst for the greatest advancement in civil rights our Nation has experienced since the end of the Civil War. Because of great Americans such as Dr. King, separate but equal is no longer the law of the land. Because of the progress we have made in the last 50 years, segregation in public schools has been unlawful. African Americans have the right to vote. Americans cannot be fired or denied a job based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, or age. Our Nation has made great strides to protect freedom and equality for all Americans as a result of Dr. King's leadership. But almost 40 years after Dr. King delivered his historic ``I Have a Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and nearly 35 years after Dr. King was tragically gunned down at a hotel in Memphis, TN, our Nation still has a long way to go to finish his work. As we begin the 108th Congress, I want to take this moment to urge both my colleagues and the President to make civil rights a priority. Earlier this week, the Senate welcomed a new majority leader, Senator Bill Frist. But the discussions leading up to that should be the beginning, not the end, of a national discussion about the unfinished work of securing civil rights for every American. Congress and the President can demonstrate their support for freedom and justice by supporting civil rights initiatives that have been ignored for far too long. And they should begin this month, as the new Congress convenes and as the Nation celebrates Dr. King's birthday. Perhaps no issue on this agenda is more urgent than the issue of racial profiling. Racial profiling is the insidious practice by which some law enforcement agents routinely stop African Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Arab Americans, and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin. Reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups are sometimes being stopped by some police far in excess--far in excess--of their share of the population and the rate at which they engage in criminal conduct. Just this week, the Boston Globe ran a series of news articles about its analysis of traffic stop data in Massachusetts and came to the same troubling conclusion we have seen in places such as New Jersey and Maryland. Racial profiling still exists and is a very real problem. It hasn't gone away or ended. In fact, the Massachusetts experience only underscores the need for a national law on this issue of racial profiling. And the time to act is now. I might add that the urgency for banning racial profiling is compounded by concerns post-September 11 that racial profiling--not good police work and following up on legitimate leads--is being used more frequently against Arabs, Muslims, or Americans who are perceived to be Arabs or Muslims. President Bush pledged to end racial profiling nearly 2 years ago during this first address to a joint session of Congress. Attorney General John Ashcroft also has acknowledged the damage caused by racial profiling and, he too, called for an end to the practice. So it is time for this administration to move this effort forward. In the last Congress, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress sponsored the End Racial Profiling Act. Representative John Conyers, the distinguished ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and I, intend to reintroduce our bill early in this Congress. Our bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies to take steps to prevent the practice. This bill should be one of the top agenda items in this Congress, and the administration should follow through on its promise to address this issue. September 11 cannot be an excuse for continued delay in dealing with the problem of racial profiling. This is a problem and a challenge that our country can and must meet. We need improved intelligence and we need improved law enforcement, not racial stereotypes, to protect our Nation from future terrorist attacks. Indeed, I believe that the End Racial Profiling Act is a pro-law enforcement bill. It will help to restore the trust and confidence of the communities our police and law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to success in stopping crime, and, yes, in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act is good for law enforcement and good for America. As Dr. King often implored his fellow activists, it is not time to wait. It is not time to ``slow up'' or ``cool off.'' He said, ``[W]e can't afford to stop now because our Nation has a date with destiny. We must keep moving.'' Mr. President, it is time to act. Yes, we have many pressing priorities this Congress. And I certainly think that first and foremost is combating terrorism and addressing our Nation's weak economy. But we cannot ignore a fundamental responsibility of this Congress: to fight for freedom, justice, and equality for all Americans. In addition to passing the End Racial Profiling Act, Congress and the President should also address a range of civil rights-related issues this Congress--from education, to welfare, to health care, to improving our criminal justice system. We should ensure that every child has access to a quality public education. I voted against the education bill in the last Congress, because I do not believe that it will bring us closer to that goal. I am particularly concerned about the annual testing mandate included in this law. Study after study shows that disadvantaged students lag behind their peers on standardized tests. If we are to truly leave no child behind, we should give local school districts the resources they need to provide the basic educational services and programs to which each child is entitled. If we fail to provide these resources, we run the risk of setting disadvantaged children up for failure on these tests--failure which could damage the self-esteem of some of our most vulnerable students. Congress should also do more to ensure that federally funded programs comply with civil rights and other laws. In particular, we must improve the Federal welfare law to require that each State's program treats all applicants and clients fairly. While Congress rightly encouraged State- level innovation with the 1996 welfare law, we should use the pending reauthorization of that law as an opportunity to ensure that all State plans conform to uniform Federal fair treatment and due process protections for all applicants and clients. Congress should ensure that all Americans get a fair wage for an honest day's work. Too often, parents work double shifts or more than one job for low wages in order to make ends meet and to provide the basic necessities for their families. We must at last increase the Federal minimum wage. And we must work to close the wage gap between women and men. Congress should also take action to ensure fairness and justice in the administration of the death penalty. We know that the administration of the death penalty at the Federal and State levels is flawed. With over 100 innocent people on death row later exonerated in the modern death penalty era, any reasonable person can see that the current system risks executing the innocent. Just this week, the University of Maryland released a study finding enormous racial and geographic disparities in the Maryland death penalty system. African-American defendants accused of killing white victims are significantly more likely to face the death penalty than cases with nonwhite victims. Prosecutors in Baltimore County are significantly more likely to file initially for a death sentence than other Maryland jurisdictions. I think Governor Glendening did the right thing when he placed a moratorium on executions last year, and I urge Governor Ehrlich to continue that moratorium while he and other Maryland officials analyze this study's disturbing findings. It would be contrary to our Nation's fundamental principles of justice and fairness to execute anyone in Maryland until the disparities identified by this study have been addressed. Of course, Maryland is not the only State with troubling racial and geographic disparities in its death penalty system. Similar concerns have been raised about the Federal system, as well as the administration of the death penalty in other States. That is why Congress should pass the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. Congress and the President should support a moratorium on executions while a national, blue ribbon commission reviews the fairness of the administration of the death penalty. This is a civil rights issue. We simply cannot say we live in a country that offers equal justice to all Americans when racial disparities plague the system by which society imposes the ultimate punishment. Congress must also do more to protect hardworking Americans from discrimination in the workplace. We should pass the Employment Non- Discrimination Act. I have been pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in sponsoring this important bill that will ensure that Americans are not discriminated against by employers based on their sexual orientation. The world has changed. It is time that we take this step on behalf of equal opportunity and equal rights. Congress should also take another step to realize Dr. King's dream of a nation where all Americans have the right to vote and to be represented in their Congress. We meet today in a jurisdiction where over half-a-million people are denied the right to fully participate in their government. The majority of the people in this jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, are African American. Shutting them out of our Government is a continuing moral stain on our Nation that must be addressed. We should take action on legislation sponsored by Senator Lieberman and myself, under D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's leadership, to grant full congressional representation for the District of Columbia. Finally, the President should demonstrate his commitment to justice for all Americans by nominating judges to the Federal bench whose records demonstrate that they will uphold our Nation's civil rights laws and give fair and impartial treatment to all who come before them. The President's renomination this week of Charles Pickering, Sr. to a position on the Fifth Circuit is a step backward. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I reviewed his record closely last year and came to the conclusion that Mr. Pickering would not be fit for a position on the Fifth Circuit. I am not convinced that he will give all who come before him a fair hearing, especially on issues of racial justice. Soothing words or a change of leadership alone cannot heal the divisions that remain in our Nation. Congress and the Administration must take concrete steps to protect Americans' civil rights, not just give them lip service. As Dr. King said, ``This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.'' There is much more work to do to fulfill Dr. King's dream that all of America's children would someday live in a country ``where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'' Let's begin that work in this Congress, in this body, during this month when the nation celebrates Dr. King's birthday. There is no time to waste. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended; that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes and that Senator Levin be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane Conservation Act of 2003. I am very pleased that the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th Congress, which was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee but unfortunately did not receive floor action before the Congress adjourned. I have incorporated many of the changes made to my bill by the Environment Committee last year, and I hope that, by doing so, this bill can be swiftly reported and passed. In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008. In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds from funds carried over by the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my bill to make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or its effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should expend resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway. This flock of birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2003.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this week, the University of Maryland released the findings of its landmark 2-year study on Maryland's death penalty system. The report reveals disturbing racial and geographic disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. It confirms the alarming conclusion that the administration of our criminal justice system's ultimate punishment is flawed and far from fair or just. That is why I rise today to reintroduce the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. This bill seeks to apply the wisdom of out-going Maryland Governor Parris Glendening and out-going Illinois Governor George Ryan to the Federal Government and all States that authorize the use of capital punishment. The bill would place a moratorium on Federal executions and urge States to do the same. The bill would also create a National Commission on the Death Penalty to review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the State and Federal levels. This Commission would be an independent, blue ribbon panel of distinguished prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurists and others. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Levin, Corzine, and Durbin, have joined me in cosponsoring this bill. The University of Maryland study was conducted by Professor Raymond Paternoster of the University's Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology, and is the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Professor Paternoster and other researchers examined records of every homicide prosecution in which the death penalty could have been sought, dating back to 1978. The study released this week found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill whites. The study also confirms geographic disparity in Maryland's death penalty system. Those convicted of murder in Baltimore County, a jurisdiction with a high number of white murder victims, are 26 times as likely to be sentenced to death as those convicted in Baltimore City, and 14 times as likely as those convicted in Montgomery County. Two years ago, when Governor Glendening learned of these suspected disparities, he did not look the other way. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, he acknowledged that it was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions. That was the right thing to do. I urge Governor-elect Ehrlich to do the right thing by extending the moratorium. It would be contrary to our Nation's founding principles of fairness and justice to execute anyone in Maryland before the questions raised by the study are addressed. The year 2002 was a landmark year for the examination of the death penalty. Last year the 102nd person was exonerated from death row in the modern death penalty era; 102 innocent people have been exonerated, in some cases just days from execution, after being found innocent of crimes for which they served sometimes years on death row. That is not a small number. In the modern death penalty era, our Nation has executed 820 people. That means that according to our best estimates, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, for every 8 people executed, one who had been convicted and sentenced to death has been found innocent. That is an unacceptable high error rate in the administration of a punishment for which errors caught too late cannot be fixed. That's a rate of error with which none of us should be comfortable. We should learn from the example set by Governor Glendening and by Governor Ryan. Their voices are two of the many that have chimed in over recent years to express doubt about the fairness of our Nation's system of capital punishment. As evidence of the flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and court rooms and podiums across the nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them. In 2002, Governor Ryan's Commission on Capital Punishment issued its report, which concluded with 85 recommendations for reforming the death penalty system. In June 2002, I held a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on the report of the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. We were fortunate to have Governor Ryan and other members of the Commission testify about the many flaws in the Illinois death penalty system and their recommendations for reform. The Illinois study and report are invaluable to the study of fairness in our justice system. Governor Ryan's Commission provides a model for the nation for how we can respond to the indisputable proof of errors in our justice system. I am confident that as Governor Ryan leaves office next week, his greatest legacy to our nation will be the courage he showed three years ago when he suspended executions and acknowledged that the death penalty system in Illinois was broken. If we are prepared to admit, as Illinois and Maryland have, that there are flaws in the death penalty system, then it is unconscionable to allow executions to continue without a thorough, nationwide review. The problems in the Illinois and Maryland systems are not unique to their states. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases have involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans. There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country. In 2002, we saw progress here in Congress in addressing problems plaguing the death penalty. The Innocence Protection Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague and ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, was favorably reported from the Judiciary Committee in July. This legislation takes an important step by recognizing the need for access to modern DNA testing and certain minimum standards of competency for defense counsel in capital cases. I commend Senator Leahy and the bipartisan effort of my colleagues who helped move this important bill and I hope we will finish the job and enact it into law this year. But I also urge them and the rest of the Senate to recognize that if we are prepared to admit that we need these reforms, a time-out is also needed to ensure that we do not execute a single innocent person. The stakes are too high and the consequences are far too devastating to allow executions to proceed. Also in 2002, in a significant turning point for our Nation, the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled unconstitutional the execution of the mentally retarded in Atkins versus Virginia. The Court's decision further confirms that our Nation's standards of decency concerning the ultimate punishment are indeed evolving and maturing. While last year's events are steps toward fairness and indications of progress, they also serve as shocking reminders that our system is seriously flawed. The statistics reflecting unfairness and stories of innocent people wrongly convicted are clear and disturbing to all Americans who believe in the founding principles of our Nation, liberty and justice for all. When examined collectively, these facts paint a devastating picture that needs to be examined in much greater detail. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. The courts in this country have already made, by our best, conservative estimates, 102 very grave mistakes. One hundred and two mistakes in the death penalty system qualifies as a crisis. And a crisis calls for immediate action. The time for a moratorium is now. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crane Conservation Act of 2003. I am very pleased that the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th Congress, which was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee but unfortunately did not receive floor action before the Congress adjourned. I have incorporated many of the changes made to my bill by the Environment Committee last year, and I hope that, by doing so, this bill can be swiftly reported and passed. In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with ten of the world's fifteen species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $3 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2008. In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $15 million in authorized spending over five years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset by rescinding $18 million in unspent funds from funds carried over by the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program in the Fiscal Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. I do not intend my bill to make any particular judgments about the Clean Coal program or its effectiveness, but I do think, in general, that programs should expend resources that we appropriate in a timely fashion. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without conservation efforts. The decline of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth, perfectly illustrates the dangers faced by these birds. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the almost 400 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway. This flock of birds illustrates that any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. Despite the conservation efforts taken since 1941, this symbol of conservation is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop-in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This small investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2003.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this week, the University of Maryland released the findings of its landmark 2-year study on Maryland's death penalty system. The report reveals disturbing racial and geographic disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. It confirms the alarming conclusion that the administration of our criminal justice system's ultimate punishment is flawed and far from fair or just. That is why I rise today to reintroduce the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. This bill seeks to apply the wisdom of out-going Maryland Governor Parris Glendening and out-going Illinois Governor George Ryan to the Federal Government and all States that authorize the use of capital punishment. The bill would place a moratorium on Federal executions and urge States to do the same. The bill would also create a National Commission on the Death Penalty to review the fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the State and Federal levels. This Commission would be an independent, blue ribbon panel of distinguished prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurists and others. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Levin, Corzine, and Durbin, have joined me in cosponsoring this bill. The University of Maryland study was conducted by Professor Raymond Paternoster of the University's Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology, and is the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Professor Paternoster and other researchers examined records of every homicide prosecution in which the death penalty could have been sought, dating back to 1978. The study released this week found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill whites. The study also confirms geographic disparity in Maryland's death penalty system. Those convicted of murder in Baltimore County, a jurisdiction with a high number of white murder victims, are 26 times as likely to be sentenced to death as those convicted in Baltimore City, and 14 times as likely as those convicted in Montgomery County. Two years ago, when Governor Glendening learned of these suspected disparities, he did not look the other way. Then last year, faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, he acknowledged that it was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions. That was the right thing to do. I urge Governor-elect Ehrlich to do the right thing by extending the moratorium. It would be contrary to our Nation's founding principles of fairness and justice to execute anyone in Maryland before the questions raised by the study are addressed. The year 2002 was a landmark year for the examination of the death penalty. Last year the 102nd person was exonerated from death row in the modern death penalty era; 102 innocent people have been exonerated, in some cases just days from execution, after being found innocent of crimes for which they served sometimes years on death row. That is not a small number. In the modern death penalty era, our Nation has executed 820 people. That means that according to our best estimates, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, for every 8 people executed, one who had been convicted and sentenced to death has been found innocent. That is an unacceptable high error rate in the administration of a punishment for which errors caught too late cannot be fixed. That's a rate of error with which none of us should be comfortable. We should learn from the example set by Governor Glendening and by Governor Ryan. Their voices are two of the many that have chimed in over recent years to express doubt about the fairness of our Nation's system of capital punishment. As evidence of the flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and court rooms and podiums across the nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them. In 2002, Governor Ryan's Commission on Capital Punishment issued its report, which concluded with 85 recommendations for reforming the death penalty system. In June 2002, I held a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on the report of the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. We were fortunate to have Governor Ryan and other members of the Commission testify about the many flaws in the Illinois death penalty system and their recommendations for reform. The Illinois study and report are invaluable to the study of fairness in our justice system. Governor Ryan's Commission provides a model for the nation for how we can respond to the indisputable proof of errors in our justice system. I am confident that as Governor Ryan leaves office next week, his greatest legacy to our nation will be the courage he showed three years ago when he suspended executions and acknowledged that the death penalty system in Illinois was broken. If we are prepared to admit, as Illinois and Maryland have, that there are flaws in the death penalty system, then it is unconscionable to allow executions to continue without a thorough, nationwide review. The problems in the Illinois and Maryland systems are not unique to their states. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases have involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans. There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country. In 2002, we saw progress here in Congress in addressing problems plaguing the death penalty. The Innocence Protection Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague and ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, was favorably reported from the Judiciary Committee in July. This legislation takes an important step by recognizing the need for access to modern DNA testing and certain minimum standards of competency for defense counsel in capital cases. I commend Senator Leahy and the bipartisan effort of my colleagues who helped move this important bill and I hope we will finish the job and enact it into law this year. But I also urge them and the rest of the Senate to recognize that if we are prepared to admit that we need these reforms, a time-out is also needed to ensure that we do not execute a single innocent person. The stakes are too high and the consequences are far too devastating to allow executions to proceed. Also in 2002, in a significant turning point for our Nation, the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled unconstitutional the execution of the mentally retarded in Atkins versus Virginia. The Court's decision further confirms that our Nation's standards of decency concerning the ultimate punishment are indeed evolving and maturing. While last year's events are steps toward fairness and indications of progress, they also serve as shocking reminders that our system is seriously flawed. The statistics reflecting unfairness and stories of innocent people wrongly convicted are clear and disturbing to all Americans who believe in the founding principles of our Nation, liberty and justice for all. When examined collectively, these facts paint a devastating picture that needs to be examined in much greater detail. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act. The courts in this country have already made, by our best, conservative estimates, 102 very grave mistakes. One hundred and two mistakes in the death penalty system qualifies as a crisis. And a crisis calls for immediate action. The time for a moratorium is now. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues from Maine to introduce legislation to restore fairness to the Medicare program. This package of legislation will reduce regional inequalities in Medicare spending and support providers of high-quality, low-cost Medicare services. The high cost of health care in Wisconsin is skyrocketing: A survey issued a few days ago found that the cost of health care benefits for employees in this State rose 14.8 percent this year, to an average of $6,940 per employee. That's 20 percent high than the national average of $5,758 for workers in businesses with 500 or more employees. These costs are hitting our State hard, they are burdening businesses and employees, hurting health care providers, and preventing seniors from getting full access to the care that they deserve. One of the major contributing factors to the high cost in our state is the inherent unfairness of the Medicare Program. With the guidance and support of people across our State who are fighting for Medicare fairness. I have proposed this legislation to address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors, employers and health care providers. The Medicare program should encourage the kind of high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services that we have in Wisconsin. But as many in Wisconsin know, that's not the case. To give an idea of how inequitable the distribution of Medicare dollars is, imagine identical twins over the age of 65. Both twins worked at the same company all their lives, at the same salary, and paid the same amount to the Federal Government in payroll taxes, the tax that goes into the Medicare Trust Fund. But if one twin retired to New Orleans, Louisiana, and the other retired to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, they would have vastly different health options under the Medicare system. The twin in Louisiana would get much more. For example, in most parts of Louisiana, the first twin would have more options under Medicare. The high Medicare payments in those areas allow Medicare beneficiaries to choose between an HMO or traditional fee-for-service plan, and, because area health care providers are reimbursed at such a high rate, those providers can afford to offer seniors a broad range of health care services. The twin in Eau Claire does not have the same access to care, there are no options to choose from in terms of Medicare HMOs, and sometimes fewer health care agencies that can afford to provide care under the traditional fee-for- service plan. How can two people with identical backgrounds, who paid the same amount in payroll taxes, have such different options under Medicare? They can because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are lower than those received in many other states. My legislation will take us a step in the right direction by reducing the inequities in Medicare payments to Wisconsin's hospitals, physicians, and skilled nursing facilities. Last year, with the introduction my Medicare fairness legislation along with the efforts of many other Senators, we put Medicare fairness issues front and center in Congress. The Senate Budget Committee approved my amendment to promote Medicare fairness in any Medicare reform package. A wide range of Senators from both parties endorsed my proposal to create a Medicare fairness coalition. The House passed a number of Medicare fairness provisions that were a result of these successes, and both House and Senate leadership endorsed Medicare fairness issues. Now that we have finally brought these issues the attention that they deserve, we need to build on that momentum to pass Medicare fairness provisions into law. My legislation demands Medicare fairness for Wisconsin and other affected States, plain and simple. Medicare shouldn't penalize high- quality providers of Medicare services, most of all. Medicare should stop penalizing seniors who depend on the program for their health care. They have worked had and paid into the program all their lives, and in return they deserve full access to the wide range of benefits that Medicare has to offer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward. I believe that we can re-balance the budget, while at the same time encouraging efficient, quality enhancing services, and that's what my legislation sets out to do.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care. High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need. The cost of health care in Wisconsin is skyrocketing: A recent survey found that the cost of health benefits for employees in Wisconsin rose 14.8 percent this year, to an average of $6,940 per employee. That's 20 percent higher than the national average of $5,758 for workers in businesses with 500 or more employees. We must curb these rapidly-increasing health care premiums. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care. By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are more than 90 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 7,000 employers and approximately 34 million employees Nationwide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 170 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their 110,000 employees and dependents. This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality. This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance. My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better attack the essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees. For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers. By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pool are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization. We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the Quality Cheese Act of 2003. This legislation will protect the consumer, save taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who have taken a beating in the marketplace in recent years. When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural Wisconsin cheese. But the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, may change current law, and consumers won't know whether cheese is really all natural or not. If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying ``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate. If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, imitation milk proteins known as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra filtered milk could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other part of the U.S. I am deeply concerned by recent efforts to change America's natural cheese standard. This effort to allow milk protein concentrate and casein into natural cheese products flies in the face of logic and could create a loophole that could allow unlimited amounts of substandard imported milk proteins to enter U.S. cheese vats. My legislation would close this loophole and ensure that consumers could be confident that they were buying natural cheese when they saw the natural label. Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese consumption has risen at a steady rate. Recent proposals to change to our natural cheese standards, however, could decrease consumption of natural cheese. These declines could result from concerns about the origin of casein and milk protein concentrate. The addition of this kind of milk could significantly tarnish the wholesome reputation of natural cheese in the eyes of the consumer. This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is simply not fair to America's farmers! Consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into cheese, we are denying consumers the entire picture. This legislation will require that labels paint the entire picture for the consumer, and allow them enough information to select cheese made from truly natural ingredients. Allowing MPCs or dry ultra-filtered milk into natural cheeses would also harm dairy producers throughout the United States. Some estimate that the annual effect of the change on the dairy farm sector of the economy could be more than $100 million. The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these ingredients, these heavily-subsidized products would displace natural domestic dairy ingredients. These unnatural domestic dairy products would enter our domestic cheese market and might further depress dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices result in increased costs to the dairy price support program. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers would receive lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer would pay more for the dairy price support program. This change does not benefit the dairy farmer, consumer or taxpayer. Who then is it good for? It would benefit only unscrupulous foreign MPC producers out to make a fast buck at the expense of Americans. This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk from being included in America's natural cheese standard. Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to stack the deck against America's dairy farmers. And we must pass my legislation that prevents a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, taxpayer, and dairy farmer.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price for fluid milk increases depending on the distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin. The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets. This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk. This one change is so crucial to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creating artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices have led to excess production. The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down. The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995 some regions of the U.S., notably the Central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin. The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in Federal orders are manifest in the Congressional Budget Office estimate that eliminating the orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concludes, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses show that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions. While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs. That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is not the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the Nation in milk production. The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the market place, but because the system discriminates against it. Today, Wisconsin loses dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly. In an free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this out dated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce a measure that will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the Nation. When dairy farmers across the country voted on a referendum four years ago, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing cooperatives cast their votes for them. This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular vote. It may serve the interest of time, but not always in the interest of their producer owner-members. I do think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some circumstances, but I have serious concerns about its use in every circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other states tell me that they do not agree with their Cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote count. After speaking to farmers and officials at USDA, I have learned that if a Cooperative bloc votes, individual members simply have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. Coops and their members do not always have identical interests. We shouldn't ask farmers to ignore that fact. The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2003 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot if one or two or ten or all of the members chose to vote on their own. This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Coops could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their right to vote individually. And to the extent that coops represent farmers interest, farmers are likely to vote along with the coops, but whether they join the coops or not, farmers deserve the right to vote according to their own views. I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal Tax Code percentage depletion allowances for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I am pleased that the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, is joining me as an original cosponsor. President Clinton proposed the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance on public lands in his FY 2001 budget. President Clinton's FY 2001 budget estimated that, under this legislation, income to the Federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $487 million over 5 years and $1.20 billion over 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would save $410 million over 5 years and $823 million over 10 years. These savings are calculated as the excess amount of Federal revenues above what would be collected if depletion allowances were limited to sunk costs in capital investments. Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These allowances have a combined value, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion. These percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, these allowances were initiated nearly one hundred years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since. Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the Tax Code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. Percentage depletion also makes it possible, however, to recover many times the amount of the original investment. There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion, and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment, the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve, over the period during which the reserve produces income. Using cost depletion, a company would deduct a portion of its original capital investment minus any previous deductions, in an amount that is equal to the fraction of the remaining recoverable reserves. Under this method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment. Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue--from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed, let me be clear on that point, exceed the capital that the company invested. The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent. In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for minerals mined on public lands, my bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million dollars, would be deposited into an interest bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 557,650 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide and the cost of clearing them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion. There are currently no comprehensive Federal or State programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources. In today's budget climate we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, yet these subsidies remain persistent tax expenditures that raise the deficit for all citizens or shift a greater tax burden to other taxpayers to compensate for the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry. The measure I am introducing is fairly straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. Though at one time, there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. The time has come for the Federal Government to get out of the business of subsidizing one business over another. We can no longer afford its costs in dollars or its cost to the health of our citizens. This legislation is one step toward the goal of ending these corporate welfare subsidies. I ask unanimous consent the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to help first responders do what they do so well, protect our communities in an emergency. The Department of Homeland Security will create a massive shift in the Federal Government. Nobody will feel the impact of this shift more than the brave men and women who work in law enforcement, as firefighters, as rescue workers, as emergency medical service providers, and in capacities as first responders. We must make sure that these first responders have the resources that they need. While I commend the Administration for raising the funding dedicated to first responders in the President's budget, I am concerned that new layers of bureaucracy and reorganization could reduce these funding levels, or just as harmful, put up barriers to first responders actually receiving these funds. The Federal agencies in the proposed Department of Homeland Security must listen to the priorities of our communities. After all, the needs of first responders vary between regions, as well as between rural and urban communities. In Wisconsin, I have heard needs ranging from training to equipment to more emergency personnel in the field, just to name a few. My legislation would promote effective coordination among Federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and ensure that our first responders, our firefighters, law enforcement, rescue, and EMS providers, can help Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland Security to improve existing programs and future initiatives. It would first establish a Federal Liaison on Homeland Security in each state and coordinate between the Department of Homeland Security and state and local first responders. This office would serve not only as an avenue to exchange ideas, but also as a resource to ensure that the funding and programs are effective. For example, my hope is that the Homeland Security Department will make programs such as the Fire Act a high priority. The Fire Act provides grants directly to fire departments across our nation for training and equipment needs. I recently visited one excellent example of this program in West Allis, Wisconsin, where the Department received a grant in 2001 to implement a wellness and fitness program for their firefighters. I am told that it is one of the first departments in the State to meet the goals of this program, and I commend the department for its efforts. My legislation would also direct the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and prioritize their activities that support first responders, and at the same time, ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars. As part of this coordination, the First Responders Support Act establishes a new advisory committee of those in the first responder community to identify and streamline effective programs. Last year, both the original Senate and House homeland security bills lacked the provisions needed to ensure that the new Department of Homeland Security communicates and coordinates effectively with first responders. During the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up of the Homeland Security bill, the Committee added our First Responders Support Act to the legislation. They did so knowing that we would have to reconcile the overlap between our legislation and the language in the Chairman's mark creating an office for state and local government coordination. Our amendment, which was approved by the full Senate, did just that. Unfortunately, our proposal was dropped from the final bill during backroom negotiations. Because of this omission, I promised to make enacting this legislation one of our top priorities this Congress. That's why we are re-introducing this legislation today. We must be aggressive in seeking the advice of our first responders, and helping them get the resources that they need to provide effective services. They are on the front lines, and deserve our strong support. In almost any disaster, the local first responders and health care providers play an indispensable role. If the Department of Homeland Security is to be effective, we need to ensure that the resources are delivered to the front line personnel in an effective and coordinated manner. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal and support our first responders.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that would terminate the operation of the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency communications system, Project ELF, which is located in Clam Lake, WI, and Republic, MI. I would like to thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for cosponsoring this bill. Project ELF is a Cold War relic that was designed to send short one- way messages to ballistic and attack submarines that are submerged in deep waters. The bill that I am introducing today would terminate operations at Project ELF, while maintaining the infrastructure in Wisconsin and Michigan in the event that a resumption in operations becomes necessary. Project ELF is ineffective and unnecessary in the post-Cold War era. This antiquated system does not facilitate the rapid mobilization that our military says it needs to respond to current threats from weapons of mass destruction. The horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, emphasized the need for rapid, reliable two-way communications. Since ELF cannot transmit detailed messages, it serves as an expensive ``beeper'' system to tell submarines to come to the surface to receive messages from other sources, and the subs cannot send a return message to ELF in the event of an emergency. It takes ELF four minutes to send a three-letter message to a deeply submerged submarine. With the end of the Cold War, Project ELF becomes harder and harder to justify. Our submarines no longer need to take that extra precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They can also receive more complicated messages through very low frequency, VLF, radio waves or lengthier messages through satellite systems. Taxpayers should not be asked to continue to pay for what amounts to a beeper system that tells our submarines to come to the surface to receive orders from another, more sophisticated source. Further, continued operation of this facility is opposed by most residents in my state. The members of the Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for years to close down Project ELF. I have introduced legislation during each Congress since taking office in 1993 to terminate it, and I have recommended it for closure to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Project ELF has had a turbulent history. Since the idea for ELF was first proposed in 1958, the project has been changed or canceled several times. Residents of Wisconsin have opposed ELF since its inception, but for years we were told that the national security considerations of the Cold War outweighed our concerns about this installation in our State. Ironically, this system became fully operational in 1989, the same year the tide of democracy began to sweep across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Now, fourteen years later, the hammer and sickle has fallen and the Russian submarine fleet is in disarray. But Project ELF still remains as a constant, expensive reminder to the people of my State that many at the Department of Defense remain focused on the past. There also continue to be a number of public health and environmental concerns associated with Project ELF. For almost two decades, we have received inconclusive data on this project's effects on Wisconsin and Michigan residents. In 1984, a U.S. District Court ordered that ELF be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to the system's possible health effects and violated the National Environmental Policy Act. Interestingly, that decision was overturned because U.S. national security, at the time, prevailed over public health and environmental concerns. Numerous medical studies point to a possible link between exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and a variety of human health effects and abnormalities in both animal and plant species. In 1999, after six years of research, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences released a report that did not prove conclusively a link between electromagnetic fields and cancer, but the report did not disprove it, either. Serious questions remain, and many of my constituents are rightly concerned about this issue. In addition, I have heard from a number of dairy farmers who are convinced that the stray voltage associated with ELF transmitters has demonstrably reduced milk production. As we continue our efforts to return to a sustainable balanced federal budget, and as the Department of Defense continues to struggle to address readiness and other concerns, it is clear that outdated programs such as Project ELF should be closed down. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that would put an end to automatic cost-of-living adjustments for Congressional pay. As my Colleagues are aware, it is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, amendment, and a vote on the record. Regrettably, current law permits Members to avoid such an open procedure. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that nothing be done to stop it. Unless Congress affirmatively acts, the annual pay raise takes effect. This stealth pay raise technique began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. In section 704 of that Act, Members of Congress voted to make themselves entitled to an annual raise equal to half a percentage point less than the employment cost index, one measure of inflation. On occasion, Congress has voted to deny itself the raise. Traditionally, this has been done on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. But that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. In one instance, the Treasury- Postal bill was slipped into the conference report on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and thus completely shielded from amendment. And during 2002, the Senate did not consider the Treasury- Postal bill at all. This makes getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise a haphazard affair at best. And it should not be that way. No one should have to force a debate and public vote on the pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end. The question of how and whether Members of Congress can raise their own pay was one that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. Almost 214 years ago, on September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States. Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three-fourths of the States. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution now states: `No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.'' I try to honor that limitation in my own practices. In my own case, throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th Amendment. The stealth pay raises like the one that Congress allowed last year, at a minimum, certainly violate the spirit of that amendment. This practice must end. To address it, I am reintroducing this bill to end the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for Congressional pay. Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up-or-down to raise Congressional pay. My bill would simply require us to vote in the open. We owe our constituents no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.