Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. They want it eliminated, Madam President, because of this practice my friend and I are discussing. Because of the use of earmarks, which undercuts the integrity of the program, they want to say this is not worth continuing. By this amendment we will have the effect of restoring its legitimacy.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is absolutely right, Madam President, I say to the Senator from Arizona. The President of the United States has pressed to ensure these funds are awarded competitively and on the basis of risk. That failing, which is what will happen if we do not agree to this amendment, the recommendation is to not go forward. I accept the premise that so many Members have identified here, that this is a worthwhile program, as long as it is based on merit and need. So the Senator from Arizona is correct in that. The President of the United States is clear on that. We have a chance here to fix this program, get away from the earmarks, and make sure it can continue; otherwise, there will be continuing efforts to say this is not what was intended. Obviously, it was not what was intended. Yes, it is one thing to get an earmark for a museum somewhere in your State and that does take away from the general funds--and the Senator from Arizona and I have strong feelings about that--but it is another thing to use this in a situation where a program has specifically been set up to figure out where in the United States is the most important that people have money to be able to do what they need to do to protect the lives of the people in their communities because of a particular vulnerability to disaster.

Mr. FEINGOLD. We do need a program for emergency operations centers. What we do not need is another earmark trough for people to feed at. If the program becomes just that, which I fear it is becoming, then it does not stand on its own merit. This is truly an opportunity to protect it. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his questions. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let's be clear. We just heard two good examples by the Senators from New York and Montana. These are not separate programs they have fought for. They are not even separate earmarks. These are earmarks carved out of a program for emergency operations centers that were supposed to be based on the merits, a comparative analysis that can be highly technical of where it is most needed and where it is less needed, so there is some kind of opportunity for all of us to compete openly for these dollars for our States to make sure the American people are protected to the maximum extent. We have the Senator from New York talking about Mount Vernon being near New York City, where, of course, the 9/11 attacks were. That is understandable. But if it is that strong of a case, why can't it be made on the merits? Then we have a completely different kind of place-- Montana. I will not say for a minute that the Senator from Montana doesn't have a case. He talks about the greater Flathead Valley. Yes, he would know more about that place than anybody else in the Senate, but does that mean his case for that particular location is so overwhelming that it should not be reviewed in comparison to those of us who have similar concerns? A majority of my State was covered with flooding waters last June. We did not have an adequate emergency operations center. We would like to be able to compete for these dollars in an open and fair manner through a program that has been designated for that purpose on the merits, not because somebody happened to sit on a particular committee or was able to get an earmark. Whether it is a threat to human lives in New York or Montana, if these Senators are confident they can make the case, they should make the case on the merits. I say to the Senator from New York, whom I am thrilled to have in this body, Senators should be able to exercise their judgment. The Senators of this body exercised their judgment to help create the Emergency Operations Center Program. That program, which Senators help create, is supposed to be based on merit. That was the judgment of the Senators, not that some individual Senator would say: Hey, I heard from somebody in my area that this is important, and that should override the will of the Senate and the government that this be done in this way. I remind everybody, the President has suggested that this program should not even continue unless we can get to merit-based consideration because that is the whole idea behind it. When the lives of American people are threatened by disasters and terrorist threats, our decisions should have something to do with the comparative needs and risks to the American people, not whether somebody is able to get an earmark. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Washington. I want to be clear because it is very easy for people listening to this debate to think we are trying to eliminate the Emergency Operations Center Program. That is the opposite of the case. This cleans it up and makes sure every State can fairly compete for it. So the truth is, this earmarking is the opposite of the accountability the Senator from Washington refers to. It creates the absence of accountability. There is no real scientific or needs-based analysis. It is just which Senator can get an earmark. It not only harms the program, it is gutting the program when 10 States, without serious analysis, get 50 percent of the money, and 40 States have to compete for all the rest. The Feingold-McCain amendment would prevent earmarking of FEMA predisaster mitigation and emergency operations center grants. It does not eliminate them. While we may not all agree on the appropriateness of earmarking in general, I hope we can agree that grants that are supposed to protect Americans from terrorist attacks and natural disasters should be awarded on the basis of merits, not politics. Currently, the Senate bill directs half of the emergency operations center funds to only 10 States. The House earmarks all of these funds and a fourth of the predisaster mitigation funds. Last year, FEMA only funded a tiny fraction of the emergency operations center applications it received because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks. That is not accountability. That is ruining a perfectly legitimate program the people set up to help people face the possibility of disaster. Many past earmarks would not have even qualified for the grants under the established guidelines. Again, President Obama has pressed to ensure that these funds are awarded competitively and on the basis of risk; and he has said, if not, the program should be canceled. We can make sure this does not happen by adopting this amendment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield it back, and if it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise to call up amendment No. 1402 to the bill.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. This amendment would prohibit the earmarking of two critically important homeland security grants: the Emergency Operations Centers and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. The Emergency Operations Centers, or EOC program, is intended to improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities, and it funds, among other things, construction of State and local EOCs. These centers are a vital part of the comprehensive national emergency management plan. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program is intended to implement hazard reduction measures before disasters strike. Eligible projects can include, for example, preparing mitigation plans, or retrofitting public buildings against hurricane-force winds, and constructing so- called ``safe rooms'' in tornado-prone areas. While we may not all agree on the appropriateness of earmarking in general, I certainly hope we can agree certain things should not be earmarked, including FEMA grant programs such as those that protect Americans from terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Obviously, these funds should be awarded by an impartial entity that is expert in matters of emergency operations and disaster mitigation. It is FEMA that actually possesses these qualities; Members of Congress do not. Indeed, FEMA has informed me that many past earmarks would not have even qualified for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program under the established guidelines. The result is that low-priority projects get funded and high-risk areas do not have adequate resources they need so people in those areas can truly be protected from natural disasters. I think these funds are too important to be passed out based on political dealings. The Association of State Floodplain Managers supports this amendment and notes that a key element of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program is the encouragement of hazard mitigation planning. According to the Association: Congressional earmarks, unfortunately, undercut the local planning process when it became evident that process could be short-circuited by getting a Congressional earmark. This year, the House has earmarked all of its Emergency Operations Centers funds in its Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate has earmarked nearly half of its funds. The earmarks in the Senate are directed to 10 States. That means 40 States will have to compete for the remaining half of these funds. If my amendment fails, 10 States get half and the other 40 States only get half combined. Many of these earmarks have historically gone to small communities while at the same time many State operations centers in major cities still need assistance. So my amendment would strike the earmarks in the text of the Senate bill so that FEMA can decide which projects are homeland security priorities and Federal responsibilities. With regard to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds, the House report has earmarked one-fourth of the funds, and the Senate has so far not earmarked any of them. However, last year both the House and the Senate earmarked roughly 27 percent of the funds in conference. So my amendment directs FEMA to disregard any such earmarks in the explanatory statement of managers. As the majority of us will not be members of the conference committee, I urge my colleagues to consider whether it is in the best interests of your State to permit the earmarking of these critical homeland security funds outside of the regular legislative process. The chairman and the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee introduced legislation last year to mandate that Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds be awarded competitively. I, of course, commend both of them for their leadership on this issue. Given that a percentage of these funds are guaranteed for every State in light of the fact that all States are at risk of natural disasters, there is even less reason for these funds to be earmarked. President Obama has stated that he would like these funds to be awarded on the basis of risk. Federal law lays out the criteria for the competitive awarding of these grants and focuses on the need to fund those projects that will mitigate the most high-risk areas. Therefore, I think this amendment is consistent with the President's request that we focus on those communities that are in most need of assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Not only will the amendment restore objectivity to two homeland security grant programs, it will also help ensure important decisions about Federal spending are actually made on the merits not on the basis of political backroom deals. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, tomorrow is World Refugee Day, a day to pause and recognize the millions of people who have been forced from their homes by natural disaster, conflict, or in some cases persecution. They often only carry with them the clothes on their backs and the new burdens and trauma that accompany the title of ``refugee.'' Yet as we acknowledge the tragedy of their loss, we can also celebrate their enduring resilience. Even after years of suffering and hopelessness, many refugees never give up hope that they will return to their homes to be allowed to live peaceful and full lives. They continue to struggle to ensure that their basic rights are protected and basic needs met. Today, the overall number of refugees and internally displaced people is estimated at 42 million. The refugee experience cuts across borders and countries, but the circumstances that give rise to displacement are often unique. There are so many crises to talk about--in Colombia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Zimbabwe, for example--but I want to briefly highlight three in particular. First, in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, a humanitarian crisis continues to unfold as more than 2 million Pakistanis have been displaced from their homes due to fighting between militants and the Pakistani Government. The Pakistani people have borne additional hardship as friends, families, and strangers--already strained by the global economic crisis--have opened their homes and lives to many of the displaced. We must do more to encourage this generosity through creative means as well as providing traditional aid to the hundreds of thousands in camps. I also wish to highlight the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by the fighting between the Congolese military and armed groups in eastern Congo, forcing people into squalid camps where children are subject to forced recruitment and women suffer unspeakable levels of sexual violence. In eastern Congo and so many other conflict zones, rape and other forms of gender-based violence have become not just outgrowths of war and its brutality--they are used as weapons of war. We must do more to stop this horrifying practice, to provide protection to these vulnerable refugee populations, and to address the underlying causes of eastern Congo's conflicts. Third, there continue to be more than 250,000 refugees from the Darfur region of Sudan in eastern Chad in addition to some 190,000 internally displaced people--Chadians--in the area. Moreover, millions of people remain internally displaced in Darfur. These people do not have access to many basic humanitarian needs such as water, health care, and education, and they continue to be subject to attacks by government forces and armed rebel groups. We need to address their needs and enhance civilian protection, while working to stand up a viable peace process for Darfur and the wider region. Finally, World Refugee Day is also an occasion to celebrate the work of donor governments including our own, private individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and agencies like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that are working to meet the needs of the displaced. To those who have given generously, to those who have lived among the displaced, and to those who report their stories and refuse to allow them to be forgotten, I say, thank you. Nonetheless, we must do more to bring attention to the plight of the tens of millions of refugees around the world and to ensure their fundamental right to be safe. The theme of this year's World Refugee Day is ``Real People, Real Needs''--a reminder of the human face of refugee crises around the world. Today, let us see that face and commit ourselves to meeting the real needs of refugees and IDPs around the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, every year I hold a constituent listening session, or townhall meeting, in every county in Wisconsin. After 1,188 of those sessions, I have heard a lot from my constituents on pretty much every issue you can imagine. But one issue in particular stands out, as it has consistently been one of the top issues raised throughout the past 17 years. That issue is, of course, health care. Again and again--not just in listening sessions but in conversations and phone calls and letters and e-mails--Wisconsinites have talked to me about their struggles to obtain and afford health insurance coverage. Their stories have stayed with me and have been the foundation of my work to push for comprehensive health reform throughout my career in the Senate. As a freshman Senator, I worked to increase access to long-term care and home and community-based services in the Wisconsin tradition during the 1994 attempt at health reform because I knew how valuable these programs were to my constituents. I continued to fight for real and fair access to affordable prescription drugs by speaking up for seniors during the debate on creating Medicare Part D. I ended up not voting for Part D because I knew it would help pharmaceutical companies before it helped seniors. For years I have tried to get the Senate to address the issue that was foremost in the minds of my constituents. Frustrated by the inaction, I teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham to introduce legislation that sought to break the logjam blocking health care reform legislation. While Senator Graham and I have had very different ideas about how reform should look, we agreed further delay was unacceptable. I know some of my colleagues are now arguing that health care is being rushed through the Senate. Well, that is not my experience, and I think the Wisconsinites who have been talking about the need for reform for years would agree. That is why I am so excited that the Senate is preparing to consider health reform legislation, and I look forward to reviewing the bills the HELP and Finance Committees are expected to report shortly. As this debate goes forward, I remain committed to reforming our health care system so every single American is guaranteed good, affordable health care coverage. Today, I wish to talk about one of the most important elements of any reform, and that is a strong public health insurance option. Frankly, I am disappointed this has become a topic of so much controversy because it is such a fundamental part of making sure we provide the reform my constituents and all Americans deserve. Some have even suggested scrapping a public option in the interests of passing a bill with bipartisan support. Well, I want to pass health care reform, and I hope very much we can do it with bipartisan support, but I am not that interested in passing health care reform in name only. I am not interested in a bill that allows us to somehow tell our constituents we have done something but doesn't address their concerns they have had for so very long. We need real reform, and real reform means a strong public option. Americans want a health insurance option. According to a recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, over three-fourths of those polled said they would like the ability to choose between public and private health insurance plans. Providing a public health insurance option does not discriminate against those with preexisting conditions and illnesses, and it will significantly improve the ability of people to access health care. There are millions of Americans who will tell us their current so- called ``competitive'' market didn't work so well for them because they were denied coverage from the outset, or they were given a benefit plan that covers everything but the diseases they actually have. Health insurance should not be a privilege, but in today's insurance market that is actually what it is. Those who are healthy enough to be approved for coverage, or wealthy enough to afford it, are too often the privileged ones who receive health care. We must shift the competition back to where it should be--on the health insurers competing to provide better coverage at a more affordable rate. A public health insurance option, if done right, will help shift the insurance market so plans focus on what is best for the patient to thrive instead of plans simply focused on the bottom line. Just a few weeks ago, Geri Weitzel from Durand, WI, shared her story with me. Geri's husband suffers from renal failure. His medicine costs hundreds of dollars each month, and the family has thousands in medical debt. Geri is doing her best to make ends meet for her family but sometimes has to choose between paying the mortgage on their home or her husband's medical care, without which he will die. Geri told me she came to Washington to share her story because her husband ``is choosing death over debt.'' She worries that they will lose their home, and they have already lost their savings, but above all, she worries she will lose her husband. With a strong public health insurance option, we can help ensure that Geri and her husband can afford policies that cover their medical bills and can focus instead on getting well. A strong public health insurance option is one the public can depend on to be available, regardless of preexisting conditions, place of residence, income, age, sex, health status, or job status. It is an insurance option that will be focused on helping the sick get the treatment they need instead of just turning the biggest profit for shareholders. It is also an insurance option that will help the public invest in wellness, disease prevention, primary care, and chronic disease management. A public option will help ensure no matter what, people have access to a health insurance plan that actually meets their needs. One of my priorities in the health care reform debate--and one of my priorities throughout my whole time in the Senate--has been fiscal responsibility. It is not enough to pass a bill that expands coverage; we need to do so in a way that reins in runaway health care spending and ensures taxpayer dollars are not wasted. That is another reason we need a strong public health insurance option: because it will help keep costs down for individuals, for employers, and for the government. Citizen Action Wisconsin estimates that a strong public health insurance option operating in a health exchange could save Wisconsin employers--both private and government--over $1.1 billion each year. For the average Wisconsin family, currently paying around $13,500 a year in health care premiums, this translates to a 33-percent savings, lowering their premiums to just over $9,000 a year. Now this is real savings. It would have made a big difference to Danine Spencer of Rhinelander, WI. Danine has had a tough 4 years, recovering from multiple conditions which doctors expected to leave her a quadriplegic for life. Danine credits the medical professionals at Froedert Hospital in Milwaukee with helping her reclaim her mobility and, in many ways, her life. While Danine has already made incredible progress, she still has a long way to go. Fortunately, Danine qualified for disability and Medicaid benefits to cover her medical costs, but she wants to be independent. She wrote me a letter in which she said she ``wants to get off disability very, very badly. I am horribly ashamed that I collect a government check every month. But as it stands, I simply cannot afford private health insurance.'' Danine writes that she has ``heard a public option health insurance plan would sharply lower costs for people like me. Please put everything you have into making sure it is part of the health care reform bill.'' Danine has already overcome incredible challenges. She wants to purchase health insurance but is denied that benefit by the existing system. So a public health insurance option would help ensure that Danine is guaranteed--guaranteed--affordable, high quality health care. Too often Americans are at the mercy of the insurance companies when it comes to paying premiums and out-of-pocket costs and deductibles. While I commend the growing efforts of select insurers to increase transparency, for the most part consumers have little idea how much procedures cost, where premium dollars go, and whether they are truly getting the best value for their dollar. A public health insurance option would serve as a benchmark competitor for premiums, administrative costs, and benefits packages. A strong public health insurance option is consistent with a healthy private market and effective private insurance plans. We have several insurers that operate in my home State of Wisconsin that provide great health coverage for their beneficiaries. Responsible insurers should have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits of their plans, but a strong public health insurance option will provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to reevaluate their own cost sharing and benefit plans to ensure that they are actually an attractive option for consumers. There is another benefit of a public health insurance option which hits particularly close to home. My hometown of Janesville, WI, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the State. Recently, our GM assembly plant ceased production, and other related businesses throughout the community are struggling to stay afloat during these tough economic times. Of course, these challenges are shared by many other communities across the State of Wisconsin. A public health insurance option would be invaluable to families in Janesville and other parts of the State who have recently been laid off because it is a guaranteed, affordable option that can travel with an individual from job to job. A public health insurance option would also make a tremendous difference to our small business owners who face crippling health care costs while trying to keep their business open. Health care reform cannot wait. The President has said he wants a health reform bill on his desk by this fall, and I will work hard with my colleagues to make sure we send him a good bill that guarantees every American high-quality, affordable health insurance, and that includes a strong public health insurance option. After so many years of delay and inaction, now is the time to act. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I withhold.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just about 1 month ago I voted against the emergency supplemental spending bill and stated my reasons for doing so at some length. I will not repeat what I said then, but my concerns also apply to the conference report we are considering. While the President has provided a timeline for redeployment of our troops from Iraq, I remain concerned that we may see upwards of 50,000 U.S. troops remain in that country. Leaving such a substantial number of troops in Iraq could undercut the benefits of redeployment, and might result in a significant uptick in violence against U.S. troops. I am also concerned that this supplemental pads the defense budget with items not needed for the war and outside the normal appropriations cycle. Finally, and even though President Obama has a plan to focus the government's attention and resources where they are most needed--on Afghanistan and Pakistan--I am worried that the current strategy does not adequately address, and may even exacerbate, the serious national security problems we face in that part of the world. Those problems could be made worse, not better, by sending 21,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and they may be further aggravated if there is not an adequate response to the nearly 3 million Pakistanis who have recently been displaced.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of LTG Stanley McChrystal to command U.S. forces in Afghanistan for two reasons. The first relates to a classified matter about which I have serious concerns. I have conveyed those concerns in a letter to the President. The second issue is interrogation. At his public confirmation hearing, General McChrystal responded to a question from Chairman Levin regarding interrogation policies that ``included stress positions, the use of dogs and nudity'' by stating that ``[s]ome of them were in use when I took over, sir, and then, as we immediately began to reduce that.'' When asked whether he was ``uncomfortable with some of the techniques'' in use, he replied ``[w]hen I took over, I was.'' However, following the hearing, Chairman Levin sent General McChrystal a question for the record describing many of the 14 interrogation techniques not listed in the Army Field Manual that were authorized under General McChrystal's command, up until May 6, 2004, when CENTCOM Commander General John Abizaid suspended the use of all such techniques. Chairman Levin's question then described a request from General McChrystal, submitted 3 weeks after the suspension, to continue using a number of these techniques, including ``sleep management,'' ``environmental manipulation,'' and ``control positions.'' The request defined ``control positions'' as ``requiring the detainee to stand, sit, kneel, squat, maintain sitting position with back against the wall, bend over chair, lean with head against wall, lie prone across chairs, stand with arms above head or raised to shoulders, or other normal physical training positions'' and requested that ``in the most exceptional circumstances, and on approval from [the commander]'' interrogators be allowed to ``use handcuffs to enforce the detainee's position.'' Asked to square his public testimony with this record, General McChrystal responded that, when he took command in 2003, he reviewed the interrogation program and, in March 2004, ``reduc[ed] the frequency of use of several of the techniques'' by requiring high-level approval. He also looked to ``increase the effectiveness of the entire process and make it more humane'' but offered no specifics other than ``improved facilities'' and improvements in the use of other, non- ``enhanced'' techniques. General McChrystal then acknowledged that he personally requested approval from General Abizaid to continue using several of the techniques that had just been suspended, including ``control positions.'' General Abizaid rejected the use of ``control positions,'' and, according to the Senate Armed Services Committee report, the use of ``hooding.'' I have numerous concerns, both about this history and about General McChrystal's public testimony. I have long opposed any interrogation techniques, whether conducted by the U.S. military or the intelligence community, that are not authorized by the Army Field Manual. I am thus dismayed by General McChrystal's personal support for the use of some of these techniques, particularly the so-called control positions, and by his efforts to continue the techniques after they had been suspended. And, while I have no reason to believe that General McChrystal would not adhere to current law and policy, I am troubled by his failure to express any regret for his previous positions. Finally, I am concerned about General McChrystal's public testimony, which sought to convey that he was ``uncomfortable'' with various interrogation techniques and sought to ``reduce'' their use. Given the full history of his approach to interrogations, this testimony appears to be incomplete, at best.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this week the U.N. Special Rapporteur, Mr. Philip Alston, has released his final report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in Kenya. His report states that, despite significant investigative work, no concrete steps have been taken to prosecute perpetrators of the violence after Kenya's December 2007 election. It also finds that both the Sabaot Land Defense Forces-- SLDF--and the Kenyan government's security forces engaged in widespread brutality in Mount Elgon, including torture and unlawful killings. These alleged abuses have not been seriously investigated by the police or the military. Finally, the report concludes that the police in Kenya continue to carry out extrajudicial killings and that death squads continue to exist within the police to assassinate high-profile suspected criminals. The report makes a number of detailed recommendations for how Kenya can address these problems, beginning with the replacement of the existing police commissioner and a clear public order that extrajudicial killings will not be tolerated, then followed by a comprehensive reform of the police. In addition, the report calls for the attorney general to resign and for the Kenyan government to take steps to reduce corruption and incompetence in the judiciary. With regard to the postelection violence, the report calls for the Kenyan government to establish a special tribunal to seek accountability for persons bearing the greatest responsibility for the violence after the elections. And with regard to the killings in Mount Elgon, the report calls on the government to immediately set up an independent commission to investigate human rights abuses, including those committed by the SLDF. I urge the Obama administration to issue a strong response to the release of the Special Rapporteur's final report and press for the implementation of these recommendations. I was pleased that Assistant Secretary Carson traveled earlier this month to Nairobi as part of his first trip to Africa following his confirmation. He met with government leaders there and delivered a strong message of concern. This was an important step. It must now be followed by concrete actions that both support reforms and press for individuals found guilty of killings and kleptocracy to be held accountable. To that end, I noted with interest that the President's budget request included increased military assistance for Kenya. Such assistance may be justified, but before we provide it, we need to make sure that steps are being taken by the Kenyan government to investigate past abuses and stop continuing ones. We need to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not enable a pattern of impunity in Kenya's security forces. For some time I have worried about the very real possibility that political instability in Kenya could worsen and that armed conflict could return if these underlying rule of law problems are not addressed. That backsliding would be tragic, not least because Kenya is an extremely important country for the stability of the Horn of Africa and east Africa. Moreover, it is a country with vast potential that has been and continues to be a leader on the African continent. The United States, given our longstanding and historic partnership with Kenya must step up to the plate and work to ensure Kenya achieves its full potential. We can begin by ensuring the U.N. Special Rapporteur's report serves as a guide and a catalyst for needed reforms and renewed progress.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last month Sri Lanka saw an end to the longstanding military conflict between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE, and the Sri Lankan Government. In the immediate days that followed the end of fighting, President Mahinda Rajapaksa delivered a speech to his nation's parliament which formally marked the conclusion of an armed conflict that has escalated since January, but stretches back over 26 years. This tragic war has claimed the lives of over 70,000 Sri Lankans, displaced hundreds of thousands, and seen systematic and brutal atrocities committed by both sides. Over the last 5 months, as the conflict intensified, it drew increasing and unprecedented attention from the international community. Nevertheless, obtaining a clear picture of this conflict, especially the situation of the estimated 290,000 people living in internally displaced persons camps, has been obscured by the Sri Lankan Government's severe restrictions on access for media, international observers, and humanitarian aid workers. If we are to see a sustainable solution to this conflict over the long term, it is vital that the Sri Lankan Government remove these restrictions now and allow access to all independent actors. I was pleased that President Rajapaksa acknowledged that Sri Lanka must not accept a military solution as the ultimate solution. As we have seen in conflicts around the world, a military ceasefire will not hold if the underlying causes that led to this conflict are not addressed. The fundamental grievances of the Tamil minority have been overshadowed, distorted, and in some cases silenced by the severe tactics of the LTTE, who since 1997 have been designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. The LTTE claimed to be the voice of the Tamil people, and yet their commitment to both indiscriminate and targeted violence, as well as reports from the last days of fighting that they used Tamil civilians as human shields, would indicate otherwise. If we are to see legitimate reconciliation in Sri Lanka, the grievances of the Tamil minority must be seen as distinct from the violence of the LTTE and addressed thoroughly and justly. I urge President Rajapaksa to take steps now to demonstrate a serious commitment to a political solution, the rule of law, and most importantly, to genuinely addressing the needs of the Tamil people. At the same time, in proportion to the passion and effort with which the world's diplomats have demanded peace and respect for civilians throughout this conflict, donor countries must remain actively engaged and dedicated to helping bring about a lasting resolution to this decades-old conflict. I am especially concerned about issues surrounding resettlement. In the wake of this conflict, land mines line those roads which still exist and cover farmers' fields in northern Sri Lanka. Schools, hospitals, roads, homes, and businesses have been damaged and in some cases completely destroyed. Some 290,000 internally displaced people languish in squalid humanitarian camps the safe and voluntary return of whom must be a top priority for postconflict recovery. The Sri Lankan Government must not shirk its responsibility to help these people return to their homes swiftly and safely. The international community, too, can provide assistance to help these people return home safely or seek other lasting solutions. The U.S. government should join with its international partners to coordinate demining efforts, work with the Sri Lankan government to develop and rebuild infrastructure, and ensure that those who have been displaced are able to reclaim the land that is rightfully theirs. These events are critical steps in the right direction in a long and complicated history. If we seek to address this conflict comprehensively, we must learn from past setbacks and help identify new opportunities for the people of Sri Lanka. It will not be easy, but on behalf of all the innocent civilians whose lives have been caught in the crossfire of this conflict, we must support this opportunity to finally achieve lasting and long awaited peace in Sri Lanka.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act, which would amend the Workforce Investment Act to help communities with both significant job losses and shortages in the health care professions create programs to retrain displaced workers for high-demand health care jobs. I have introduced similar legislation in the past to help workers who are displaced from the manufacturing and service sectors. In light of the state of our economy and the tremendous increase in unemployment across this country, I have tried to broaden the bill to cover workers from all sectors. According to the Department of Labor, in the last year the number of unemployed people in the United States has increased by 6 million. In April alone, private sector employment fell by 539,000, bringing the unemployment rate to 8.9 percent. In my home State of Wisconsin, the unemployment rate is up to 8.8 percent. In Wisconsin, we have seen the loss of many manufacturing jobs, including at the idled General Motors automobile assembly plant in my hometown of Janesville, and in Kenosha, where Chrysler recently announced that the Kenosha Chrysler plant will cease production in 2010. But these large factories are just the tip of the iceberg. Some small manufacturing businesses are also going out of business in communities around Wisconsin, and others are struggling to survive. In addition, the economic troubles in the last few years have permeated other industries besides manufacturing, including construction, business, and also the retail industry. The people in my State are facing tough economic challenges, but they are meeting them head-on. Wisconsin has a determined workforce that is a tremendous asset as we look to rebuild this economy. These talented, hard-working people are ready, willing, and able to work, and Congress should be doing more to help connect them with jobs in growing industries. That is exactly what I am proposing to do as I introduce this Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill will help more dislocated workers find jobs in the growing health care industry. My bill would create $25 million in grants to help workforce development boards in our communities identify health care job openings and train people for these positions. This bill is also paid for, so it won't increase the deficit. This bill is a small step toward two critically important goals: helping the hard-working Americans whose jobs have disappeared and providing all Americans with the health care they deserve. The Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act puts control in the hands of the local communities. It allows local workforce development boards to partner with institutions of higher education and other community leaders to design programs that can retrain dislocated workers for jobs in the health care industry. Allowing the local workforce boards and their partners to apply for the grant funds and design the programs means that each community can use the funds differently to address the specific needs it faces. Particularly in such challenging economic times, I think a one-size-fits-all approach will not work; communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. I believe the Federal programs should be flexible enough to allow partnerships to tailor the programs to meet the needs of individual communities. For years, despite limited resources and increases in demand for their services, our workforce development boards have worked tirelessly to retrain workers for new employment. These boards are a tremendous asset for local economies, bringing together members of the labor, business, education, and other communities to ensure that the boards are doing their best to provide the most valuable services and training. In Wisconsin, workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets. I look forward to the long overdue reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act this year and to the opportunity to provide better support for these boards. I wish to take this time to commend the leaders of these boards in Wisconsin and across the country for their dedication and hard work. Workforce development agencies in Wisconsin have already been training people for health care jobs. But in these difficult times, we have to do more to support our communities in these efforts. We must do our best to ensure that communities across the country have the resources they need to help employ more dislocated workers. As we face the challenge of helping Americans who lose jobs, we must look to industries that continue to grow and demand more workers. As many of my colleagues know, there is, in fact, a real shortage of health care workers in the United States. Congress continues to fund programs that address nursing shortages and recently provided stimulus funds for health care retraining, but we need to develop longer term and wider ranging programs. Shortages of health care professionals of all sorts pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. As Congress looks forward to reforming our Nation's health care system, we must also ensure that there are enough trained professionals to provide services. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 700,000 nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2016. This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. Partnerships funded by the legislation will be able to use these funds for a variety of purposes, including for implementing training programs, providing tuition assistance, providing transportation assistance, and also to increase capacity for existing training programs that are already working but could use more resources. We must ensure we are doing what we can to train laid-off Americans into fields such as health care that continue to demand more workers, and this Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act takes a small but important step toward that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act, which would amend the Workforce Investment Act to help communities with both significant job losses and shortages in the health care professions create programs to retrain displaced workers for high-demand health care jobs. I have introduced similar legislation in the past to help workers who are displaced from the manufacturing and service sectors. In light of the state of our economy and the tremendous increase in unemployment across this country, I have tried to broaden the bill to cover workers from all sectors. According to the Department of Labor, in the last year the number of unemployed people in the United States has increased by 6 million. In April alone, private sector employment fell by 539,000, bringing the unemployment rate to 8.9 percent. In my home State of Wisconsin, the unemployment rate is up to 8.8 percent. In Wisconsin, we have seen the loss of many manufacturing jobs, including at the idled General Motors automobile assembly plant in my hometown of Janesville, and in Kenosha, where Chrysler recently announced that the Kenosha Chrysler plant will cease production in 2010. But these large factories are just the tip of the iceberg. Some small manufacturing businesses are also going out of business in communities around Wisconsin, and others are struggling to survive. In addition, the economic troubles in the last few years have permeated other industries besides manufacturing, including construction, business, and also the retail industry. The people in my State are facing tough economic challenges, but they are meeting them head-on. Wisconsin has a determined workforce that is a tremendous asset as we look to rebuild this economy. These talented, hard-working people are ready, willing, and able to work, and Congress should be doing more to help connect them with jobs in growing industries. That is exactly what I am proposing to do as I introduce this Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill will help more dislocated workers find jobs in the growing health care industry. My bill would create $25 million in grants to help workforce development boards in our communities identify health care job openings and train people for these positions. This bill is also paid for, so it won't increase the deficit. This bill is a small step toward two critically important goals: helping the hard-working Americans whose jobs have disappeared and providing all Americans with the health care they deserve. The Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act puts control in the hands of the local communities. It allows local workforce development boards to partner with institutions of higher education and other community leaders to design programs that can retrain dislocated workers for jobs in the health care industry. Allowing the local workforce boards and their partners to apply for the grant funds and design the programs means that each community can use the funds differently to address the specific needs it faces. Particularly in such challenging economic times, I think a one-size-fits-all approach will not work; communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. I believe the Federal programs should be flexible enough to allow partnerships to tailor the programs to meet the needs of individual communities. For years, despite limited resources and increases in demand for their services, our workforce development boards have worked tirelessly to retrain workers for new employment. These boards are a tremendous asset for local economies, bringing together members of the labor, business, education, and other communities to ensure that the boards are doing their best to provide the most valuable services and training. In Wisconsin, workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets. I look forward to the long overdue reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act this year and to the opportunity to provide better support for these boards. I wish to take this time to commend the leaders of these boards in Wisconsin and across the country for their dedication and hard work. Workforce development agencies in Wisconsin have already been training people for health care jobs. But in these difficult times, we have to do more to support our communities in these efforts. We must do our best to ensure that communities across the country have the resources they need to help employ more dislocated workers. As we face the challenge of helping Americans who lose jobs, we must look to industries that continue to grow and demand more workers. As many of my colleagues know, there is, in fact, a real shortage of health care workers in the United States. Congress continues to fund programs that address nursing shortages and recently provided stimulus funds for health care retraining, but we need to develop longer term and wider ranging programs. Shortages of health care professionals of all sorts pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. As Congress looks forward to reforming our Nation's health care system, we must also ensure that there are enough trained professionals to provide services. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 700,000 nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2016. This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. Partnerships funded by the legislation will be able to use these funds for a variety of purposes, including for implementing training programs, providing tuition assistance, providing transportation assistance, and also to increase capacity for existing training programs that are already working but could use more resources. We must ensure we are doing what we can to train laid-off Americans into fields such as health care that continue to demand more workers, and this Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act takes a small but important step toward that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am reintroducing 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. Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual employee's health care is $3,983. For a family, the employer contribution is $9,325. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. 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 nearly 60 employer-led coalitions across the U.S. 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 nationwide. Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of high-quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as high-quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs. Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing. In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 13 surrounding counties on behalf of more than 160 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their more than 80,000 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 groups 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 high-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 address 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 insurance plans and negotiate better rates. This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options. Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools 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 supporting this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.