Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a measure aimed at curbing wasteful spending. In the face of our return to Federal deficits, we must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer be sustained with limited Federal dollars, or where a more cost- effective means of fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The measure that I introduce today eliminates or modifies three Federal programs: it establishes a means test for large agribusinesses receiving subsidized water from the Bureau of Reclamation, it terminates the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS, a medical school run by the Department of Defense, and it ends the future production of submarine launched D5 missiles, commonly known as the Trident II missiles. Eliminating or reforming these three programs would save the taxpayers in excess of $8 billion over ten years. The irrigation means test provision is drawn from legislation that I that have sponsored in previous Congresses to reduce the amount of Federal irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. I believe that reforming Federal water pricing policy by reducing subsidies is important as a means to achieve our broader objectives of achieving a truly balanced budget. This legislation is also needed to curb fundamental abuses of reclamation law that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars every year. In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage development of family farms throughout the western United States. The idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and give small farms, those no larger than 160 acres, a chance, with a helping hand from the Federal Government, to establish themselves. According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage of the Reclamation Act, the Federal Government has spent $21.8 billion to construct 133 water projects in the west which provide water for irrigation. Agribusinesses, and other project beneficiaries, are required under the law to repay to the Federal Government their allocated share of the costs of constructing these projects. As a result of the subsidized financing provided by the Federal Government, however, some of the beneficiaries of Federal water projects repay considerably less than their full share of these costs. According to the 1996 GAO report, agribusinesses generally receive the largest amount of Federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of the irrigation program in 1902, construction costs associated with irrigation have been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in reviewing the Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9 billion, or 78 percent, of the $21.8 billion of Federal investment in water projects is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable costs, the largest share, $7.1 billion, is allocated to irrigation interests. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will likely shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by agribusinesses to other users of the water projects for repayment. There are several reasons why large agribusinesses continue to receive such significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally- subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the Reclamation law to close loopholes through which Federal subsidies were flowing to large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that Reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of their 960 acre entitlement. Despite the express mandate of Congress, regulations promulgated under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have failed to keep big agricultural water users from receiving Federal subsidies. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage well exceed the 960 acre limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single management agreement often through a combination of leasing and ownership. The Department of the Interior has acknowledged that these trusts do exist. Interior published a final rulemaking in 1998 to require farm operators who provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of trusts and legal entities to submit RRA forms to the district(s) where such land is located. Water districts are now required to provide specific information about farm operators to Interior annually. This information is an important step toward enforcing the legislation that I am reintroducing today. My legislation combines various elements of proposals introduced by other members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation and to impose a $500,000 means-test. This new approach limits the amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in excess of the 960 acre limit which claimed $500,000 or more in gross income, as reported on its most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000 threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would be used to determine how much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre operation earned $1 million dollars, a ratio of $500,000, the means-test value, divided by its gross income would determine the full cost rate. Thus the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their acreage and the below-cost rate on the remaining half. This means-testing proposal was featured in the 2000 Green Scissors report. This report is compiled annually by Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental, consumer and taxpayer groups. The premise of the report is that there are a number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce the deficit and benefit the environment. The Green Scissors recommendation on means-testing water subsidies indicates that if a test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest grossing 10 percent of farms, then the Federal Government would recover between $440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2 billion over five years. When countless Federal programs are subjected to various types of means-tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive. Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard- earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate interests in select regions of the country, particularly in tight budgetary times. The second element of my bill will help our Armed Services obtain physician services at a more reasonable cost by terminating the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS. The measure is one I proposed when I ran for the U.S. Senate, and was part of a larger, 82-point plan to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The most recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, project that terminating the school would save $273 million over the next five years, and when completely phased-out, would generate $450 million in savings over five years. USUHS was created in 1972 to meet an expected shortage of military medical personnel. Today, however, USUHS accounts for only a small fraction of the military's new physicians, less than 12 percent in 1994, according to CBO. This contrasts dramatically with the military's scholarship program, which provided over 80 percent of the military's new physicians in that year. What is even more troubling is that USUHS is also the single most costly source of new physicians for the military. CBO reports that based on figures from 1995, each USUHS trained physician costs the military $615,000. By comparison, the scholarship program cost about $125,000 per doctor, with other sources providing new physicians at a cost of $60,000. As CBO has noted, even adjusting for the lengthier service commitment required of USUHS trained physicians, the cost of training them is still higher than that of training physicians from other sources, an assessment shared by the Pentagon itself. Indeed, CBO's estimate of the savings generated by this measure also includes the cost of obtaining physicians from other sources. The House of Representatives has voted to terminate this program on several occasions, joining others, ranging from the Grace Commission to the CBO, in raising the question of whether this medical school, which graduated its first class in 1980, should be closed because it is so much more costly than alternative sources of physicians for the military. The real issue we must address is whether USUHS is essential to the needs of today's military structure, or if we can do without this costly program. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite the higher retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained from other sources as a justification for continuation of this program, but while a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain in the military longer than those from other sources, the Pentagon indicates that the alternative sources already provide an appropriate mix of retention rates. Testimony by the Department of Defense before the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel noted that the military's scholarship program meets the retention needs of the services. And while USUHS provides only a small fraction of the military's new physicians, relying primarily on these other sources has not compromised the ability of military physicians to meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to the Office of Management and Budget, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert Storm, only 103, about 5 percent, were USUHS trained. USUHS has some dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize that there are legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in defense of this institution. The problem, however, is that the Federal Government cannot afford to continue every program that provides some useful function, especially when such services can be procured elsewhere. The final provision of my legislation terminates another wasteful defense program, the continued production of new Trident II submarine- launched ballistic missiles. Trident submarines, and the deadly submarine-launched ballistic missiles they carry, were designed specifically to attack targets inside the Soviet Union from waters off the continental United States. Let me say at the outset that this provision would in no way prevent the Navy from maintaining the current arsenal of Trident II missiles. Nor would it affect those Trident II missiles that are currently in production. The Navy currently has ten Trident II submarines, each of which carries 24 Trident II, D5, missiles. Each of these missiles contains eight independently targetable nuclear warheads, for a total of 192 warheads per submarine. Each warhead packs between 300 to 450 kilotons of explosive power. By way of comparison, the first atomic bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima generated 15 kilotons of force. Let's do the math for just one fully-equipped Trident II submarine. Each warhead can generate up to 450 kilotons of force. Each missile has eight warheads, and each submarine has 24 missiles. That equals 86.4 megatons of force per submarine. That means that each Trident II submarine carries the power to deliver devastation which is the equivalent of 5,760 Hiroshimas. And that is just one fully equipped submarine. As I noted earlier, the Navy currently has ten such submarines. Through fiscal year 2003, the Navy will have been authorized to purchase 408 Trident II missiles for these submarines. Even taking into account the 86 Trident II missiles that have been expended in testing through calendar year 2002, the Navy will still have 322 missiles in stock once those authorized to be purchased during FY2003 are completed. The Navy needs 240 missiles to fully equip ten Trident II submarines with 24 missiles each. That leaves 82 ``extra'' missiles in the Navy's inventory. And the Navy still plans to buy at least 132 more missiles over the next two years, for a total purchase of 540 missiles. My bill would terminate production of these missiles after the currently authorized 408, saving taxpayers $6.6 billion over the next ten years. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the recent resumption of nuclear activities by North Korea, serve as chilling reminders that there is still a potential threat from rogue states, and from independent operators such as al-Qaeda, who seek to acquire ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. I also recognize that our submarine fleet and our arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons still have an important role to play in warding off these threats. Their role, however, has diminished dramatically from what it was at the height of the Cold War. Our missile procurement decisions should reflect that change and should reflect the realities of the post-Cold War world. Our current ballistic missile capability is far superior to that of any other county on the globe. And the capability of the Russian military, the very force which these missiles were designed to counter, is seriously degraded. We should not be buying more Trident II missiles at a time when the governments of the United States and Russia have signed the Moscow Treaty, which calls for deep reductions in our nuclear forces. To spend scarce resources on building more missiles now is short-sighted and could seriously undermine our efforts to negotiate further arms reductions with Russia. In conclusion, the time has come to rethink our Federal budget priorities, and to redirect needed funds appropriately. Eliminating or reforming these three programs will go a long way to doing just that, and I urge Congress to act swiftly to save money for the taxpayers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, to introduce legislation to extend budgetary enforcement and to maintain fiscal accountability and responsibility. this bill would ensure that the budget rules that govern the congressional budget process do not expire on April 15 of this year. On October 16 of last year, Senator Gregg and I joined with Senators Conrad and Domenici to offer an amendment to extend the budget process. The Senate agreed to our amendment, Senate amendment No. 4886 to S. Res. 304, but with a modification that limited the extension to April 15. Thus the Senate must act before April 15 on legislation like that which Senator Gregg and I propose today, or we will risk allowing the Congress to legislate in an environment nearly completely unconstrained by budget discipline. The last 2 years have seen an unfortunate deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs-- balancing the Nation's fiscal books. In January of 2001, the Congressional budget Office projected that in the fiscal year that ended a few months ago on September 30, 2002, fiscal year 2002, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of $313 billion. In the actual event, however, the Government ran a unified budget deficit of $159 billion. That's a dramatic swing of $472 billion--the disappearance of nearly half a trillion dollars--for that one year alone. And without counting Social Security, the Government ran a deficit of fully $318 billion in fiscal year 2002. Last year, the Government used $160 billion of income received by the Social Security trust fund to fund other Government programs. For the 4 years before this past year, the Government ran unified budget surpluses. The Government demonstrated that it can exercise fiscal restraint, if it chooses to. But now, CBO projects that under current policies, unified budget deficits will continue until 2006. And without counting Social Security, CBO projects that deficits will continue until 2011, when the hypothetical sunset of the tax cut brings us back to surplus again, just barely. And using more realistic assumptions of not sunsetting tax cuts just enacted and letting appropriations keep pace with inflation, CBO estimated last month in response to a request from Senator Voinovich and me that deficits will continue at least until 2009. We must stop running deficits because they cause the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. And we must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits. When the Government in this generation chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. And that is not right. That is why I am joining today with my colleague from New Hampshire to introduce this bill to extend the budget process. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. Our bill would extend the budget process for 5 years, to October 1, 2007. Specifically, it would extend the requirement that entitlement and tax legislation be paid for, or trigger automatic cuts--called ``sequesters''--in entitlement programs if they are not. We would provide that these automatic cuts would not take place when the Government is running a surplus. Similarly, our bill would extend the pay-as-you-go rule in Senate procedures, as well, maintaining 60-vote points of order that enforce the pay-as-you-go rule. As we did in our amendment at the close of the last Congress, our bill would prevent savings achieved in reconciliation legislation from being used to offset new spending or tax cuts in other legislation. And to ensure that there is no loophole for entitlements enacted in appropriations measures, our bill would provide that entitlement expansions and tax cuts added to appropriations bills would be subjected to the pay-as-you-go rule, as well. Our bill would extend other Congressional Budget Act enforcement mechanisms, as well. All the provisions of the Congressional Budget Act that now require 60 votes to waive would remain in effect in the Senate through October 1, 2007. Finally, our bill would call for appropriations caps. It would state the sense of the Senate that Congress and the President should negotiate and agree on the appropriate discretionary spending levels and extend the statutory discretionary spending caps for 2003 and beyond as early as possible in a manner consistent with fiscal discipline and accountability. That is what our bill would do. It is a straightforward bill. it is the least that we should do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound budgeting. We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We must continue the discipline of the budget process. Together with my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, I will work to those ends. I urge my colleagues to join us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section- by-section analysis of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I regret that I am unable to support the Department of Homeland Security bill. While this reorganization may make sense, it should not have come at the expense of unnecessarily undermining our privacy rights or weakening protections against unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans. We need to be better able to review and identify critical information, take more rapid steps to address terrorist threats and, when necessary, share information quickly with local law enforcement. I had hoped that the proposed creation of a new Department of Homeland Security would have focused on those priorities. Protecting the American people is the number one responsibility of our government. As a result of the tragic events of September 11, we all recognized that a major review of our government was needed. As we have debated the need for, and the details of, the new Department of Homeland Security, I have been guided by two principles: Will this reorganization make all of us safer? And will it preserve our liberties as Americans? Unfortunately, while there is much that is good in this bill, there are a number of critical areas where the bill simply goes too far, or falls short. After careful review, I must conclude that this bill is not well thought out. The American people would benefit from the Congress paying closer attention to the details of this new version of the bill. This proposal threatens to erode the fundamental civil liberties and privacy of all Americans. It does not ensure that the new Department will be able to effectively communicate and share information with agencies like the FBI. It is weighed down with special interest provisions that have nothing to do with the creation of the new department. It does not give our first responders all of the tools and information necessary to protect our communities. It lacks adequate civil rights oversight, and it needlessly undermines the employment rights of the dedicated workers in this new Department who will be protecting all Americans. At times, the proposal reads like a dusted off copy of an earlier administration wish list, much of which has nothing to do with our fight against terrorism. We need not unnecessarily sacrifice treasured civil liberties and privacy in order to be secure. I fear that the bill we are voting on today will authorize the federal government to maintain extensive files on each and every American without limitations. The data mining provisions in the bill encourage retired Rear Admiral John Poindexter's massive government effort to create a computer file on the private life of every American. The Total Information Awareness system now under development needs active congressional oversight, particularly in these early days of the program. Rather than giving further authorization to this kind of effort in this bill, we should be demanding that the administration immediately suspend the Total Information Awareness initiative until Congress has conducted a thorough review and refrain from implementing this program in the new Department. In addition, the present proposal, in a section about cyber-security, actually creates a sense of insecurity for all of us. The Federal Government would have the right to obtain the contents of our private computers without adequate judicial oversight. This bill weakens important safeguards on government access to our e-mails and information about what we do on the Internet without the need for a court order. The Department should be focused on protecting us from our enemies, not on snooping on innocent activity. While the bill does make some progress toward enhancing communication among many agencies that are charged with protecting Americans, it falls short in ensuring that the essential work of agencies like the FBI will be adequately shared with and utilized by the new department. Overall, the proposal fails to enable the new department to be a full participant in the intelligence community. While our public safety must be our highest priority, we should not turn a blind eye to the bottom line. And we should not aggravate our budget problems by adding expensive special interest provisions that have nothing to do with this new department. Special interest provisions in the bill would cap liability for drug companies for vaccine additives, give the Secretary of the new department broad authority to designate certain technologies as so- called ``qualified anti-terrorism technologies,'' thus entitling the seller of that technology to broad liability protection no matter how negligent the seller, and apparently earmark the university-based homeland security research center for Texas A&M. All of us know that local law enforcement, fire fighters, and other first responders are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security needs to ensure that Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, fire fighters, and other first responders are able to work together to adapt and respond to the evolving challenges of terrorism. Unfortunately, the new department is not organized in a manner that provides the maximum possible help to those on our front lines. A Department of Homeland Security must ensure that it provides our local first responders with the necessary information, tools, and resources that are required to adapt and respond to the evolving challenges facing our First Responders. I am disappointed that my bill, the First Responder Support Act, introduced with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is not part of the present proposal. It had been included in the Lieberman bill, but was stripped out of the bill last week without any warning by the House leadership. The First Responder Support Act will help first responders get the information and training they need from the Department of Homeland Security, and that measure will be a top priority for me in the next Congress. I am also concerned with the proposal's disdain for the public's right to open government. The bill would undermine the protections of the Freedom of Information Act and exempt the proposed department's advisory committees from the open meetings requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Current law already provides adequate protection for sensitive information. The broad language of this bill is far too sweeping. Finally, I believe that while this bill includes some civil rights oversight, it offers weaker protections than are found in other federal agencies. Steps should have been taken to strengthen the Civil Rights Office in the new department by requiring that the head of that office be subject to confirmation by the Senate and therefore accountable to the Congress and the American people. The bill should have designated an official in the office of the Inspector General to fully investigate allegations of civil rights violations. This bill also should have included stronger protections for the Americans who will be working in this new Department and protecting our Nation. Congress owes these Americans the same employment rights that other public servants enjoy. We must not forget that we are having this debate because of what happened on September 11. We need to learn from September 11 and ensure that we do not fall victim to a similar tragedy in the future. I believe that we could have given the American people a Department of Homeland Security that would ensure their safety and security, and protect their civil liberties. Unfortunately, this bill has too many provisions that unnecessarily jeopardize our basic freedoms, and I cannot support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I regret that I am unable to support the Department of Homeland Security bill. While this reorganization may make sense, it should not have come at the expense of unnecessarily undermining our privacy rights or weakening protections against unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans. We need to be better able to review and identify critical information, take more rapid steps to address terrorist threats and, when necessary, share information quickly with local law enforcement. I had hoped that the proposed creation of a new Department of Homeland Security would have focused on those priorities. Protecting the American people is the number one responsibility of our government. As a result of the tragic events of September 11, we all recognized that a major review of our government was needed. As we have debated the need for, and the details of, the new Department of Homeland Security, I have been guided by two principles: Will this reorganization make all of us safer? And will it preserve our liberties as Americans? Unfortunately, while there is much that is good in this bill, there are a number of critical areas where the bill simply goes too far, or falls short. After careful review, I must conclude that this bill is not well thought out. The American people would benefit from the Congress paying closer attention to the details of this new version of the bill. This proposal threatens to erode the fundamental civil liberties and privacy of all Americans. It does not ensure that the new Department will be able to effectively communicate and share information with agencies like the FBI. It is weighed down with special interest provisions that have nothing to do with the creation of the new department. It does not give our first responders all of the tools and information necessary to protect our communities. It lacks adequate civil rights oversight, and it needlessly undermines the employment rights of the dedicated workers in this new Department who will be protecting all Americans. At times, the proposal reads like a dusted off copy of an earlier administration wish list, much of which has nothing to do with our fight against terrorism. We need not unnecessarily sacrifice treasured civil liberties and privacy in order to be secure. I fear that the bill we are voting on today will authorize the federal government to maintain extensive files on each and every American without limitations. The data mining provisions in the bill encourage retired Rear Admiral John Poindexter's massive government effort to create a computer file on the private life of every American. The Total Information Awareness system now under development needs active congressional oversight, particularly in these early days of the program. Rather than giving further authorization to this kind of effort in this bill, we should be demanding that the administration immediately suspend the Total Information Awareness initiative until Congress has conducted a thorough review and refrain from implementing this program in the new Department. In addition, the present proposal, in a section about cyber-security, actually creates a sense of insecurity for all of us. The Federal Government would have the right to obtain the contents of our private computers without adequate judicial oversight. This bill weakens important safeguards on government access to our e-mails and information about what we do on the Internet without the need for a court order. The Department should be focused on protecting us from our enemies, not on snooping on innocent activity. While the bill does make some progress toward enhancing communication among many agencies that are charged with protecting Americans, it falls short in ensuring that the essential work of agencies like the FBI will be adequately shared with and utilized by the new department. Overall, the proposal fails to enable the new department to be a full participant in the intelligence community. While our public safety must be our highest priority, we should not turn a blind eye to the bottom line. And we should not aggravate our budget problems by adding expensive special interest provisions that have nothing to do with this new department. Special interest provisions in the bill would cap liability for drug companies for vaccine additives, give the Secretary of the new department broad authority to designate certain technologies as so- called ``qualified anti-terrorism technologies,'' thus entitling the seller of that technology to broad liability protection no matter how negligent the seller, and apparently earmark the university-based homeland security research center for Texas A&M. All of us know that local law enforcement, fire fighters, and other first responders are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security needs to ensure that Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, fire fighters, and other first responders are able to work together to adapt and respond to the evolving challenges of terrorism. Unfortunately, the new department is not organized in a manner that provides the maximum possible help to those on our front lines. A Department of Homeland Security must ensure that it provides our local first responders with the necessary information, tools, and resources that are required to adapt and respond to the evolving challenges facing our First Responders. I am disappointed that my bill, the First Responder Support Act, introduced with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is not part of the present proposal. It had been included in the Lieberman bill, but was stripped out of the bill last week without any warning by the House leadership. The First Responder Support Act will help first responders get the information and training they need from the Department of Homeland Security, and that measure will be a top priority for me in the next Congress. I am also concerned with the proposal's disdain for the public's right to open government. The bill would undermine the protections of the Freedom of Information Act and exempt the proposed department's advisory committees from the open meetings requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Current law already provides adequate protection for sensitive information. The broad language of this bill is far too sweeping. Finally, I believe that while this bill includes some civil rights oversight, it offers weaker protections than are found in other federal agencies. Steps should have been taken to strengthen the Civil Rights Office in the new department by requiring that the head of that office be subject to confirmation by the Senate and therefore accountable to the Congress and the American people. The bill should have designated an official in the office of the Inspector General to fully investigate allegations of civil rights violations. This bill also should have included stronger protections for the Americans who will be working in this new Department and protecting our Nation. Congress owes these Americans the same employment rights that other public servants enjoy. We must not forget that we are having this debate because of what happened on September 11. We need to learn from September 11 and ensure that we do not fall victim to a similar tragedy in the future. I believe that we could have given the American people a Department of Homeland Security that would ensure their safety and security, and protect their civil liberties. Unfortunately, this bill has too many provisions that unnecessarily jeopardize our basic freedoms, and I cannot support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to my friend and colleague Phil Gramm, who retires from the Senate, but will not soon fade from the memories of all those who worked with him in this body. Very simply, Senator Gramm is a straight shooter, a man who has a strong grasp of the issues, and who never fails to speak his mind. While we disagreed a good deal on the issues, I have always had the utmost respect for Senator Gramm's opinion, and for the way that he has conducted himself throughout his service in the Senate. There have also been many times when we have seen eye to eye, and when we have it has been a pleasure to work with the Senator from Texas. Together we have fought to reform our budget process and cut wasteful spending. Now as my colleagues know, cutting spending or reforming the way that the government spends Federal tax dollars is never easy. But Senator Gramm and I share the belief that only by reforming our budget process will we ensure the kind of fiscal discipline in Congress that the American people deserve. While we were never able to bring our budget process reform bill to introduction, we stood shoulder-to-shoulder on many votes to cut pork- barrel spending and apply fiscal discipline. I thank Senator Gramm for his tremendous leadership on these critical issues, and I wish him all the best as he ends his distinguished career in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, with the end of the 107th Congress, we wish the best to Senator Jesse Helms, who retires after serving five terms here in the U.S. Senate. Senator Helms will be long remembered, by his colleagues and by history, for his legendary service to the people of North Carolina. From the day I arrived in the Senate, and throughout our service together on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms has been unfailingly cordial to me, and that is something I have always greatly appreciated. While Senator Helms and I more often than not disagreed on the issues of the day, I appreciated the chance to work with him on issues where we were able to find common ground. Together we fought against unnecessary fast-track procedures that bind Congress's hands on trade legislation. I also joined with Senator Helms to try to ensure that the export laws took national security sufficiently into account, rather than merely bend to the largest business interests. Finally, I have been proud to work with Senator Helms to call attention to human rights abuses in China. So as he leaves the Senate, I thank Senator Helms for the chance to work together on these important issues. I join my colleagues in paying tribute to him, and in wishing him all the best for his retirement.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to Fred Thompson, a colleague and friend who has left a lasting legacy here in the Senate. Senator Thompson has served the people of Tennessee well, standing on principle time and time again. He has been a champion of campaign finance reform since he first came to the Senate in 1994. He was among the original co-sponsors of the first McCain-Feingold legislation, and he has been an invaluable ally ever since. I am deeply grateful to him for his longstanding and steadfast support for reform. Fred Thompson was a central part of our effort, from the first days, when gaining the support of such a fair-minded and well-respected member gave a tremendous boost to our efforts, through to some of our most critical moments, as when he skillfully negotiated an agreement on hard money limits that the vast majority of this body could support. Without that agreement, we simply could not have moved the McCain-Feingold bill through the Senate. I also want to pay special tribute to Senator Thompson for the work he did investigating the 1996 campaign finance scandals. Senator Thompson cut his political teeth on another great scandal in our Nation's history, but his work in 1997 showed the nation that the campaign finance is truly a bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution. I will greatly miss his leadership on these issues. I also joined with Senator Thompson to try to ensure that the export laws took national security sufficiently into account, rather than merely bend to the largest business interests. And finally, I want to thank Fred Thompson for his leadership on States' rights. Senator Thompson has consistently spoken out against Federal mandates that hinder, rather than help, States and localities as they work to serve America's communities. These are just a few of the many reasons that Fred Thompson's presence in this body will be missed. He has been a true champion on many important issues, and a champion for the people of his state. I thank him for his leadership and his friendship, and I wish him all the best as he ends this chapter of his career. tim hutchinson

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased today to introduce the Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2002. This bill provides that when plaintiffs bring a lawsuit that acts as a catalyst for a change in position by the opposing party, they will be considered the ``prevailing party'' for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees under Federal law. The bill will help ensure that people who are the victims of civil rights, environmental, and worker rights' abuses can obtain legal representation to enforce their rights. Over the course of our history, Congress has often enacted laws encouraging private litigants to implement public policy through our court system. An integral part of many such laws are provisions that help individuals obtain adequate legal representation by providing that the defendants will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in cases where the plaintiff prevails. In laws involving public accommodations, housing, labor, disabilities, age discrimination, violence against women, voting rights, pollution, and other areas, Congress has acted over and over again to empower private litigants in their pursuit of justice. Currently, there are over two hundred statutory fee-shifting provisions that allow for some sort of payment of attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Until last year, in interpreting these fee-shifting statutes in cases where a settlement was reached before trial, nine circuit courts of appeals embraced the ``catalyst theory'' to determine whether attorneys' fees could be obtained. The catalyst theory required the payment of fees where the lawsuit caused a change in the position or conduct of the defendant. Only one circuit court, the Fourth Circuit, applied a more narrow definition of prevailing party, requiring a judgment or a court approved settlement in order for a plaintiff to obtain attorneys' fees. In Buckhannon Board of Care & Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services, 2001, a case arising out of the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that plaintiffs may recover attorneys' fees from defendants only if they have been awarded relief by a court, not if they prevailed through a voluntary change in the defendant's behavior or a private settlement. The Buckhannon ruling eliminated the catalyst theory for all fee shifting statutes in federal law. The bill I introduce today restores the catalyst theory that the vast majority of courts had approved prior to the Buckhannon decision as a basis for seeking attorneys fees under Federal fee shifting statutes. It provides a new definition of ``prevailing party'' for all such statutes to encompass the common situation where defendants alter their conduct after a lawsuit has commenced but without waiting for a court order requiring them to do so. This critical change in the definition of ``prevailing party'' will allow attorneys representing clients who cannot otherwise afford to hire a lawyer to recover their costs and to be paid a reasonable rate for their work. The Buckhannon case itself illustrates the need for this legislation. Buckhannon Board and Care Home in West Virginia, an operator of assisted living residences, failed a state inspection because some residents were incapable of ``self-preservation'' as defined by State law. After receiving orders to close its facilities, Buckhannon sued the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the ``self- preservation'' requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the lawsuit was pending but before the court ruled, the state legislature eliminated the ``self- preservation'' requirement. Imagine how the plaintiffs felt when they learned that their lawsuit had forced a change in the law not only for their own case but also for all of the other individuals who had been subject to the improper self- preservation doctrine. If ever there was a complete and total victory caused by litigation, this was it. But, as Casey Stengel once said, ``It ain't over 'till it's over.'' Once the State legislature changed the law, the District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case as moot and denied Buckhannon's request for attorneys' fees. The court ruled that the legislative action did not amount to a judicially required change in position that would permit Buckhannon to be considered a ``prevailing party'' in the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs, ruling that because the change in the defendants' conduct was voluntary rather than ordered by the court, Buckhannon was not a prevailing party. I believe the narrow definition of `prevailing party' endorsed by the Buckhannon decision will result in many injustices going unchallenged. Indeed, in calculating whether to take a case, an attorney for a plaintiff will have to consider not only the chances of losing, but the chances of winning too easily. If businesses or individuals are able to engage in egregious conduct, refuse to change their behavior without a lawsuit being filed against them, and then avoid paying attorneys' fees by changing their conduct on the eve of trial, the effect will be that some lawyers will decide that they cannot afford to take a case even if the claims are very strong. Imagine a case involving a legitimate claim of housing discrimination where, after many months, perhaps even years of work, as the attorney for the plaintiff prepares into the evening for opening statements, the attorney learns that the defendant has admitted its wrongful conduct and offered substantial compensation and a promise to change its practices. This offer came about only because of the spotlight the lawsuit put on the defendant and the possibility of a large jury verdict. This would be a complete victory for the plaintiff, but under Buckhannon, the attorney who labored for years to bring about this result may not be paid. Later, if the same defendant returns to discriminatory practices, the next plaintiff might very well not be able to find competent counsel who will take the case. Ironically, the failure to correct the Buckhannon decision could lead to plaintiffs' attorneys dragging out law suits out far beyond a point in time where the parties could reach a fair settlement, in order to insure that they meet the Buckhannon definition of ``prevailing party.'' This will increase the costs of litigation and discourage settlement. Simply put, Buckhannon creates unnatural tensions between attorneys and clients and may even push attorneys to not act in the best interest of their clients. Certainly we can do better. Congress has passed important laws to protect the public in the work place and in our communities; we must ensure that these laws can be enforced, when necessary, in court. The Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2002 will help insure that all our citizens have the ability to meaningfully challenge injustice.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased today to introduce the Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2002. This bill provides that when plaintiffs bring a lawsuit that acts as a catalyst for a change in position by the opposing party, they will be considered the ``prevailing party'' for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees under Federal law. The bill will help ensure that people who are the victims of civil rights, environmental, and worker rights' abuses can obtain legal representation to enforce their rights. Over the course of our history, Congress has often enacted laws encouraging private litigants to implement public policy through our court system. An integral part of many such laws are provisions that help individuals obtain adequate legal representation by providing that the defendants will pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in cases where the plaintiff prevails. In laws involving public accommodations, housing, labor, disabilities, age discrimination, violence against women, voting rights, pollution, and other areas, Congress has acted over and over again to empower private litigants in their pursuit of justice. Currently, there are over two hundred statutory fee-shifting provisions that allow for some sort of payment of attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Until last year, in interpreting these fee-shifting statutes in cases where a settlement was reached before trial, nine circuit courts of appeals embraced the ``catalyst theory'' to determine whether attorneys' fees could be obtained. The catalyst theory required the payment of fees where the lawsuit caused a change in the position or conduct of the defendant. Only one circuit court, the Fourth Circuit, applied a more narrow definition of prevailing party, requiring a judgment or a court approved settlement in order for a plaintiff to obtain attorneys' fees. In Buckhannon Board of Care & Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services, 2001, a case arising out of the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that plaintiffs may recover attorneys' fees from defendants only if they have been awarded relief by a court, not if they prevailed through a voluntary change in the defendant's behavior or a private settlement. The Buckhannon ruling eliminated the catalyst theory for all fee shifting statutes in federal law. The bill I introduce today restores the catalyst theory that the vast majority of courts had approved prior to the Buckhannon decision as a basis for seeking attorneys fees under Federal fee shifting statutes. It provides a new definition of ``prevailing party'' for all such statutes to encompass the common situation where defendants alter their conduct after a lawsuit has commenced but without waiting for a court order requiring them to do so. This critical change in the definition of ``prevailing party'' will allow attorneys representing clients who cannot otherwise afford to hire a lawyer to recover their costs and to be paid a reasonable rate for their work. The Buckhannon case itself illustrates the need for this legislation. Buckhannon Board and Care Home in West Virginia, an operator of assisted living residences, failed a state inspection because some residents were incapable of ``self-preservation'' as defined by State law. After receiving orders to close its facilities, Buckhannon sued the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the ``self- preservation'' requirement violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the lawsuit was pending but before the court ruled, the state legislature eliminated the ``self- preservation'' requirement. Imagine how the plaintiffs felt when they learned that their lawsuit had forced a change in the law not only for their own case but also for all of the other individuals who had been subject to the improper self- preservation doctrine. If ever there was a complete and total victory caused by litigation, this was it. But, as Casey Stengel once said, ``It ain't over 'till it's over.'' Once the State legislature changed the law, the District Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case as moot and denied Buckhannon's request for attorneys' fees. The court ruled that the legislative action did not amount to a judicially required change in position that would permit Buckhannon to be considered a ``prevailing party'' in the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court denied attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs, ruling that because the change in the defendants' conduct was voluntary rather than ordered by the court, Buckhannon was not a prevailing party. I believe the narrow definition of `prevailing party' endorsed by the Buckhannon decision will result in many injustices going unchallenged. Indeed, in calculating whether to take a case, an attorney for a plaintiff will have to consider not only the chances of losing, but the chances of winning too easily. If businesses or individuals are able to engage in egregious conduct, refuse to change their behavior without a lawsuit being filed against them, and then avoid paying attorneys' fees by changing their conduct on the eve of trial, the effect will be that some lawyers will decide that they cannot afford to take a case even if the claims are very strong. Imagine a case involving a legitimate claim of housing discrimination where, after many months, perhaps even years of work, as the attorney for the plaintiff prepares into the evening for opening statements, the attorney learns that the defendant has admitted its wrongful conduct and offered substantial compensation and a promise to change its practices. This offer came about only because of the spotlight the lawsuit put on the defendant and the possibility of a large jury verdict. This would be a complete victory for the plaintiff, but under Buckhannon, the attorney who labored for years to bring about this result may not be paid. Later, if the same defendant returns to discriminatory practices, the next plaintiff might very well not be able to find competent counsel who will take the case. Ironically, the failure to correct the Buckhannon decision could lead to plaintiffs' attorneys dragging out law suits out far beyond a point in time where the parties could reach a fair settlement, in order to insure that they meet the Buckhannon definition of ``prevailing party.'' This will increase the costs of litigation and discourage settlement. Simply put, Buckhannon creates unnatural tensions between attorneys and clients and may even push attorneys to not act in the best interest of their clients. Certainly we can do better. Congress has passed important laws to protect the public in the work place and in our communities; we must ensure that these laws can be enforced, when necessary, in court. The Settlement Encouragement and Fairness Act of 2002 will help insure that all our citizens have the ability to meaningfully challenge injustice.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object to this request.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if there would be an understanding that my amendment would follow this process as a separate agreement, I would be happy to lift my objection.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. It would eliminate the roughly $5,000 pay raise scheduled to go into effect next January for Members of Congress. Put simply, this is the wrong time for Congress to give itself a pay hike. Our economy is still recovering from the recent slowdown. The financial markets have been rocked, wiping out a chunk of the life savings and retirement accounts of many families. Thousands of workers who were laid off have not returned to work, and families face increasing financial pressures. Our budget is, once again, back in deficit. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, we are facing serious budget deficits for many years to come. The on-budget deficit for the fiscal year that just ended on September 30 is well over $300 billion, and the Office of Management and Budget projects deficits totaling over one trillion dollars over the next five years. In fact, the Federal Government is spending all of the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses, and then some, something we should do only to meet the most critical national priorities. A pay raise of nearly $5,000 for Members is not a critical national priority. Nor can one argue that this pay raise is justified because Members have not had one in a while. This is the fourth pay raise in as many years. On January 1, 2000, Members received a $4,600 pay raise. On January 1, 2001, Members received a $3,800 pay raise. On January 1, 2002, Members received a $4,900 pay raise. And unless we stop it, this coming January, Members will receive a $4,700 pay raise. That will mean that, as of this coming January, Members will have received four consecutive pay hikes totaling $18,000--$18,000 per year. That is more than the average annual Social Security benefit for a retired worker and spouse. It is more than the average annual Social Security benefit for a disabled worker, spouse, and child. It is more than someone working minimum wage can make in a year and a half. This automatic, stealth, pay raise system is absolutely wrong. It is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. That this power is so unusual is a good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, amendment, and a vote on the record. That is why this process of pay raises without accountability must end. It is offensive. It is wrong. And I believe it may be unconstitutional. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution states: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened. I recognize that some of our colleagues may feel they deserve a pay raise. I certainly respect that position. Last year, a colleague said to me that Members deserved a pay increase because of all that we had been through. Again, I strongly disagreed with that assessment last year, but I understood the sentiment. But even those who favor a pay hike should support voting for it on the record. Certainly, having an open and public vote on the record for a pay hike is better than the stealth pay raise that takes place with no action. Standing up and making the case before the public is far better than quietly letting the pay raise take effect. We really should scrap the current stealth pay raise system, and I have introduced legislation to stop this practice. But the amendment I offer today does not go that far. All it does is to stop the pay raise that is scheduled to go into effect in January--the fourth pay raise in four years. Let's stop this backdoor pay raise, and then let's enact legislation to end this practice once and for all.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to our colleague, Paul Wellstone. As with the loss of anyone so vital, so full of energy, and so dear to us, it is hard to believe that Paul is really gone. But as with a brother, or a father, or a great teacher, even if they have died, they leave a part of themselves with those who carry on. They are never really gone. I first met Paul before either of us had been elected to the Senate. I was meeting with different people as I considered a run for the Senate, and I heard about this professor in Minnesota who was planning to run in 1990. I had a chance to visit him at his home. When we met, we laughed at the idea that the two of us or either of us, would ever have been elected to the Senate. But then Paul went on to run a terrific campaign, without a lot of money, but with a whole lot of energy. When he won, he helped me and others to believe that we could do the same. I will always be grateful to him for that example, as I am sure are many others across the country who were inspired by Paul and the exceptional life that he led. So now we know that whenever a candidate runs a scrappy populist campaign, Paul Wellstone will be there. Paul Wellstone believed in clean elections. Paul was a strong, stalwart ally over the years that we served together in the Senate, working for campaign finance reform. He was an original cosponsor of the first McCain-Feingold bill--one of a handful of us, along with Senators Claiborne Pell and Fred Thompson and he was there all the way. Some have said that the law that we enacted this year went too far. Characteristically, Paul thought that it did not go far enough. Paul Wellstone wrote: ``The way in which money has come to dominate politics is the foremost ethical issue of politics of our time. We need to invite ordinary citizens back into American politics to work for what is right for our nation.'' Whenever Americans reform our election campaigns, Paul Wellstone will be there. Paul Wellstone said: ``I don't represent the big oil companies. I don't represent the big pharmaceutical companies. I don't represent the Enrons of this world. But you know what, they already have great representation in Washington. It's the rest of the people that need it.'' That's what Paul Wellstone said. So, whenever there are voices standing up for the little guy, Paul Wellstone's voice will be there. There is a role that some Senators play of leading where not many follow because they know that it is right. Paul Wellstone had the courage of his convictions. He was not afraid to stand alone. Now that he is gone, there may come more times when some of us will be counted as the only vote against something. But whenever a Senator stands alone in the well of the Senate and casts a solitary vote because that's what he or she believes, that Senator won't really be alone because Paul Wellstone will be there. There is a role that some Senators play of reminding the rest of us of what is right, even when we don't necessarily like to hear it. It has been said many times, and it is nonetheless true, that like Paul Douglas, Phil Hart, and Paul Simon before him, Paul Wellstone was the conscience of the Senate. Whenever political expediency pulls us to vote one way, but our consciences pull us back the other, Paul Wellstone will be there. Paul Wellstone was a dear, sweet man, and a good friend to those of us who knew him. Yes, he had a puckish grin and a ready sense of humor. His passing brings a tear to our eyes. But whenever we think of that smile of his, Paul Wellstone will be there. The Bible says: ``Justice, justice shall you pursue.'' Paul didn't need to be told. That was who he was. Paul Wellstone believed in justice with every fiber of his being. Paul fought for justice for children who didn't have enough to eat. He fought for environmental justice, even for the poor side of town. He fought for social justice when it came to access to health care. He fought for economic justice when it came to a fair minimum wage and the ability of working families to protect themselves under the bankruptcy law. And he fought for justice among nations, and for peace. Paul Wellstone was the very embodiment of justice. And so, Paul Wellstone, here on the Senate floor, there is a hole in our hearts. We will miss you, dear friend. But we will still look for you. For wherever it is on this Senate floor, at a political rally, or at a town hall meeting somewhere on a cold, windy day in the heartland of America whenever someone speaks for justice, Paul Wellstone will be there. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge Secretary Veneman to provide more details on the United States Department of Agriculture's recent announcement regarding chronic wasting disease, CWD, testing, and urge her to provide hunters with more testing opportunities for CWD. On Tuesday of this week, USDA announced an increase of up to 200,000 more Government-approved tests for chronic wasting disease this deer hunting season. Prior to the announcement, USDA officials have said labs certified to test for the disease would only accommodate the needs of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, DNR, and not provide testing opportunities for hunters. I appreciate USDA's recent decision to allow Government laboratories certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to offer an additional 200,000 chronic wasting disease or CWD tests to Wisconsin hunters. As I noted in my September 24, 2002, letter to Secretary Veneman, given hunters' concerns in my state, it is appropriate for USDA to offer any excess test processing capacity in the Government system to Wisconsin on a priority basis. This assistance from USDA allows Wisconsin to be able to offer testing to our hunters on request, and gives Wisconsin hunters access to the ``gold standard'' immunohistochemistry, IHC, test. While I commend USDA for these efforts, I will be closely monitoring the implementation of the new testing program in the State, and in particular the Department's stated commitment of providing 200,000 more tests to Wisconsin hunters. It is important to note that nine of the Government laboratories that will be processing Wisconsin tests this fall have not previously conducted such tests. Given the time it took to get the Wisconsin State Veterinary Laboratory in a position to be able to process CWD tests, USDA must be vigilant in ensuring that these Government labs are ready in the next month. In addition, I also urge USDA to assist the State of Wisconsin in ensuring that the labs that will process Wisconsin's CWD tests provide accurate and prompt information regarding the test processing costs. I commend the USDA for finally taking steps to provide more testing opportunities through Government labs. But the USDA must do more, including continuing efforts to certify private labs, like the Marshfield Clinic, and to approve rapid test kits for this fall's hunt. I want to ensure that USDA meets, and I hope exceeds, its commitment of providing 200,000 additional tests to Wisconsin's hunters for this year's hunt. To that end, I hope that the administration will endorse my legislation, S. 3090, the Comprehensive Wildlife Disease Testing Acceleration Act of 2002. This legislation would provide hunters with more testing opportunities for chronic wasting disease by requiring USDA to develop appropriate testing protocols and to certify private labs to conduct CWD tests. My legislation will remove bureaucratic roadblocks by requiring the USDA to expand the number of labs that can provide CWD testing to hunters. Until I am satisfied that USDA has done everything possible to bring this disease under control, I will continue to press this legislation forward. Our 2001 deer hunt involved more than 400,000 deer. With only 250,000 tests total for Wisconsin, some hunters may still lack the ability to have their deer tested. USDA must continue efforts to provide more testing opportunities for hunters. By certifying private labs like the Marshfield Clinic and approving a rapid test this fall, USDA can ensure that Wisconsin hunters have the information they deserve. Action on this problem is urgently needed. I am glad that the Secretary has finally begun to take a step in the right direction, and I urge her to undertake all the necessary measures to bring these diseases under control.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to recess until after the November elections, I would like to take a moment to express my thanks and the thanks of the people of Wisconsin to our Nation's veterans and their families. The Senate will not be in session on Veterans Day, November 11th. I urge my colleagues and all Americans to take a moment on that day to reflect upon the meaning of that day and to remember those who have served and sacrificed to protect our country and the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans. Webster's Dictionary defines a veteran as ``one with a long record of service in a particular activity or capacity,'' or ``one who has been in the armed forces.'' But we can also define a veteran as a grandfather or a grandmother, a father or a mother, a brother or a sister, a son or a daughter. Veterans live in all of our communities, and their contributions have touched all of our lives. November 11 is a date with special significance in our history. On that day in 1918--at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month--World War I ended. In 1926, a joint resolution of Congress called on the President to issue a proclamation to encourage all Americans to mark this day by displaying the United States flag and by observing the day with appropriate ceremonies. In 1938, ``Armistice Day'' was designated as a legal holiday ``to be dedicated to the cause of world peace'' by an Act of Congress. This annual recognition of the contributions and sacrifices of our Nation's veterans of World War I was renamed ``Veterans Day'' in 1954 so that we might also recognize the service and sacrifice of those who had fought in World War II and the veterans of all of America's other wars. Mr. President, our Nation's veterans and their families have given selflessly to the cause of protecting our freedom. Too many have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country, from the battlefields of the Revolutionary War that gave birth to the United States to the Civil War that sought to secure for all Americans the freedoms envisioned by the Founding Fathers. In the last century, Americans fought and died in two world wars and in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. They also participated in peacekeeping missions around the globe, some of which are still going on. Today, our men and women in uniform are waging a fight against terrorism. And in the future, our military personnel could be asked to undertake a campaign in Iraq. As we prepare to commemorate Veterans Day 2002, we should reflect on the sacrifices--past, present, and future--that are made by our men and women in uniform and their families. We can and should do more for our veterans to ensure that they have a decent standard of living and access to adequate health care. For those reasons, I am deeply concerned about a memorandum that was sent to Veterans Integrated Service Network Directors by Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management Laura Miller in July ordering them to ``ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks.'' The memo continued, ``[i]t is important to attend veteran-focused events as part of our responsibilities, but there is a difference between providing general information and actively recruiting people into the system.'' Deputy Under Secretary Miller's memo states that the increased demand for VA health care services exceeds the VA's current resources. According to the memo, ``In this environment, marketing VA services with such activities as health fairs, veteran open houses to invite new veterans to the facilities, or enrollment displays at VSO, Veteran Service Officer meetings, are inappropriate.'' While it is clear that more funding should be provided for VA health care and other programs, what is inappropriate is for the VA to institute a policy to stop making veterans aware of the health care services for which they may be eligible. Soon after this memo was issued, I joined with the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and a number of colleagues to send a letter to the President that expressed concern about the memo and asked that the policy outlined in it be reversed. As of today, Mr. President, more than two months later, we have yet to receive a reply to that letter. I call on the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reverse immediately this unacceptable policy. After the 108th Congress convenes next year, I plan to introduce a comprehensive package of reforms that will help to ensure that our nation's veterans are treated in a fashion that respects and recognizes the contributions that they have made to protect generations of Americans. I am working to build on two pieces of legislation that I introduced during the 107th Congress. The National I Owe You Act, which I introduced with the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], would require the VA to take more aggressive steps to make veterans aware of the benefits that are owed to them. This legislation, which was inspired by the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs' ``I Owe You'' program, would create programs that identify eligible veterans who are not receiving benefits, notify veterans of changes in benefit programs, and encourage veterans to apply for benefits. The bill also would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop an outreach program that encourages veterans and dependents to apply, or to reapply, for federal benefits. This legislation in no way duplicates the work of County Veterans Service Officers (CVSOs) in my state and other states. The work of CVSOs is indispensable for reaching out to veterans, particularly in rural areas. The I Owe You Act simply calls for the VA to develop a program that encourages veterans to apply for benefits, identify veterans who are eligible but not receiving benefits, and notify veterans of any modifications to benefit programs. The new VA policy that prohibits marketing of health programs underscores the need for legislation in this area. In addition, I have heard from many Wisconsin veterans about the need to improve claims processing at the VA. They are justifiably angry and frustrated about the amount of time it takes for the Veterans Benefits Administration to process their claims. In some instances, veterans are waiting well over a year. Telling the men and women who served their country in the Armed Forces that they ``just have to wait'' is wrong and unacceptable. In response to these concerns, I joined with the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) to introduce the Veterans Benefits Administration Improvement Act, which would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a comprehensive plan to Congress for the improvement of the processing of claims for veterans compensation and pensions. In addition, every six months afterwards, the Secretary must report to Congress about the status of the program. I remain concerned about claims processing, and will continue to work with the VA and with my colleagues to address this important issue. I look forward to continuing to meet with veterans and their families around Wisconsin in order to hear directly from them what services they need and what gaps remain in the VA system. And so, Mr. President, this coming Veterans Day, and throughout the year, let us continue to honor America's great veterans. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my Colleague from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, to introduce the Truth in Budgeting and Social Security Protection Act of 2002. This bill collects a variety of budget process ideas to help protect Social Security, promote balanced budgets, and improve government accounting practices. I hope that this effort will help spur greater debate and action to restore fiscal discipline. Our government's finances have taken a dire turn in the last year- and-a-half. While in January of last year the Congressional Budget Office projected that, in the fiscal year just ended, fiscal year 2002, the government would run a unified budget surplus of $313 billion, now it projects a unified budget deficit of $157 billion. And not counting Social Security surpluses, the picture is even worse. While in January of last year CBO projected that for fiscal year 2002, the government would run a surplus of $142 billion, without using Social Security surpluses, now it projects a deficit of $314 billion, not counting Social Security. We must stop running deficits because they cause the government to use the surpluses of the Social Security Trust Fund for other government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. And we must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits. When the government in this generation chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. And the government should not do that. That is why I am joining with my Colleague from Ohio to introduce this bill to improve the budget process today. We need to strengthen the budget process. We need to do more. Our bill would: extend the discretionary spending caps and the pay- as-you-go rules for 5 years, strengthen the enforcement of those budget rules, help protect Social Security surpluses, institute biennial budgeting, improve accounting for long-term costs of legislation, improve accounting for federal insurance programs, highlight the full expenses, including interest costs, of spending or tax cuts, and create a new commission to study the budget process. Together, these budget process proposals would go a long way toward increasing the responsibility of the Federal budget. I hope that between now and the beginning of the next Congress, my Colleagues and observers of the budget process will review these proposals, perhaps build on them, and then join with us in a major effort to strengthen the budget process next year. We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other government programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We must enact major reforms of the budget process. I hope that this effort will contribute to those ends.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my Colleague from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, to introduce the Truth in Budgeting and Social Security Protection Act of 2002. This bill collects a variety of budget process ideas to help protect Social Security, promote balanced budgets, and improve government accounting practices. I hope that this effort will help spur greater debate and action to restore fiscal discipline. Our government's finances have taken a dire turn in the last year- and-a-half. While in January of last year the Congressional Budget Office projected that, in the fiscal year just ended, fiscal year 2002, the government would run a unified budget surplus of $313 billion, now it projects a unified budget deficit of $157 billion. And not counting Social Security surpluses, the picture is even worse. While in January of last year CBO projected that for fiscal year 2002, the government would run a surplus of $142 billion, without using Social Security surpluses, now it projects a deficit of $314 billion, not counting Social Security. We must stop running deficits because they cause the government to use the surpluses of the Social Security Trust Fund for other government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. And we must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits. When the government in this generation chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. And the government should not do that. That is why I am joining with my Colleague from Ohio to introduce this bill to improve the budget process today. We need to strengthen the budget process. We need to do more. Our bill would: extend the discretionary spending caps and the pay- as-you-go rules for 5 years, strengthen the enforcement of those budget rules, help protect Social Security surpluses, institute biennial budgeting, improve accounting for long-term costs of legislation, improve accounting for federal insurance programs, highlight the full expenses, including interest costs, of spending or tax cuts, and create a new commission to study the budget process. Together, these budget process proposals would go a long way toward increasing the responsibility of the Federal budget. I hope that between now and the beginning of the next Congress, my Colleagues and observers of the budget process will review these proposals, perhaps build on them, and then join with us in a major effort to strengthen the budget process next year. We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other government programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We must enact major reforms of the budget process. I hope that this effort will contribute to those ends.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense appropriations bill. I regret that Congress has missed another opportunity to reorient the thinking, and spending, of the Pentagon. I strongly support our men and women in uniform in the ongoing fight against global terrorism and in their other missions, both at home and abroad. I commend the members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families for the sacrifices they have made to protect our security and freedom. All members of our military and their families, active duty, National Guard, and Reserves, deserve our sincere thanks for their commitment to protect this country and to undertake the fight against terrorism in the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. And they deserve our support as they face the uncertainly surrounding possible military action against Iraq. Each year that I have been a member of this body I have expressed my concern about the priorities of the Pentagon and about the process by which we consider the Department of Defense authorization and appropriations bills. I am troubled that the Department of Defense does not receive the same scrutiny as other parts of our Federal budget. This time of national crisis underscores the need for the Congress and the Administration to take a hard look at the Pentagon's budget to ensure that scarce taxpayer dollars are targeted to those programs that are necessary to defend our country in the post-Cold War world and to ensure that our Armed Forces have the resources that they will need for the battles ahead. There can be no dispute that Congress should provide the resources necessary to fight and win the battle against terrorism. There should also be no dispute that this ongoing campaign should not be used as an excuse to continue to drastically increase an already bloated defense budget. The conference report on which we are about to vote accompanies what will be the largest defense appropriations bill that Congress has ever passed. It represents a $34.1 billion increase over the fiscal year 2002 level, including supplemental defense spending that was appropriated in the wake of the September 11 attacks. It represents a $54.5 billion increase over the fiscal year 2001 funding level. The United States spends more on defense than all of the other countries of the world combined. Of course, a strong national defense is crucial to the peace and stability of our nation. But a strong economy is also essential to national security. We must not focus on one to the detriment of the other. Many of the expensive weapons systems for which there are billions in appropriations in this conference report have little or nothing to do with the fight against terrorism, which is often cited as the reason for the $34 billion increase in defense spending for fiscal year 2003. I am concerned that if we continue down this path, defense spending will spiral further out of control, perhaps putting other areas of our economy at risk. I am pleased that this conference report contains no funding for the Army's Crusader mobile artillery program. I support the Secretary of Defense's decision to cancel this outdated program, and earlier this year, I introduced legislation that would have done just that. I commend the Secretary of Defense for his efforts to transform our military to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond, and agree that weapons that were better suited to the Cold War than to the battles of this century should be terminated. I regret that so little progress has been made to transform the military for these new challenges. The hard-fought battle to terminate the Crusader program, a program that was canceled by the Secretary of Defense, stands as an example of how difficult it is to change the mind-set of the Pentagon and the Congress. The beleaguered Crusader is the poster child for an obsolete, Cold War-era program, yet there are those in the Congress and at the Pentagon who tried desperately to save it. The termination of a weapon system such as the Crusader is an example of the hard decisions that this body will have to make as we face the realities of the Federal budget and as we seek to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment that they will need to fight the battles of the future. As I have said time and time again, there are millions upon millions of dollars in this bill that are being spent on outdated or questionable or unwanted programs. This money would be better spent on programs that truly improve our readiness and modernize our Armed Forces. This money also would be better spent on efforts to improve the morale of our forces, such as ensuring that all of our men and women in uniform have a decent standard of living or providing better housing for our Armed Forces and their families. For those reasons, I will oppose this conference report.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Chair to confirm that I am an original cosponsor of this as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Chairman Conrad, the Ranking Republican Member, Senator Domenici, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, in offering this amendment to extend the budget process. Exercising the power of the purse is among Congress's most important responsibilities. Justifiably, there has been much concern in the Nation about how Congress has exercised and will exercise its responsibilities under the Constitution's war powers, and certainly that is a grave and consequential responsibility. But we should recall that the way that the Congress ended the Vietnam war was through the exercise of the power of the purse, by constraining spending. The power of the purse is a momentous power. Article I, section 9, of the Constitution reserves the power of the purse with Congress through the admonition that: [n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . . Interpreting that power, our Founder James Madison wrote in the ``Federalist Papers'': They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. That is what James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 58. Congress exercises that power of the purse through its rules and through the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The strength of Congress's power of the purse depends on the orderly rules that the Congressional budget process provides. Regrettably, those rules and that Congressional budget process largely expired at the beginning of this month. That is why it is so important that the Senate adopt this amendment to extend the budget process. Our responsibilities under the Constitution would be enough of a reason to extend these rules. But added to that, and making the need for budget rules even more pressing, is the dire turn of affairs that our government's finances have taken in this last year-and-a-half. In January of last year, the Congressional Budget Office projected that, in the fiscal year just ended, fiscal year 2002, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of $313 billion. In its latest projections, however, CBO now estimates that we will have run a unified budget deficit of $157 billion. That is a dramatic swing of $470 billion--the disappearance of nearly half a trillion dollars--for that 1 year alone. If, as the law requires, we do not count Social Security surpluses toward that total, then the picture is even more alarming. In January of last year, CBO projected that for fiscal year 2002, the government would run a surplus of $142 billion, without using Social Security surpluses. Now, CBO projects a deficit of $314 billion, not counting Social Security. If that projection holds, it will have been the third- largest on-budget deficit in our Nation's history, rivaling those of the bad old days of 1991 and 1992, when the United States logged its record highest on-budget deficits. Instead of using those Social Security surpluses to prepare for the coming needs of that vital program, the Government has instead been using them to fund other Government programs. And the baseline projections for the fiscal year just begun bring no respite. For the year that started at the beginning of this month, fiscal year 2003, CBO projects baseline deficits similar to those for the year just ended. For 2003, CBO projects a unified budget deficit of $145 billion, and a deficit of $315 billion, not counting Social Security. And that is before taking into account the costs of a possible war with Iraq. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that American taxpayers may have to come up with between $100 billion and $200 billion more to wage a war in Iraq, according to President Bush's chief economic adviser. He said that we could have to add $100 to $200 billion to the non-Social Security deficit that CBO says will already be $315 billion this year. If those predictions prove true, yielding on-budget deficits of $415 to $515 billion, then the government would be running the largest on-budget deficits in our nation's history, by far. Looking into the years to come, one can see little if any relief from the damaging fiscal outlook. CBO projects that under current policies, unified budget deficits will continue until 2006. And without counting Social Security, CBO projects that deficits will continue until 2011, when the sunset of the tax cut brings us back to on-budget surplus again, just barely. And it is among the most fervently-held articles of faith among many on the other side of the aisle that those tax cuts shall not be allowed to sunset. Over the next 10 years, CBO projects a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion, without counting Social Security. And that is before taking into account a war with Iraq, before taking into account a prescription drug benefit that most Senators agree is needed to bring Medicare up to date, and before taking into account any of the many additional tax cuts that the President and many in the Senate would still like to enact. It is sad to say that there is no way to look at these numbers without coming to this conclusion. The government is in dire fiscal circumstances. I am concerned that many elected officials have not yet come to realize how grave those circumstances are. We must not forget why sound fiscal policy is important. We must stop running deficits because they cause the government to use the surpluses of the Social Security Trust Fund for other government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our nation prepare for the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. We must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits in the future. When we in this generation choose to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, we do nothing less than rob our children of their own choices which they deserve the opportunity make. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and the sweat of their brow. That is not right. That is why Senator Gregg and I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee markup of the budget resolution to extend budget rules and set appropriations caps for 5 years. That is why Senator Gregg and I offered an amendment on the Senate floor on June 5 to extend the budget rules and set appropriations caps for 5 years. That is why I joined with our distinguished and very able chairman, Chairman Conrad, on June 20 in yet another attempt to extend the budget rules and set appropriations caps for 2 years. Fifty-nine Senators voted for extending the budget process on that day, just one short of the number we need to adopt such a measure. That is why I am joining with my Colleagues the Chairman and Ranking Republican Member of the Budget Committee and Senator Gregg to offer this amendment to extend the budget process today. Yes, I would prefer to strengthen the budget process. I would prefer to do more. But this is the bare minimum that we should do. The Conrad-Domenici- Feingold-Gregg amendment would provide some minimal restraint on entitlement spending and tax cuts. And we can do no less. The Senate must preserve its vital role in exercising the power of the purse that the Constitution vests in Congress. We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other government programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We must adopt this amendment and extend the budget process. I again want to thank the chairman for his leadership and the opportunity to work with him on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in introducing legislation that we believe will significantly improve media coverage of elections and reduce the negative impact that skyrocketing TV advertising costs have on Federal campaigns. And I am very glad that the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has joined us as an original cosponsor of this bill. Although broadcast advertising is one of the most effective forms of communication in our democracy, it also diminishes the quality of our electoral process in two ways. First, broadcasters often fail to provide adequate coverage to the issues in elections, focusing instead on the horse race, if they cover elections at all. Second, the extraordinarily high cost of advertising time fuels the insatiable need for candidates to spend more and more time fundraising instead of talking with voters. These two problems interact to undermine the great promise that television has for promoting democratic discourse in our country. It need not be this way. The public owns the airwaves and licenses them to broadcasters. Broadcasters pay nothing for their use of this scarce and very valuable public resource. Their only ``payment'' is a promise to meet public interest standards, a promise that often goes unfulfilled. A recent study by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that only 18 percent of gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional debates held in 2000 were televised by network TV and an additional 18 percent were covered by PBS or small independent TV stations. More than 63 percent were not televised at all. This is shocking in a democracy that depends on information and open debate. The bill we introduce today addresses these problems by requiring broadcast stations to devote a reasonable amount of air time to election programming. It would also direct the FCC to create a voucher system in which candidates and parties would receive vouchers they could use for paid radio or TV advertising time financed by a broadcast spectrum usage fee. Candidates would qualify for vouchers based on a ratio matched to the amount of small dollar donations they raise. Our proposal would allow candidates to leverage their grassroots fundraising and would provide greater campaign resources to candidates without requiring them to become more beholden to special interests. The proposal would also make air time available to political parties, which could be directed to underfunded candidates and challengers who have a harder and harder time getting their message out under the current system as the costs of advertising continue to rise. Senator McCain and I remain devoted to improving the way our electoral process functions and reducing the impact of big money on our democracy. This new bill will advance that cause in a very significant and necessary way. We recognize, of course, that little will happen on this bill before the end of this session of Congress. We are introducing it now so that the public and our colleagues can review it and make suggestions on how to improve it. We hope to make significant progress on this legislation next year and look forward to working with our colleagues, as we did on campaign finance reform to make this bill even better and then enact it into law.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in introducing legislation that we believe will significantly improve media coverage of elections and reduce the negative impact that skyrocketing TV advertising costs have on Federal campaigns. And I am very glad that the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has joined us as an original cosponsor of this bill. Although broadcast advertising is one of the most effective forms of communication in our democracy, it also diminishes the quality of our electoral process in two ways. First, broadcasters often fail to provide adequate coverage to the issues in elections, focusing instead on the horse race, if they cover elections at all. Second, the extraordinarily high cost of advertising time fuels the insatiable need for candidates to spend more and more time fundraising instead of talking with voters. These two problems interact to undermine the great promise that television has for promoting democratic discourse in our country. It need not be this way. The public owns the airwaves and licenses them to broadcasters. Broadcasters pay nothing for their use of this scarce and very valuable public resource. Their only ``payment'' is a promise to meet public interest standards, a promise that often goes unfulfilled. A recent study by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate found that only 18 percent of gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional debates held in 2000 were televised by network TV and an additional 18 percent were covered by PBS or small independent TV stations. More than 63 percent were not televised at all. This is shocking in a democracy that depends on information and open debate. The bill we introduce today addresses these problems by requiring broadcast stations to devote a reasonable amount of air time to election programming. It would also direct the FCC to create a voucher system in which candidates and parties would receive vouchers they could use for paid radio or TV advertising time financed by a broadcast spectrum usage fee. Candidates would qualify for vouchers based on a ratio matched to the amount of small dollar donations they raise. Our proposal would allow candidates to leverage their grassroots fundraising and would provide greater campaign resources to candidates without requiring them to become more beholden to special interests. The proposal would also make air time available to political parties, which could be directed to underfunded candidates and challengers who have a harder and harder time getting their message out under the current system as the costs of advertising continue to rise. Senator McCain and I remain devoted to improving the way our electoral process functions and reducing the impact of big money on our democracy. This new bill will advance that cause in a very significant and necessary way. We recognize, of course, that little will happen on this bill before the end of this session of Congress. We are introducing it now so that the public and our colleagues can review it and make suggestions on how to improve it. We hope to make significant progress on this legislation next year and look forward to working with our colleagues, as we did on campaign finance reform to make this bill even better and then enact it into law.