Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Community Oriented Policing Services program, commonly known as COPS. The COPS program was established in 1994, due in large part to the efforts of my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and the support of then President Clinton. Since its inception, the program has greatly enhanced community oriented policing across the Nation. The COPS program has facilitated the hiring and training of over 116,000 police officers who help keep our communities safe. I am especially pleased that this program has been a shining example of an effective partnership between local and Federal Governments. It provides Federal assistance to meet local objectives without imposing mandates or interfering with local prerogatives, and it provides federal dollars directly to the police departments and communities. COPS has had a positive and very tangible impact on communities throughout the country, including in my home State of Wisconsin, by putting more police officers on our streets and making our citizens safer. In the State of Wisconsin alone, COPS has funded over 1,300 new officers by contributing more than $100 million to communities. The effects of community-based policing cannot be understated. The COPS program has succeeded because it helps individual officers to be a friendly and familiar presence in their communities. They are building relationships with people from house to house, block to block, school to school. Community policing helps law enforcement to do their job better, makes our neighborhoods and schools safer, and, very importantly, gives residents peace of mind. Increasing the number of local law enforcement on the streets and in our neighborhoods fosters an environment of mutual respect between officers and their neighbors, and community pride from home to school to fire station to corner store. Reducing crime and keeping our communities safe has been and should continue to be a top priority for all of us. As the tragic events of September 11 have shown our Nation, local police officers play a vital role to protect and secure our communities. We should give them the support they need. As I travel through Wisconsin and talk to sheriffs, police chiefs and other law enforcement officers, I hear the same refrain, time after time: the COPS program is vital to their work and has enabled them to get more officers out from behind their desks and onto the streets. Wisconsin is not alone. Since 1994, the COPS program has provided funding for thousands of law enforcement agencies across the country, and has expanded to include the COPS in Schools Program and the COPS Tribal Resources Program, and now funds the Community Policing to Combat Domestic Violence grants. As the COPS program has grown, crime rates have decreased. But in order to maintain a low crime rate, we must continue to provide the necessary resources. The COPS program gives us an opportunity at the federal level to send a strong signal of support back to local police officers that we value community-oriented policing as integral to the protection and safety of all Americans. We have taken up funding for the COPS program in this body numerous times since its inception. I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee reported favorably a bill calling for its re-authorization this spring, the PROTECTION Act, S. 924, introduced by Senator Biden. I commend and thank Senator Biden for his leadership on this issue. I was very pleased to support his bill re-authorizing the COPS program in Committee, and I urge the full Senate to work to ensure that the COPS program is authorized again before we adjourn.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Promoting Care for the Frail Elderly Act of 2002, which is of critical importance to the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries, disabled seniors and those with complex medical conditions. A number of States have successfully chosen to serve seniors and the disabled by combining Medicare and Medicaid services through a waiver approved by the Department of Health and Human Services that integrates services under Medicare and Medicaid capitated financing arrangements. These programs provide beneficiaries with a comprehensive benefit package that combines the services traditionally provided by Medicare, Medicaid, and home and community based wavier programs. In my home State of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Partnership Program, WPP, is one such success, a community-based program that has improved the quality, access, and cost-effectiveness of the care delivered to its beneficiaries. Perhaps most important to the beneficiaries, these programs help the disabled and the frail elderly remain in their own community, and avoid institutionalized care. Wisconsin is lucky to have four such programs across our State: Elder Care and Community Living Alliance of Dane County, Community Care for the Elderly of Milwaukee County, and Community Health Partnership of Eau Claire, Dunn, and Chippewa Counties. In order to qualify for these programs, a person must be Medicaid- eligible, have physical disabilities or frailties of aging, and require a level of care provided by nursing homes. Through programs such as the Wisconsin Partnership Program, these frail elderly and disabled beneficiaries are able to receive quality preventive care up front, which allows more beneficiaries to stay in their communities and reduces the rate of hospitalization. In Wisconsin, about 26 percent of all Medicaid recipients age 65 or older are in nursing homes. This rate drops dramatically for those enrolled in the Wisconsin Partnership Program, where only 5.9 percent of recipients age 65 or older are in nursing homes. While the Wisconsin Partnership Program is a success, we must ensure that the Federal Government continues to support these State-based solutions to our long-term care needs and other specialty managed care programs that focus on frail, chronically-ill seniors. The current formula used to cover those enrolled in Medicare managed care programs overpays for healthy beneficiaries and underpays for the frail elderly and disabled. This payment method creates a backwards incentive for plans to avoid serving the most vulnerable segment of the Medicare population, the very seniors who could benefit most from program such as the Wisconsin Partnership Program. While a number of steps have been taken to improve these payment methods over the past four years, we must ensure that they meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries with complex care needs. This legislation will help develop an appropriate incentive for specialty managed care programs serving a disproportionate number of frail, medically complex beneficiaries. My legislation will take several steps toward meeting this goal. First it will require the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to evaluate alternative risk adjustment methods that account for the higher costs borne by plans with a disproportionate number of high cost beneficiaries. During this study, it will also implement the recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission by permitting these plans that currently operate under demonstration authority to maintain existing payment formulas until the Secretary devises a risk adjustment method that pays adequately for high risk enrollees. At the same time, it would also direct MedPAC to evaluate appropriate methods to adjust payment rates based on the makeup of the beneficiaries. Finally, my legislation would also authorize the Secretary to conduct a demonstration to enhance care and improve outcomes for frail, vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. I would also like to make clear that this legislation uses existing funds to pay for these initiatives, and is thus budget neutral. It authorizes the demonstration program within existing dollars and would also provide additional funding for the frailty adjustment with existing Medicare+Choice dollars. Fundamental long-term care reform is vital to any health care reform that Congress may consider. As part of these reforms, we must support state and local efforts to encourage care for the most vulnerable populations. We must provide our seniors and disabled with real choices. They are entitled to the opportunity to continue to live in the homes and communities that they helped build and sustain. I urge my colleagues to support this measure that will help provide a measure of support for the most frail elderly and disabled to allow them to stay in their own homes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Promoting Care for the Frail Elderly Act of 2002, which is of critical importance to the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries, disabled seniors and those with complex medical conditions. A number of States have successfully chosen to serve seniors and the disabled by combining Medicare and Medicaid services through a waiver approved by the Department of Health and Human Services that integrates services under Medicare and Medicaid capitated financing arrangements. These programs provide beneficiaries with a comprehensive benefit package that combines the services traditionally provided by Medicare, Medicaid, and home and community based wavier programs. In my home State of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Partnership Program, WPP, is one such success, a community-based program that has improved the quality, access, and cost-effectiveness of the care delivered to its beneficiaries. Perhaps most important to the beneficiaries, these programs help the disabled and the frail elderly remain in their own community, and avoid institutionalized care. Wisconsin is lucky to have four such programs across our State: Elder Care and Community Living Alliance of Dane County, Community Care for the Elderly of Milwaukee County, and Community Health Partnership of Eau Claire, Dunn, and Chippewa Counties. In order to qualify for these programs, a person must be Medicaid- eligible, have physical disabilities or frailties of aging, and require a level of care provided by nursing homes. Through programs such as the Wisconsin Partnership Program, these frail elderly and disabled beneficiaries are able to receive quality preventive care up front, which allows more beneficiaries to stay in their communities and reduces the rate of hospitalization. In Wisconsin, about 26 percent of all Medicaid recipients age 65 or older are in nursing homes. This rate drops dramatically for those enrolled in the Wisconsin Partnership Program, where only 5.9 percent of recipients age 65 or older are in nursing homes. While the Wisconsin Partnership Program is a success, we must ensure that the Federal Government continues to support these State-based solutions to our long-term care needs and other specialty managed care programs that focus on frail, chronically-ill seniors. The current formula used to cover those enrolled in Medicare managed care programs overpays for healthy beneficiaries and underpays for the frail elderly and disabled. This payment method creates a backwards incentive for plans to avoid serving the most vulnerable segment of the Medicare population, the very seniors who could benefit most from program such as the Wisconsin Partnership Program. While a number of steps have been taken to improve these payment methods over the past four years, we must ensure that they meet the needs of Medicare beneficiaries with complex care needs. This legislation will help develop an appropriate incentive for specialty managed care programs serving a disproportionate number of frail, medically complex beneficiaries. My legislation will take several steps toward meeting this goal. First it will require the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to evaluate alternative risk adjustment methods that account for the higher costs borne by plans with a disproportionate number of high cost beneficiaries. During this study, it will also implement the recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission by permitting these plans that currently operate under demonstration authority to maintain existing payment formulas until the Secretary devises a risk adjustment method that pays adequately for high risk enrollees. At the same time, it would also direct MedPAC to evaluate appropriate methods to adjust payment rates based on the makeup of the beneficiaries. Finally, my legislation would also authorize the Secretary to conduct a demonstration to enhance care and improve outcomes for frail, vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. I would also like to make clear that this legislation uses existing funds to pay for these initiatives, and is thus budget neutral. It authorizes the demonstration program within existing dollars and would also provide additional funding for the frailty adjustment with existing Medicare+Choice dollars. Fundamental long-term care reform is vital to any health care reform that Congress may consider. As part of these reforms, we must support state and local efforts to encourage care for the most vulnerable populations. We must provide our seniors and disabled with real choices. They are entitled to the opportunity to continue to live in the homes and communities that they helped build and sustain. I urge my colleagues to support this measure that will help provide a measure of support for the most frail elderly and disabled to allow them to stay in their own homes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as millions of public school students and teachers around the country settle into the new school year, I am introducing a bill that would help to return a measure of local control that was taken from school districts and State educational agencies with the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act earlier this year. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Jeffords, Wellstone, Leahy, and Dayton. I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. I also believe that the Federal Government has an important role to play in supporting our State educational agencies and local school districts as they carry out one of their most important responsibilities, the education of our children. I voted against the recently-enacted No Child Left Behind Act in large part because of the new annual testing mandate for students in grades 3-8. While I agree that there should be a strong accountability system in place to ensure that public school students are making progress, I strongly oppose over-testing students in our public schools. I agree that some tests are needed to ensure that our children are keeping pace, but taking time to test students has to take a back seat to taking the time to teach students in the first place. I have heard a lot about these new annual tests from the people of Wisconsin, and their response has been almost universally negative. My constituents are concerned about this additional layer of testing for many reasons, including the cost of developing and implementing these tests, the loss of teaching time every year to prepare for and take the tests, and the extra pressure that the tests will place on students, teachers, schools, and school districts. I share my constituents' concerns about this new Federal mandate. I find it interesting that proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act say that it will return more control to the States and local school districts. In my view, however, this massive new Federal testing mandate runs counter to the idea of local control. Many States and local school districts around the country, including Wisconsin, already have comprehensive testing programs in place. The Federal Government should leave decisions about the frequency of using high quality assessments to measure and increase student academic achievement up to the States and local school districts that bear the responsibility for educating our children. Every State and every school district is different. A uniform testing policy may not be the best approach. I have heard from many education professionals in my state that this new testing requirement is a waste of money and a waste of time. These people are dedicated professionals who are committed to educating Wisconsin's children, and they don't oppose testing. I think we can all agree that testing has its place. What they oppose is the magnitude of testing that is required by this law. Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, the No Child Left Behind Act will pile more tests on our Nation's public school students. And of course, when those tests are piled on students, they burden our teachers as well, because teachers must spend more and more time preparing students to take these exams. This kind of teaching, sometimes called ``teaching to the test,'' is becoming more and more prevalent in our schools as testing has become increasingly common. The dedicated teachers in our classrooms will now be constrained by teaching to yet more tests, instead of being able to use their own judgment about what subject areas the class needs to spend extra time studying. This additional testing time could also reduce the opportunity for teachers to create and implement innovative learning experiences for their students. Teachers in my State are concerned about the amount of time that they will have to spend preparing their students to take the tests and administering the tests. They are concerned that these additional tests will disrupt the flow of education in their classrooms. One teacher said the preparation for the tests Wisconsin already requires in grades 3, 4, 8, and 10 can take up to a month, and the administration of the test takes another week. That is five weeks out of the school year. And now the Federal Government is requiring teachers to take a huge chunk out of instruction time each year in grades 3-8. In my view, and in the view of the people of my State, this time can be better spent on regular classroom instruction. The legislation that I introduce today, the Student Testing Flexibility Act of 2002, would give State educational agencies, SEAs, and local educational agencies, LEAs, that have demonstrated academic success the flexibility to apply to waive the new annual testing requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act. SEAs and LEAs with waivers would still be required to administer high quality tests to students in, at a minimum, reading or language arts and mathematics at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 as required under the law. This bill would allow SEAs and LEAs that meet the same specific accountability criteria outlined for school-level excellence under the State Academic Achievement Award Program to apply to the Secretary of Education for a waiver from the new annual reading or language arts and mathematics tests for students in grades 3-8. The waiver would be for a period of three years and would be renewable, so long as the SEA or LEA met the criteria. To qualify for the waiver, the SEA or LEA must have significantly closed the achievement gap between a number of subgroups of students as required under Title I, or must have exceeded their adequate yearly progress, AYP, goals for two or more consecutive years. The bill would require the Secretary to grant waivers to SEAs or LEAs that meet these criteria and apply for the waiver. LEAs in states that have waivers would not be required to apply for a separate waiver. The Federal Government should not impose an additional layer of testing on states that are succeeding in meeting or exceeding their AYP goals or on closing the achievement gap. Instead, we should allow those States that have demonstrated academic success to use their share of Federal testing money to help those schools that need it the most. The bill I introduce today would do just that by allowing States with waivers to retain their share of the Federal funding appropriated to develop and implement the new annual tests. These important dollars would be used for activities that these states deem appropriate for improving student achievement at individual public elementary and secondary schools that have failed to make AYP. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by the National PTA, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association, and the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance, which includes the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, and the Wisconsin Council for Administrators of Special Services. While this bill focuses on the over-testing of students in our public schools, I would like to note that my constituents have raised a number of other concerns about the No Child Left Behind Act that I hope will be addressed by Congress. In particular, many of my constituents are concerned about the new adequate yearly progress requirements and about finding the funding necessary to implement all of the provisions of this new law. I hope that my bill, the Student Testing Flexibility Act, will help to focus attention on the perhaps unintended consequences that the ongoing implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act will have for States, school districts, and individual schools, teachers, and students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first let me commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee for all of their efforts in crafting the Homeland Security measure before the Senate today. As I have listened to the various proposals to create a Department of Homeland Security one of my primary concerns is what are we going to do to improve the role of the FBI as an intelligence gathering agency. I rise today to introduce legislation on this matter, and I send a copy of this legislation to the desk. I also rise to offer the same legislation as an amendment to the Homeland Security bill, and I send a copy of the amendment to the desk. The need for this amendment is clear. We have heard, over and over again, that one of the chief purposes of the new Department is to enable one agency to serve as a central clearinghouse for all terrorism related information, regardless of the source. For the consumers of intelligence information, like the Department of Homeland Security, it should not matter whether the information comes from a CIA agent in the Middle East, an FBI agent listening to a wire-tap from overseas or a cop on a street corner in New York City. I am concerned that we have not done enough to insure that the relevant information gathered by the FBI is passed on to those who can analyze it and evaluate a potential threat against our Nation's safety. Simply put, I wonder about what type of information the FBI will be providing to the new Department and what the new Department will do with the information. I am concerned about the lack of policies and procedures in place for the new Department to request follow-up investigation from the FBI and local law enforcement. I have offered this amendment, entitled the Intelligence Analysis Reporting Act of 2002, to assist Congress in determining if the division of investigative responsibilities between the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI is working effectively. This amendment will provide Congress with the information necessary to determine if the FBI is taking competent steps to provide information to the new Department and to respond to intelligence requests in a useful manner. Presently, the FBI does not have the technological nor personnel capacity to provide information to the Department of Homeland Security or to any other intelligence agency in a highly useful form. This is because criminal investigations, which involve grand jury testimony, witness interviews and wire-taps, are not conducive to the standards of intelligence gathering which require some sifting of the material before it is disseminated to consumers like a Department of Homeland Security. This amendment would require the new Department to report to Congress on policies and procedures implemented to insure that it can adequately request information and investigation from the FBI and local law enforcement. In addition, it requires the Department of Homeland Security to report on what types of intelligence information have been turned over such as summary interviews, transcripts and warrants from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. I firmly believe that no matter how many agencies are moved into a Department of Homeland Security or how much money we spend on putting up a new building, the only test of our success will be how effective we are in protecting ourselves against future threats. This amendment will allow us to determine if the critical intelligence information we need to prevent a possible attack is being provided to people at the Department of Homeland Security who can act on it promptly and effectively. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as millions of public school students and teachers around the country settle into the new school year, I am introducing a bill that would help to return a measure of local control that was taken from school districts and State educational agencies with the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act earlier this year. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Jeffords, Wellstone, Leahy, and Dayton. I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. I also believe that the Federal Government has an important role to play in supporting our State educational agencies and local school districts as they carry out one of their most important responsibilities, the education of our children. I voted against the recently-enacted No Child Left Behind Act in large part because of the new annual testing mandate for students in grades 3-8. While I agree that there should be a strong accountability system in place to ensure that public school students are making progress, I strongly oppose over-testing students in our public schools. I agree that some tests are needed to ensure that our children are keeping pace, but taking time to test students has to take a back seat to taking the time to teach students in the first place. I have heard a lot about these new annual tests from the people of Wisconsin, and their response has been almost universally negative. My constituents are concerned about this additional layer of testing for many reasons, including the cost of developing and implementing these tests, the loss of teaching time every year to prepare for and take the tests, and the extra pressure that the tests will place on students, teachers, schools, and school districts. I share my constituents' concerns about this new Federal mandate. I find it interesting that proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act say that it will return more control to the States and local school districts. In my view, however, this massive new Federal testing mandate runs counter to the idea of local control. Many States and local school districts around the country, including Wisconsin, already have comprehensive testing programs in place. The Federal Government should leave decisions about the frequency of using high quality assessments to measure and increase student academic achievement up to the States and local school districts that bear the responsibility for educating our children. Every State and every school district is different. A uniform testing policy may not be the best approach. I have heard from many education professionals in my state that this new testing requirement is a waste of money and a waste of time. These people are dedicated professionals who are committed to educating Wisconsin's children, and they don't oppose testing. I think we can all agree that testing has its place. What they oppose is the magnitude of testing that is required by this law. Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, the No Child Left Behind Act will pile more tests on our Nation's public school students. And of course, when those tests are piled on students, they burden our teachers as well, because teachers must spend more and more time preparing students to take these exams. This kind of teaching, sometimes called ``teaching to the test,'' is becoming more and more prevalent in our schools as testing has become increasingly common. The dedicated teachers in our classrooms will now be constrained by teaching to yet more tests, instead of being able to use their own judgment about what subject areas the class needs to spend extra time studying. This additional testing time could also reduce the opportunity for teachers to create and implement innovative learning experiences for their students. Teachers in my State are concerned about the amount of time that they will have to spend preparing their students to take the tests and administering the tests. They are concerned that these additional tests will disrupt the flow of education in their classrooms. One teacher said the preparation for the tests Wisconsin already requires in grades 3, 4, 8, and 10 can take up to a month, and the administration of the test takes another week. That is five weeks out of the school year. And now the Federal Government is requiring teachers to take a huge chunk out of instruction time each year in grades 3-8. In my view, and in the view of the people of my State, this time can be better spent on regular classroom instruction. The legislation that I introduce today, the Student Testing Flexibility Act of 2002, would give State educational agencies, SEAs, and local educational agencies, LEAs, that have demonstrated academic success the flexibility to apply to waive the new annual testing requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act. SEAs and LEAs with waivers would still be required to administer high quality tests to students in, at a minimum, reading or language arts and mathematics at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 as required under the law. This bill would allow SEAs and LEAs that meet the same specific accountability criteria outlined for school-level excellence under the State Academic Achievement Award Program to apply to the Secretary of Education for a waiver from the new annual reading or language arts and mathematics tests for students in grades 3-8. The waiver would be for a period of three years and would be renewable, so long as the SEA or LEA met the criteria. To qualify for the waiver, the SEA or LEA must have significantly closed the achievement gap between a number of subgroups of students as required under Title I, or must have exceeded their adequate yearly progress, AYP, goals for two or more consecutive years. The bill would require the Secretary to grant waivers to SEAs or LEAs that meet these criteria and apply for the waiver. LEAs in states that have waivers would not be required to apply for a separate waiver. The Federal Government should not impose an additional layer of testing on states that are succeeding in meeting or exceeding their AYP goals or on closing the achievement gap. Instead, we should allow those States that have demonstrated academic success to use their share of Federal testing money to help those schools that need it the most. The bill I introduce today would do just that by allowing States with waivers to retain their share of the Federal funding appropriated to develop and implement the new annual tests. These important dollars would be used for activities that these states deem appropriate for improving student achievement at individual public elementary and secondary schools that have failed to make AYP. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by the National PTA, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association, and the Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance, which includes the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, and the Wisconsin Council for Administrators of Special Services. While this bill focuses on the over-testing of students in our public schools, I would like to note that my constituents have raised a number of other concerns about the No Child Left Behind Act that I hope will be addressed by Congress. In particular, many of my constituents are concerned about the new adequate yearly progress requirements and about finding the funding necessary to implement all of the provisions of this new law. I hope that my bill, the Student Testing Flexibility Act, will help to focus attention on the perhaps unintended consequences that the ongoing implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act will have for States, school districts, and individual schools, teachers, and students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first let me commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee for all of their efforts in crafting the Homeland Security measure before the Senate today. As I have listened to the various proposals to create a Department of Homeland Security one of my primary concerns is what are we going to do to improve the role of the FBI as an intelligence gathering agency. I rise today to introduce legislation on this matter, and I send a copy of this legislation to the desk. I also rise to offer the same legislation as an amendment to the Homeland Security bill, and I send a copy of the amendment to the desk. The need for this amendment is clear. We have heard, over and over again, that one of the chief purposes of the new Department is to enable one agency to serve as a central clearinghouse for all terrorism related information, regardless of the source. For the consumers of intelligence information, like the Department of Homeland Security, it should not matter whether the information comes from a CIA agent in the Middle East, an FBI agent listening to a wire-tap from overseas or a cop on a street corner in New York City. I am concerned that we have not done enough to insure that the relevant information gathered by the FBI is passed on to those who can analyze it and evaluate a potential threat against our Nation's safety. Simply put, I wonder about what type of information the FBI will be providing to the new Department and what the new Department will do with the information. I am concerned about the lack of policies and procedures in place for the new Department to request follow-up investigation from the FBI and local law enforcement. I have offered this amendment, entitled the Intelligence Analysis Reporting Act of 2002, to assist Congress in determining if the division of investigative responsibilities between the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI is working effectively. This amendment will provide Congress with the information necessary to determine if the FBI is taking competent steps to provide information to the new Department and to respond to intelligence requests in a useful manner. Presently, the FBI does not have the technological nor personnel capacity to provide information to the Department of Homeland Security or to any other intelligence agency in a highly useful form. This is because criminal investigations, which involve grand jury testimony, witness interviews and wire-taps, are not conducive to the standards of intelligence gathering which require some sifting of the material before it is disseminated to consumers like a Department of Homeland Security. This amendment would require the new Department to report to Congress on policies and procedures implemented to insure that it can adequately request information and investigation from the FBI and local law enforcement. In addition, it requires the Department of Homeland Security to report on what types of intelligence information have been turned over such as summary interviews, transcripts and warrants from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. I firmly believe that no matter how many agencies are moved into a Department of Homeland Security or how much money we spend on putting up a new building, the only test of our success will be how effective we are in protecting ourselves against future threats. This amendment will allow us to determine if the critical intelligence information we need to prevent a possible attack is being provided to people at the Department of Homeland Security who can act on it promptly and effectively. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Iowa to introduce legislation to give farmers options in identifying a forum to resolve disputes with agribusinesses. This legislation is based on our amendment to the Senate-passed Farm Bill that was unfortunately stripped in the conference committee. Our amendment passed by a vote of 64-31, yet it was ultimately taken out due to objections by large agribusiness companies in the backroom negotiations. While our effort then was not successful, I am hopeful that we will be able to pass this legislation and begin to give farmers a fair shot in the marketplace. I am deeply concerned that the concentration of power in the hands of a few large agribusiness firms, companies that can raise a billion dollars on Wall Street at the drop of a hat, is forcing farmers and ranchers to be placed at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. These large corporations are using their market power to force independent producers into a position of weakness through unfair contracts and other uses of market leverage. In some cases, the domestic marketplace has become almost noncompetitive for the family farmer. Farmers have fewer buyers and suppliers than ever before. One indication of this dominance is one- sided contracts that favor agribusinesses at the expense of farmers and ranchers. It is of paramount importance that we help restore competition in rural America. One way to promote competition is to ensure that farmers have a choice of forums to resolve disputes with agribusinesses. While alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration can serve a useful purpose in resolving disputes between parties, I am extremely concerned about the increasing trend of stronger parties to a contract forcing weaker parties to waive their legal rights and agree to arbitrate any future disputes that may arise. It recently came to my attention that large agribusiness companies often present producers with ``take it or leave it'' contracts, which increasingly include mandatory and binding arbitration clauses. This practice forces farmers to submit their disputes with packers and processors to arbitration. As a result, farmers are required to waive access to judicial or administrative forums, substantive contract rights, and statutorily provided protections. In short, this practice violates the farmers' fundamental due process rights and runs directly counter to basic principles of fairness. Arbitration is billed as an inexpensive alternative to civil lawsuits. The opposite, however, is often the case. Filing fees and other expenses in arbitration result in much higher costs for the parties than civil actions. Attorney fees, whether hourly or contingency, are similar regardless of forum. For example, in a recent Mississippi case, filing fees for a poultry grower to begin an arbitration proceeding were $11,000. This is far more than the $150 to $250 cost of filing in civil court. It makes no sense for a farmer to seek payment for wrongdoing when he or she has lost $10,000, when it costs $11,000 just to get the case before an arbitrator. The practical result of these mandatory arbitration clauses is that farmers have no forum in which to bring their dispute against the company. Arbitration clauses require farmers to waive their right to a jury trial and bring a dispute only in a forum that my be cost- prohibitive. Farmers, who likely have substantial debts due to low prices and large mortgages on their farms, are often left without any recourse even in a case where the agribusiness has plainly acted illegally. With the litigation option taken away by contract and the arbitration forum taken away by economics, the grower has no forum in which to bring his or her dispute against the company. The net result of these mandatory arbitration clauses is that the farmer always loses. If poultry farmers lose their farms as a result of a mis-weighed animal, they should have the right to hold the company accountable. When farmers are hurt because they have received bad feed, we must ensure that they are able to choose the forum through which they can resole their concerns. If farmers believe they have been provided diseased animals from an agribusiness, they should at least have a forum in which to voice their concerns. In short, we must give farmers a fair choice that both parties to an agricultural contract may willingly and knowingly select. This legislation therefore does not prohibit arbitration. It simply ensures that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation and give farmers options to resolve disputes in the agriculture marketplace.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend from Iowa to introduce legislation to give farmers options in identifying a forum to resolve disputes with agribusinesses. This legislation is based on our amendment to the Senate-passed Farm Bill that was unfortunately stripped in the conference committee. Our amendment passed by a vote of 64-31, yet it was ultimately taken out due to objections by large agribusiness companies in the backroom negotiations. While our effort then was not successful, I am hopeful that we will be able to pass this legislation and begin to give farmers a fair shot in the marketplace. I am deeply concerned that the concentration of power in the hands of a few large agribusiness firms, companies that can raise a billion dollars on Wall Street at the drop of a hat, is forcing farmers and ranchers to be placed at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. These large corporations are using their market power to force independent producers into a position of weakness through unfair contracts and other uses of market leverage. In some cases, the domestic marketplace has become almost noncompetitive for the family farmer. Farmers have fewer buyers and suppliers than ever before. One indication of this dominance is one- sided contracts that favor agribusinesses at the expense of farmers and ranchers. It is of paramount importance that we help restore competition in rural America. One way to promote competition is to ensure that farmers have a choice of forums to resolve disputes with agribusinesses. While alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration can serve a useful purpose in resolving disputes between parties, I am extremely concerned about the increasing trend of stronger parties to a contract forcing weaker parties to waive their legal rights and agree to arbitrate any future disputes that may arise. It recently came to my attention that large agribusiness companies often present producers with ``take it or leave it'' contracts, which increasingly include mandatory and binding arbitration clauses. This practice forces farmers to submit their disputes with packers and processors to arbitration. As a result, farmers are required to waive access to judicial or administrative forums, substantive contract rights, and statutorily provided protections. In short, this practice violates the farmers' fundamental due process rights and runs directly counter to basic principles of fairness. Arbitration is billed as an inexpensive alternative to civil lawsuits. The opposite, however, is often the case. Filing fees and other expenses in arbitration result in much higher costs for the parties than civil actions. Attorney fees, whether hourly or contingency, are similar regardless of forum. For example, in a recent Mississippi case, filing fees for a poultry grower to begin an arbitration proceeding were $11,000. This is far more than the $150 to $250 cost of filing in civil court. It makes no sense for a farmer to seek payment for wrongdoing when he or she has lost $10,000, when it costs $11,000 just to get the case before an arbitrator. The practical result of these mandatory arbitration clauses is that farmers have no forum in which to bring their dispute against the company. Arbitration clauses require farmers to waive their right to a jury trial and bring a dispute only in a forum that my be cost- prohibitive. Farmers, who likely have substantial debts due to low prices and large mortgages on their farms, are often left without any recourse even in a case where the agribusiness has plainly acted illegally. With the litigation option taken away by contract and the arbitration forum taken away by economics, the grower has no forum in which to bring his or her dispute against the company. The net result of these mandatory arbitration clauses is that the farmer always loses. If poultry farmers lose their farms as a result of a mis-weighed animal, they should have the right to hold the company accountable. When farmers are hurt because they have received bad feed, we must ensure that they are able to choose the forum through which they can resole their concerns. If farmers believe they have been provided diseased animals from an agribusiness, they should at least have a forum in which to voice their concerns. In short, we must give farmers a fair choice that both parties to an agricultural contract may willingly and knowingly select. This legislation therefore does not prohibit arbitration. It simply ensures that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation and give farmers options to resolve disputes in the agriculture marketplace.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the situation in Sudan, a county characterized by brutal fighting and tremendous suffering, a country in which an estimated two million people have died in just the past decade from war-related causes, and where millions more have been displaced. In July, I held a hearing on U.S. Policy in Sudan in my capacity as chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At that time, I praised the administration for devoting high-level attention to the plight of the Sudanese people. As I noted then, the President and the Secretary of State have spoken out about Sudan. The President appointed Senator John Danforth to be his Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan. USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios was named Special Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan. As a result of Senator Danforth's efforts, the International Eminent Persons Group has investigated means for preventing abductions and slavery and has reported on its findings. And in July, negotiations between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, or SPLA, in Machakos, Kenya produced a broad framework for ending the civil war and providing the people of the south with the means to exercise their right to self-determination. All of this deserves praise. But currently, the negotiations are troubled. The Government of Sudan pulled its negotiators out of Machakos in response to the SPLA's capturing the strategic garrison town of Torit on September 1. Many observers, including key American officials, believe that the process is not permanently derailed but merely disrupted. Still, this disruption calls the world's attention to a rather telling point. There is no ceasefire on the ground in Sudan, and not only do military engagements continue, so too do attacks on civilians and the manipulation of humanitarian assistance. The situation of the Sudanese people has not improved despite the developments at the negotiating table. I continue to support the administration's efforts to work with Inter-governmental Authority on Development, IGAD, to facilitate the peace process. But given this disconnect between reality on the ground and rhetoric in negotiations, given the troubled recent history of United States-Sudanese relations, given the scale and scope of the abuses committed against civilians regularly in that troubled country, this effort requires something of a leap of faith. I do not criticize the administration for taking the leap, I believe that it was a correct and courageous decision to work with the Government in Khartoum and with the SPLA to try to find a path to peace in Sudan. But I do criticize the administration for not taking the confidence-building measures, including those identified by Senator Danforth, seriously enough, leaving us with little in the way of concrete reassurances that our leap was a wise one. Specifically, I am referring to issue of the civilian bombing monitoring team. In the July hearing, I asked Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner about the bombing of civilian targets. Senator Danforth succeeded in getting both the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Army to agree to allow a monitoring team to verify their stated commitment not to intentionally attack civilian targets. That happened in spring. But at the time of the hearing, we still had no monitors on the ground. Meanwhile, reports of attacks on civilians persist. What are we waiting for, I asked. When will the team be functioning on the ground? I was told that this effort was taking shape, and that the team would be functioning by the end of August. But today, the team is still not in place, still not functioning. We cannot even move to the very important work of trying to link documented incidents of attacks on civilians to clear consequences, because we remain, apparently, incapable of deploying a qualified and appropriately equipped team of people with experience in Sudan and in human rights monitoring. I spend a great deal of time trying to call the administration's attention to very serious issues in sub-Saharan Africa that are deserving of more American time and interest. I do not have to do that when it comes to Sudan. Bringing peace to Sudan appears to me to be this administration's most significant policy initiative in the region, and I commend the administration for its efforts. That said, this element of the effort, following up on the commitments obtained by Senator Danforth relating to the bombing of civilian targets, this element of the effort is quite plainly falling short. If the administration needs additional resources, personnel, or logistical capacity to make this happen efficiently and effectively, I know that many in Congress stand ready to help. Many of my colleagues have long history of working to address the crisis in Sudan, notably my partner in on the African Affairs Subcommittee, Senator Frist, and I admire their commitment and their work. In calling attention to this issue, and in criticizing the administration for its failure to move forward on the civilian bombing monitoring issue, I do not seek to inject partisanship into the Sudan policy debate. But I do want to make it clear that this is not a small thing and not a secondary priority. The administration's capacity to help bring peace to Sudan is strongest when the diverse community of Sudan advocates and the entire Congress is united in support for that effort. We need to sustain our faith in this endeavor with concrete steps even as our country continues to facilitate big-picture negotiations. And so I encourage the administration to make deploying a qualified and well-organized monitoring team at the earliest possible date a real priority.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to remember, to reflect, to try to somehow do justice to the memory of those lost to us on September 11. The tremendous grief we felt then, and still feel so sharply today, makes this anniversary a painful one for all of us as a nation, and as a people. The anguish of that day will always be with us, but those of us who witnessed those acts of terror on our television screens know that we cannot imagine the suffering of those who perished in the attacks, or those who survived them. The families and friends of those who died must live with terrible loss, and those who survived must live with searing memories. No passage of time can ever erase the emotions of that day. But 1 year later, we also know that no passage of time can diminish the legacy left behind by those who perished. They will always be with us, living on in the family and friends who loved them. No passage of time will allow us to regain what was so tragically lost on that morning. But one year later, with the passage of time, we see so clearly what was briefly obscured by smoke and fear and disbelief. We see the strength of the people around us--their everyday heroism, their generosity, and their humanity. No passage of time can change what happened on September 11. But the last year has shown us that when our Nation was tested by terror, we did not falter, and most of all we did not fail each other. We rose together to meet the challenges before us, and we found that together we were capable of more than we ever imagined. So today we find strength in each other. We find strength in the acts of heroism, and the acts of simple humanity, that took place on September 11 and in the aftermath of the attacks: the bravery of the first responders at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the acts of kindness of Americans all over the country who donated blood, observed moments of silence, or flew the flag in a show of patriotism and support. Each of these acts, however large or small, contributed to our growing faith in the Nation's recovery, and in each other. I was deeply proud of the many Wisconsinites who reached out to the victims of September 11 and their families. Volunteers from around the state flocked to disaster relief organizations to donate money and donate their time to support the victims of the attacks. A number of Wisconsin volunteers also traveled to the World Trade Center to support the rescue workers. That desire all of us felt to do something, anything we could to help the victims of the attacks ran deep in my state, as it did everywhere across the country. Just as the firefighters and police on 9/11 redefined bravery and heroism, in the uncertain days that followed, the Americans who reached out to help the victims and their families redefined generosity and patriotism. A number of companies in Wisconsin, as so many businesses nationwide, also donated to the rescue efforts. Fire truck manufacturers such as Pierce Manufacturing of Appleton, WI, and Marion Body Works of Marion, WI, donated critical replacement equipment to the New York City Fire Department. Seagrave Fire Apparatus of Clintonville, WI, rallied to complete previously ordered equipment for the New York City Fire Department in the wake of the attacks, and sent staff to New York to help the Department repair damaged equipment. These efforts reaffirmed our faith that Americans would rise to this challenge, as we have so many times throughout our Nation's history. And we are rising to that challenge. It has not been easy, and I frankly don't believe that all the choices we have made have been the right ones. But that has never affected the pride I feel to be an American during this extraordinary time in our history. I couldn't be more proud of the way Americans have come together in the wake of this tragedy, and I have been privileged to serve in the Senate during this last year. What we as a nation have accomplished over the last year, and what we will accomplish in the years to come to meet the challenge of terrorism, will be our mark on history, not just as a Congress but as a generation. It is of course impossible to summarize what happened on 9/11 and what it means. There were so many moments--public and private, captured on film and also lost to history--that make up our collective memory of that day. The New York Times section ``Portraits of Grief,'' however, is one laudable effort to pay tribute to the victims as individuals by remembering and celebrating each of their lives. These brief stories of the victims' lives remind us that the people who died that day were from every walk of life, from all over the country, and from all over the world. They remind us of what America truly is--a sea of nationalities and ethnicities never before seen in human history. The bitter irony of al-Qaida's desire to kill Americans is that people from every corner of the world have become citizens of this Nation. Like places all across America, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the hijacked planes were filled with people with roots in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Central and South America. These people and their families came here for different reasons, and they likely lived vastly different lives. But all of them had the chance to be a part of this great and free Nation. And all of them were senselessly struck down on September 11. One such man was Ramzi Doany. I would like to read the story published in the ``Portraits of Grief'' section of the New York Times about this man, who lived for many years in my home state of Wisconsin. Ramzi Doany amassed friends. He amassed them with acts of kindness, like tutoring a woman with lupus, two children and no husband, to get her through college, or letting his college roommate and the roommate's wife live in his condo for two years so they could save money for a down payment on a house. He amassed friends with his sense of humor, which filled a room and flourished at an early age. As a boy of 9 or 10, young Ramzi dug a hole in the backyard for a terrible report card and put a stone on top. ``He said it was dead and buried,'' said his sister, Dina Doany Azzam. Mr. Doany was born to Palestinian parents in Amman, Jordan, and lived for many years in Milwaukee. At 35, he devoured the novels of Dickens, cooked Thanksgiving turkeys with great pride (even if they were just a bit dry) and had just bought a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. He chose to work as a forensic accountant last March for Marsh & McLennan, the insurance brokerage company, because it would bring him to New York, a city he loved. The job also brought him to the World Trade Center. It was a funny sort of journey, his sister said. This man's journey, like so many others, was tragically cut short on September 11. On this day, the passage of time is bittersweet. Whatever the healing powers of time, no passage of years can change what happened on September 11. But the passage of time brings other gifts. This last year has brought us resolve--the firm resolve to stop terror, to preserve our liberty, and to do justice to the memory of those who died. It has also shown us our own resilience--how Americans, even in the initial moments of shock and horror of the attacks, showed so much bravery, so much compassion, and so much generosity. Finally, time has brought renewal. It has renewed our strength, our hope, and our faith in each other. So it is with this resolve, this resilience, and this sense of renewal that we move forward, in the name of those who perished, dedicated to fighting terror, and united by our faith in this great and free Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Lieberman, for recognizing early on that a major government reorganization should be considered in light of the tragic events of September 11th and for his leadership in putting together a basic structure for a new Department of Homeland Security. I also praise President Bush for supporting the existing congressional effort to elevate the authority and the status of the Office of Homeland Security to a Cabinet level position that will be responsive to the needs of the American people. As we approach the anniversary of September 11th, Congress has been diligently working to insure that America has a Department of Homeland Security that can be responsive to the challenges of the post September 11th world. The Senate has spent the past few months exploring the bureaucratic obstacles that limited our capacity to identify and prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11th. We have considered in hearings whether the steps that have been taken to advance our country's safety and security since September 11 have been effective, and whether they adequately protect our most fundamental civil liberties. The Congress has always responded to the challenge to protect this nation against any and all threats, including terrorism. I am committed to ensuring that as we build this new agency, we do so in manner that guarantees that basic fundamental rights are not lost or forgotten in a rush to be seen as doing something. As the Senate moves forward in considering this new government structure, I have been guided by two simple questions: Will this reorganization make all of us safer? And will it preserve our liberties as Americans? That inquiry should continue to guide our consideration for a Department of Homeland Security. So as we move forward toward establishing a Department of Homeland Security, it is important for all of us to examine and discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the pending proposal. All of us know that local law enforcement stands at the front line for security in our neighborhoods and communities. The new Department should be organized in a manner that helps and doesn't hinder local law enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security needs to insure that federal, state and local law enforcement work together with the necessary information, tools and resources that are required to adapt and respond to the evolving challenges our first responders are facing. I am pleased that my bill, the First Responder Support Act, is part of the present proposal we are now discussing. I certainly want to thank my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, for her work in making our responsibility to first responders a priority in this bill. The First Responder Support Act will help first responders get the information and training they need from the Department of Homeland Security. I am also introducing the First Responder Communication Support Act to help communities who need communication systems to enable police, fire, EMS, and relief agencies to speak to one another in a time of crisis without overwhelming existing communication lines. Whether people face an act of terrorism or a tornado, in a time of emergency our first responders need to be able to communicate with one another. I am also concerned about our efforts to protect the public from the use of weapons of mass destruction. The emerging chemical and biological weapons of the 21st century present new challenges to our military and to local first responders. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams play a vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating these new threats. The September 11 terrorist attacks emphasize the need to have full-time teams in each State. I have filed an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team in each State by September 30, 2003. The cost of establishing, training, equipping, and operating these new teams would be paid for from existing fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense resources, thus requiring no additional spending while providing a critical level of protection. As we rethink the security needs of our country, we should support the creation of an additional 23 full-time Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. Establishing these additional full- time teams will improve the overall capacity and capability to prepare for and respond to potential threats in the future. I look forward to working with Chairman Levin and Chairman Lieberman on this effort. We must remember that not every law enforcement purpose makes sense. The administration's proposal to create the TIPS program appears to be a way to begin domestic Government surveillance in our communities with a motto not of ``love thy neighbor'' but ``spy on thy neighbor.'' I am concerned that if some trained police officers have a difficulty distinguishing between the proper and improper use of race in law enforcement activities, we are asking for real trouble if we ask untrained and fearful ``citizen'' volunteers to report on their neighbors. Workers in the Department of Homeland Security who will have the awesome responsibility of protecting us should have the basic job protection their fellow Federal workers are granted. No one, including the President, has shown how simple and basic job security will jeopardize our national security. I believe we can protect our country at the same time that we protect our workers. In fact, we can better protect our country if our workers' rights are well-protected, too. I am concerned that the administration appears ready to use the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security as an opportunity to eliminate or weaken the civil service protections currently in place for the Federal employees who would be transferred to the new Department. The civil service system was put into place in order to end the corrupt patronage system that had permeated Government hiring. The creation of a new Department should not be used as an excuse to roll back these protections. In addition, I support the right of Federal workers to join a union and am troubled that the administration wants to strip existing union representation and collective bargaining rights from many of these workers. I also am troubled by the implication that union membership is somehow a threat to our national security. In light of September 11, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion about the FBI's ability to effectively gather intelligence information. It has become clear that federal intelligence gathering agencies, such as the FBI, need to do better in collecting, organizing and presenting basic information about domestic terrorism. I believe that important first steps have been taken. In our desire to move agencies under one roof, however, we should not be afraid to ask if the move will actually improve intelligence gathering or simply confuse us. I also want to take a moment to lend my support to the immigration provisions in the Lieberman substitute. There has been considerable debate in recent years, and especially since September 11, on how best to re-organize the Immigration and Naturalization Service, so that we can protect our Nation from those who would seek to enter the U.S. to do harm, while we effectively and efficiently address the needs of businesses, families, students, and visitors who seek to enter our Nation for lawful purposes. The Lieberman substitute would wisely keep the service and enforcement functions of INS together in one Department; elevate the INS to a separate division within the new Department; keep visa approval authority within the Department of State; maintain the adjudication authority for immigration matters within the Department of Justice; and include a civil rights monitoring and oversight provision for the important purpose of holding INS enforcement functions accountable. I commend Senator Lieberman for including the ideas of Senators Kennedy and Brownback, the distinguished chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration. These Senators came together to create a bipartisan INS reorganization plan. Immigrant advocates have long believed that in order to be effective and efficient, INS requires a strong leader with authority to coordinate and balance the complementary functions of services and enforcement. The Lieberman substitute does just that. While we seek to secure our Nation, we cannot ignore the importance of the flow of immigrants and visitors to our Nation. They provide the nutrients of new ideas, labor, and money that grows our economy and our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the carefully crafted immigration provisions contained in the Lieberman substitute. I am especially pleased that the Lieberman substitute contains an important provision to ensure that the new Department complies with the Nation's civil rights and privacy laws. As I have said, I believe that our consideration of this legislation should be guided by two principles: will this proposed re-organization make our country safer, and can we do so while respecting fundamental constitutional rights and protections? Many Federal agencies have designated offices and personnel to monitor agency policies and practices to ensure that they comply with the Nation's civil rights laws. This new Department of Homeland Security, with its unprecedented array of law enforcement powers, should be no different. It is absolutely critical that the new Department include civil rights and privacy monitoring and oversight functions. I support the Lieberman substitute's requirement of a civil rights officer and privacy officer. The civil rights officer would be Senate-confirmed and would have responsibility to oversee and review Department policies to ensure that they do not violate the Nation's civil rights laws. The civil rights officer would refer matters that warrant further investigation to the new Department's inspector general. The Lieberman substitute would require the inspector general to designate an official to receive and review complaints alleging civil rights abuses and submit reports on a semi-annual basis to Congress that detail any civil rights abuses by employees and officials of the Department. Like the civil rights officer, the privacy officer would have responsibility to oversee and review Department policies to ensure that they do not violate the Nation's privacy laws. I was pleased to join Senator Kennedy in urging that these civil rights and privacy oversight provisions be included in the bill. I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Senator Lieberman for his recognition of the importance of these accountability provisions and his willingness to work with us. These provisions are an important step toward ensuring that the policies and practices of the new Department will be consistent with the rights and protections guaranteed by our Constitution. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Lieberman to ensure that the new Department includes appropriate and effective civil rights and privacy oversight provisions. Finally, notwithstanding our desire to move rapidly to address the Nation's safety, I believe we still have to ask ourselves if the cost of the Department is reasonable. I do have budget concerns with regard to the creation of this new Department. Safety for all Americans isn't inexpensive, but I don't want this new Department to unnecessarily aggravate our budget problems. When the President first announced his proposal for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, he indicated that the reorganization of the existing agencies would not increase costs and in fact should actually realize savings. That promise of net savings stands in contrast to the analysis of the proposal by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the new Department as proposed by this bill will add about $11 billion in new costs over the next 5 years on top of the projected net spending for the ongoing activities of the transferred agencies. And that $11 billion in new costs does not include the cost of developing the integrated information and communications systems authorized by the bill--systems with a price tag CBO states could exceed $1 billion. I am told that when the Education Department and the Energy Department were created, they both exceeded their initial budgets by at least 10 percent, and I don't want that to be the case with this new Department of Homeland Security. We need an effective, responsive and efficient Department of Homeland Security. I believe we can do this in a manner that protects the citizens who will depend on the Department and is fair to the employees who will be in the agency. In the coming weeks, I look forward to the debate on the shape and size of the Department with the belief that at the end of our discussion a better and stronger plan for a Department of Homeland Security will emerge.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alex Busansky, a detailee to my office from the Department of Justice, be allowed privileges of the floor for the duration of today's homeland security measure.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I commemorate the 38th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which was signed into law on September 3, 1964, by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System ``to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.'' The law reserves to Congress the authority to designate wilderness areas, and directs the Federal land management agencies to review the lands under their responsibility for their wilderness potential. The original Wilderness Act established 9.1 million acres of Forest Service land in 54 wilderness areas. Now, the wilderness system is comprised of more than a 100 million acres that are administered by four Federal agencies: the Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior. As we in this body know well, the passage and enactment of legislation of this type is a remarkable accomplishment. It requires steady, bipartisan commitment, institutional support, and direct leadership. The United States Senate was instrumental in shaping this very important law, and this anniversary gives us the opportunity to recognize this role. I have been very pleased to see this body return to the tradition of designating wilderness since the 35th anniversary of the act in 1999. The 106th Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a total of eight wilderness bills adding more than 1 million acres of public land to the National Wilderness Preservation System. This is the largest number of acres of wilderness added to the system since 1994 and is a stark contrast to the 105th Congress, which did not enact any wilderness designations. While the 107th Congress may not surpass the wilderness achievements of the 106th, there are a number of wilderness bills pending in the 107th Congress, several of which are likely to become law before the end of the year. The designation of the James Peak Wilderness in Colorado and additions to the Black Elk Wilderness in South Dakota have already been approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Bills designating new wilderness areas in Washington, Nevada, and Puerto Rico are likely to move forward this fall, while others, such as those to designate wilderness in Washington State and California, may see hearings or other congressional action. Many would agree that more must be done to protect our wild places, but much has been done already. In commemoration of anniversaries like this one, the Senate should celebrate our accomplishment, on behalf of the American people, in the protection of these wild places.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Act of 2002. This bill would require the Secretary of Defense to establish at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, WMD-CST, in each State by September 30, 2003. The cost of establishing, training, equipping, and operating these new teams would be paid for from existing fiscal year 2003 resources, thus requiring no additional spending. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Leahy, Lieberman, Kohl, Reid of Nevada, Sarbanes, Torricelli, and Jeffords. WMD-CSTs are comprised of 22 full-time National Guard personnel who are specially trained and equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear, chemical, biological, or other threats in support of local first responders. There are currently 32 full-time and 23 part-time WMD-CSTs across the country. The emerging chemical, biological, and other threats of the 21st century present new challenges to our military and to local first responders. The WMD-CSTs play a vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating these new threats. The September 11 terrorist attacks emphasize the need to have full-time WMD-CSTs in each State. As the events of that day so clearly and tragically demonstrated, local first responders are on the front lines of combating terrorism and responding to other large-scale incidents. As we rethink the security needs of our country, we should support the creation of an additional 23 full-time WMD-CSTs as soon as possible. Establishing these additional full-time teams will improve the overall capability of Wisconsin and the other 18 States with part-time teams to prepare for and respond to potential threats in the future. According to the National Guard Bureau, WMD-CSTs performed 694 operational missions between September 11, 2001, and August 26, 2002. These missions fall into three categories: ``response,'' ``standby,'' and ``assist.'' Response missions occur when a team is deployed to sample a suspected or known hazardous substance. Since September 11, WMD-CSTs have deployed on 151 response missions, most of which were to investigate reports of suspicious white powder in the wake of the anthrax attacks of last fall. Other response missions included reports of the presence of unknown liquids or of suspicious pieces of mail. There have been 74 standby missions during this same time frame. On these missions, WMD-CSTs deploy to provide expertise to a specific community for the visit of a dignitary such as the President or a Governor, or for a large-scale event. In the past year, WMD-CSTs have been on standby for events including the Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Milwaukee, the 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Salt Lake City, the World Series, the Super Bowl, and Mardi Gras. Assist missions give WMD-CST members the opportunity to use their technical expertise to assist or provide advice to local first responders or other organizations and to participate in conferences and other events that focus on how to respond to attacks. In the past year, CSTs have performed 469 assist missions in support of local, State, and Federal agencies including law enforcement, hospitals, health departments, state emergency management agencies, the American Red Cross, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the United States Navy. As I noted earlier, a WMD-CST was deployed to be on standby during this year's baseball All-Star game, which took place in my home State. Because Wisconsin has only a part-time WMD-CST, the Minnesota team was deployed on a standby mission to Milwaukee for this event. The members of Wisconsin's part-time WMD-CST also participated in this deployment. According to the Wisconsin National Guard, if Wisconsin had a full-time team, deployment of the Minnesota team would not have been necessary. In light of the tragic events of September 11, the presence of at least one WMD-CST in each State is all the more imperative. These terrorist attacks, and the subsequent mobilization of tens of thousands of National Guardsmen and Reservists, also underscore the need to provide adequate resources for and to ensure full-time manning of the National Guard. As we move to establish at least one 22-member WMD-CST in each State, I call on the Pentagon to allocate the necessary resources to ensure adequate National Guard personnel end-strengths to provide for full-time manning and for the additional personnel necessary for these new teams. I am pleased that this bill is supported by the Wisconsin National Guard and by the National Guard Association of the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Act of 2002. This bill would require the Secretary of Defense to establish at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, WMD-CST, in each State by September 30, 2003. The cost of establishing, training, equipping, and operating these new teams would be paid for from existing fiscal year 2003 resources, thus requiring no additional spending. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Leahy, Lieberman, Kohl, Reid of Nevada, Sarbanes, Torricelli, and Jeffords. WMD-CSTs are comprised of 22 full-time National Guard personnel who are specially trained and equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear, chemical, biological, or other threats in support of local first responders. There are currently 32 full-time and 23 part-time WMD-CSTs across the country. The emerging chemical, biological, and other threats of the 21st century present new challenges to our military and to local first responders. The WMD-CSTs play a vital role in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating these new threats. The September 11 terrorist attacks emphasize the need to have full-time WMD-CSTs in each State. As the events of that day so clearly and tragically demonstrated, local first responders are on the front lines of combating terrorism and responding to other large-scale incidents. As we rethink the security needs of our country, we should support the creation of an additional 23 full-time WMD-CSTs as soon as possible. Establishing these additional full-time teams will improve the overall capability of Wisconsin and the other 18 States with part-time teams to prepare for and respond to potential threats in the future. According to the National Guard Bureau, WMD-CSTs performed 694 operational missions between September 11, 2001, and August 26, 2002. These missions fall into three categories: ``response,'' ``standby,'' and ``assist.'' Response missions occur when a team is deployed to sample a suspected or known hazardous substance. Since September 11, WMD-CSTs have deployed on 151 response missions, most of which were to investigate reports of suspicious white powder in the wake of the anthrax attacks of last fall. Other response missions included reports of the presence of unknown liquids or of suspicious pieces of mail. There have been 74 standby missions during this same time frame. On these missions, WMD-CSTs deploy to provide expertise to a specific community for the visit of a dignitary such as the President or a Governor, or for a large-scale event. In the past year, WMD-CSTs have been on standby for events including the Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Milwaukee, the 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Salt Lake City, the World Series, the Super Bowl, and Mardi Gras. Assist missions give WMD-CST members the opportunity to use their technical expertise to assist or provide advice to local first responders or other organizations and to participate in conferences and other events that focus on how to respond to attacks. In the past year, CSTs have performed 469 assist missions in support of local, State, and Federal agencies including law enforcement, hospitals, health departments, state emergency management agencies, the American Red Cross, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the United States Navy. As I noted earlier, a WMD-CST was deployed to be on standby during this year's baseball All-Star game, which took place in my home State. Because Wisconsin has only a part-time WMD-CST, the Minnesota team was deployed on a standby mission to Milwaukee for this event. The members of Wisconsin's part-time WMD-CST also participated in this deployment. According to the Wisconsin National Guard, if Wisconsin had a full-time team, deployment of the Minnesota team would not have been necessary. In light of the tragic events of September 11, the presence of at least one WMD-CST in each State is all the more imperative. These terrorist attacks, and the subsequent mobilization of tens of thousands of National Guardsmen and Reservists, also underscore the need to provide adequate resources for and to ensure full-time manning of the National Guard. As we move to establish at least one 22-member WMD-CST in each State, I call on the Pentagon to allocate the necessary resources to ensure adequate National Guard personnel end-strengths to provide for full-time manning and for the additional personnel necessary for these new teams. I am pleased that this bill is supported by the Wisconsin National Guard and by the National Guard Association of the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer some comments on the fast-track conference agreement. Once again, the supporters of this measure seek to characterize this vote as a vote on the issue of whether or not we should have trade agreements. They argue that to favor the bill is to favor trade, and to oppose the bill is to oppose trade. Of course, this is nonsense. As a number of my colleagues have noted, the issue of whether to enact fast-track procedures is not a question of whether one favors or opposes free trade, but rather what role Congress plays in trade agreements. Under this bill, that role will be little more than that of one of those bobble-head dolls--nodding its head ``yes'' or shaking its head ``no'' in response to proposed trade agreements. And it may actually be worse, because nothing in the measure before us limits this bobble-head role strictly to trade agreements. Under this bill, the President is at liberty to submit just about any policy he wants as part of a fast-track protected trade bill, and Congress would have to swallow that policy if it wanted to endorse the trade agreement to which it was attached. As I noted during the debate on this bill last May, this has, in fact, occurred. The last fast-track protected trade agreement this body considered, the measure implementing the Uruguay Round of the GATT, included more than $4 billion in tax increases that were beyond the reach of this body to amend or even delete. Of course, some may argue that the risk that extraneous matters might be slipped into a fast-track protected trade bill is greatly reduced because the two trade committees--the Finance Committee in the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee in the other body--will stand guard against such an event, protecting congressional prerogatives. Let me first note that the GATT bill, with its $4 billion in tax increases, came to us with the blessing of those two committees. More recently, the track record of those two committees on this very legislation is not reassuring. The bill before us includes many questionable provisions, but let me cite two in particular that have absolutely no business being in the measure. They both raise serious civil rights and civil liberties concerns. The first of these two issues relates to immunity for customs officers. Central to any lawsuit against a government official alleged to have committed misconduct is the immunity standard for that official. Under Supreme Court law, every government official--federal, state and local--is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. This is a very broad shield from liability. In the words of the Supreme Court, it protects ``all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'' And it is the type of immunity that sets the bar plaintiffs must overcome to win law suits. In the legislation before us, a provision was slipped in that will make it harder to hold an abusive customs officer accountable for bad behavior. The bill changes the immunity standard from one of ``objective'' immunity, meaning an official had to prove that he or she did not violate clearly established law, to ``good faith'' immunity, meaning that the official only had to prove that he or she believed that he or she was not violating a person's constitutional rights and was not acting with a malicious intent. The practical effect of this change is that an abusive officer will merely have to file an affidavit stating that he or she acted in good faith, and the case will be dismissed. This would make it very difficult for a court to hold a customs officer accountable for abusive behavior, behavior such as racial profiling. Putting aside the question of whether or not this provision belongs in a bill that relates to the procedures under which Congress considers trade bills, the provision is not justified. There is no record of any great abuse of the existing system. Some might suggest that because customs officers work on the border, they need special protection. But Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement officers like FBI, DEA, and local police are stationed near borders, and they will all continue to work under an objective immunity standard. Beyond that, this provision has no business in this bill. It has nothing to do with how Congress should consider trade agreements. And it certainly merits the kind of scrutiny that it will not get as part of a conference report that cannot be amended. A similarly inappropriate but little discussed provision in this bill would allow customs officers to search outgoing mail without the approval of a court. That is right. Under this bill, a customs officer can open mail you send overseas without getting a search warrant. The provision applies to all mail weighing more than 16 ounces no matter how it is sent, and it also applies to any mail under 16 ounces, that is sent through a private carrier, such as Federal Express or UPS. This is an enormous change in law. A customs officer would no longer have to go to court to obtain a warrant to search our mail. It takes away much of the protection we all thought we had when we mail a letter to a friend or relative overseas. Again, setting aside the question of whether the provision has merit, it simply has no business in this bill. These two provisions are deeply flawed, in and of themselves, but they should also give us pause when we consider what future proposals we might see included in fast-track protected trade bills--measures that cannot be amended. If the congressional committee watchdogs allowed these provisions to be slipped into this bill, what might find its way into future measures? And I remind my colleagues that there are no requirements in this bill that fast-track protected bills consist only of provisions germane, or even relevant, to the trade agreement to be implemented. The bill is flawed in a number of other critical ways. As others have noted, the bill moves backwards in the area of worker rights and the environment. It even backslides from the modest progress made in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The bill also guts the Dayton-Craig provisions that sought to ensure our own trade laws would not be undercut as part of a fast-track protected trade bill. That amendment was supported by a strong majority of the Senate, but it was essentially eliminated in conference. In fact, there is little doubt that it was dropped even before this bill went to conference. Nor does this bill address the so-called Chapter 11, issue where foreign investors can use secret trade tribunals to effectively weaken or eliminate existing state and local laws and regulations that protect our health and safety. Because that problem is not addressed, we can expect future trade agreements to include this anti-democratic provision. As I noted during the debate we had on this issue last May, fast- track is not necessary for free trade. We have entered into hundreds of agreements without those procedures. More importantly, fast-track may actually undermine the cause of improved trade. As I noted then, rather than encouraging trade agreements that produce broad-based benefits, fast-track has instead fostered trade agreements that pick ``winners and losers,'' and in doing so has undermined public support for pursuing free trade agreements. Fast-track also advances the short-term interests of multinational corporations over those of the average worker and consumer. With opposition to the entire trade bill the only option left, Congress has swallowed provisions that advance corporate interests, even when they come at the expense of our Nation's interests. The so-called Chapter 11 provisions are an excellent example of this. Here again, fast-track procedures actually work to undermine public support for trade agreements. Let me reiterate that many of us who support free and fair trade find nothing inconsistent with that support and insisting that Congress be a full partner in approving agreements. Indeed, as the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, has noted, support for fast-track procedures reveals a lack of confidence in the ability of our negotiators to craft a sound agreement, or a lack of confidence in the ability of Congress to weigh regional and sectoral interests against the national interest, or may simply be a desire by the Executive Branch to avoid the hard work necessary to convince Congress to support the agreements that it negotiates. I can think of no better insurance policy for a sound trade agreement than the prospect of a thorough Congressional review, complete with the ability to amend that agreement. This was a bad bill when it left the Senate. It is much worse now, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to help bring attention back to the issue of fiscal discipline and protecting Social Security and Medicare for the generation to come. All parents want the best for their children. Parents will scrimp and save so that they can take care of their kids, buy them new clothes, and help them go to school. We do it because we love our children, and because it's the right thing to do. On a societal level, we are doing exactly the opposite. Rather than saving for the future needs of the next generation, rather than paying down debt to prepare for their future needs, rather than investing in assets now so that we will be better able to provide for the next generation, the Government instead has decided to spend its resources and more on current consumption. And that's the wrong thing to do. When we can see our children's faces and hear their dreams, we try to do whatever we can for them. But when we act as a society, when we make government policy, we seem unable to control our appetites for current consumption, we seem unable to do anything for the millions of our children's generation. And that is simply, on a moral level, the wrong thing to do. For 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. 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. On top of that, the demographic wave of the baby boom generation adds another burden on our children's generation. We know now--there is no doubt about it--that our generation will retire in large numbers beginning in the next decade. By the nature of older age, we know that our generation will require increased spending on income support and health in the decade to come and thereafter. And by the nature of the Social Security system, and by the nature of Medicare and Medicaid, we know that the Government will have greatly increased obligations to fund. Even if we as a society choose to provide the baby boom generation with exactly the same benefits that society provided our father's and mother's generation, even if we do not provide for Medicare coverage of prescription drugs--and I believe that we should provide those benefits--we as a society will need to devote greater resources to these important programs. We could at least in part prepare for those needs by paying down our Government debt now, so that the Government would have greater freedom to borrow in the decades to come. Some suggest that we could at least in part prepare for those needs by accumulating financial assets now, which the Government could sell in the future as an alternative to raising taxes in the future. These actions would be the functional equivalent of saving by the Government. In the last year and a half, we have done exactly the opposite. We have chosen to do the functional equivalent of binge consumption. The Government has gone on a spending spree. In February of last year, the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget started with a baseline projection that the Government would run a surplus of $282 billion in this year, fiscal year 2002. Earlier this month, in contrast, the OMB projected that we will in reality run a deficit of $165 billion this year, a difference of $447 billion between their initial baseline projections and their latest predictions for one year alone. In less than a year and a half, the deficit picture for this year alone has clouded by nearly half a trillion dollars. The Bush administration's own numbers tell a similar story for the decade as a whole. Last February, the OMB projected baseline surpluses of $5.6 trillion for the 10 years to come. Looking at the data that the OMB provided the Budget Committees along with the OMB's Mid-Session Review of the Budget, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculated that $3.9 trillion of that 10-year surplus has evaporated, and that the Administration seeks an additional $1.3 trillion in tax cuts and spending increases over the same period. Thus, by the OMB's own numbers, in the past 17 months, we have dissipated nearly all of the surplus for the decade to come. Putting the receipts of the Social Security Trust Funds aside, last February, the OMB's baseline projections showed the Government running surpluses throughout the decade. This month, the OMB policy projections show the non-Social Security budget running deficits through 2012, and probably for decades thereafter. Thus, instead of reducing the Federal debt, we are adding to the debt that our children's generation must pay. Instead of saving for the future, we are consuming future resources for ourselves. The causes and solutions to these circumstances are simple to see, although clearly, amassing the political will to act on them is far less simple to do. Plainly, last year's tax cut was too large, and the Government is spending too much. To meet our obligations to our children's generation, we should address both failings. By the OMB's own numbers, fully 38 percent of the reduction in surplus over the coming decade results from last year's tax cut. Two- fifths of our problem results from that tax cut. Now that the fiscal realities have come home to roost, we should reevaluate future tax cuts. This is not to say that we should require anyone to pay higher taxes than they do now. To contribute mightily to our fiscal responsibility, we do not need to raise people's taxes higher than they pay now. If we simply keep future, additional tax cuts that benefit the highest income brackets from taking place, we would go a long way toward balancing the budget. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, if we simply froze tax rates for the top 1 percent of the income scale, it would save almost half of the loss to the Treasury from the tax cut in future years, once the tax cut is fully phased in. Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that $477 billion of last year's tax cut will go to the top 1 percent of the income scale. That's an average tax cut of $342,000 each for taxpayers in that category, over the decade to come. And while the well-off have received some of those tax cuts already, as have most taxpayers, fully 80 percent of the tax cuts for the top 1 percent are scheduled to take effect in years after this year--most after 2005. There is still time to correct this unbalanced tax cut, without raising anyone's tax rates higher than today's. Additional discipline is needed not only on the tax side, but also on the spending side. According to OMB's new numbers, spending for this year, fiscal year 2002, is up 11 percent over last year's levels. And as we have not enacted caps for 2003, we are at great risk of continuing these unsustainably large increases in spending into the future. Some have pointed to the fight against terrorism as reason enough for such spending levels. But we cannot make the fight against terrorism bear the vast weight of the entire Government's spending. We should not exempt military spending from its due scrutiny, but I do not propose that we constrain military spending alone. We should constrain both military and domestic spending. We need to put some constraint on spending levels, or they will continue to add to the Federal debt. The Federal Government's budget is obese. We can exercise some willpower now and cut back our consumption, or the doctors will put us on a far stricter diet later. And surely the credit markets and the economy will be a rigorous doctor. We delude ourselves if we imagine that the need to cut back will not come. As my colleagues are aware, I have twice come to the floor this year to offer amendments to extend the spending caps in the budget law, on June 5 with Senator Gregg and on June 20 with Senator Conrad. Although neither effort obtained the necessary 60 votes, the Gregg-Feingold amendment received 49 votes, and the Feingold-Conrad amendment received 59 votes. And between the two amendments, 91 Senators have voted for caps of one duration or another. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, we as a Senate have established that we are for caps. We are just haggling over the price. I assert to my colleagues that caps at any level are better than no caps at all. We must have some restraint, or the Government will grow beyond any limit. We need to strengthen our budget process, to get the Government out of the business of using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government spending. That is a goal with a long and bipartisan history. In his January 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton called on the Government to ``save Social Security first.'' That is also what President George W. Bush said in a March 2001 radio address, that we need to, in his words, ``keep the promise of Social Security and keep the Government from raiding the Social Security surplus.'' We should stop using Social Security surpluses to fund the rest of Government because it is the moral thing to do. For every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that our children must pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits. Our children's generation will not forgive us for our failure of fiscal responsibility. History will not forgive us, if we fail to act. The task before us is plain. We must restrain future tax cuts, and we must restrain future spending. The task before us is not too difficult for us to achieve. We saw in the 1990s that when the Government balanced its budget, invested in education, and regulated business sensibly, it combined to lower interest rates, bolster consumer and investor confidence, and help the economy grow. We can do that again. We are not the first generation who has been asked to live with sacrifice. And the sacrifices that are asked of us are by far not the hardest with which generations have lived. All parents want the best for their children. Let us act on behalf of our children not just as individuals, but as a generation, as well. Let us return to fiscal discipline. And let us restore to our children's generation the freedom to choose their own future.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize a group of students from Montello, WI, who have reached out to show their support and appreciation for the U.S. Navy sailors on duty in the North Arabian Sea. In support of Operation Enduring Freedom, 168 students from the Montello Middle School and High School have dedicated tremendous time and effort to showing their support for our sailors on board the USS Seattle and the USS Detroit. Their appreciation for the work our sailors and military personnel are doing overseas should be an inspiration to every American. This group of students, led by their teacher Catherine Ellenbecker, sent 35 boxes of snacks and cookies to the crew aboard these ships. They also collected 18,892 golf balls for the sailors and were given a donation of 100 golf clubs by B&G Golf in Appleton, WI. By sending these gifts, the students greatly improved the morale of those on board. As one Navy Captain wrote, ``Your gifts and many good wishes have helped to bring home a little closer today.'' A total of 116 students continue to correspond with the USS Detroit and 52 other students have pen pals on the USS Seattle through both emails and letters. I applaud these students for their thoughtfulness, their diligence, and above all for their support of our men and women in uniform. These students recognize that we are safe here at home thanks to the hardworking men and women of the U.S. military. It gives me great pride to know that students from my home state of Wisconsin have done so much to support these sailors. I commend the students from Montello Middle School and High School for their efforts.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I pay tribute to a Wisconsinite who died tragically this week, but whose life and work will be long remembered. Harry Quadracci was many things: an entrepreneur, an innovator, a community leader, a committed philanthropist, and a dedicated husband and father. Harry lived an extraordinary and exemplary life. The founder and president of Quad/Graphics, Harry started from scratch, building a printing business which has become a dominant force in the industry and the largest privately held business of its kind in North America. He brought thousands of jobs to Wisconsin and was renowned as an outstanding employer. As a community leader, Harry leaves a tremendous legacy to the Milwaukee area and to the entire State of Wisconsin. He and his wife Betty Quadracci pledged $10 million toward the beautiful new addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum. They also gave generously to many other causes, including the Milwaukee Repertory Theater and the restoration of St. Josaphat's Basilica in Milwaukee. Harry Quadracci's passing is a great loss to all those who knew him and all those whose lives were touched by his many good works. I am deeply saddened by his passing, but I know that his leadership and generosity have left a lasting mark on our State. He will be remembered for many years to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care. High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need. This year has been the third year in a row of double-digit increases in health care costs. Companies will likely face average increases of 12 to 15 percent in 2003, on top of the 12.7 percent increase this year. For some employers in Wisconsin, costs will rise much more sharply. A recent study found health care cost for businesses in southeastern Wisconsin were 55 percent higher than the Midwest average. While nationwide, the average health care premium for a family currently costs about $588 per month, in Wisconsin an average family pays $812 per month. We must curb these rapidly-increasing health care premiums. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees; health care. By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are more than 90 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 7,000 employers and approximately 34 million employees nation-wide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health car, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to healthcare are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 170 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their 110,000 employees and dependents. This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as The Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality. This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance. My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better attack the essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees. For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers. By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pool by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pool are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization. We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the quality and ease the costs of health care.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care. High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need. This year has been the third year in a row of double-digit increases in health care costs. Companies will likely face average increases of 12 to 15 percent in 2003, on top of the 12.7 percent increase this year. For some employers in Wisconsin, costs will rise much more sharply. A recent study found health care cost for businesses in southeastern Wisconsin were 55 percent higher than the Midwest average. While nationwide, the average health care premium for a family currently costs about $588 per month, in Wisconsin an average family pays $812 per month. We must curb these rapidly-increasing health care premiums. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees; health care. By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are more than 90 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 7,000 employers and approximately 34 million employees nation-wide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health car, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to healthcare are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 170 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their 110,000 employees and dependents. This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as The Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care. The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality. This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance. My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better attack the essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees. For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers. By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pool by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pool are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization. We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the quality and ease the costs of health care.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.