Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Business and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 10:30 a.m., in Dirksen 226. Witness List: Jeremiah W. ``Jay'' Nixon, Attorney General, State of Missouri, Jefferson City, Missouri; Charles W. Ergen, Chairman and CEO, Echostar Communications, Littleton, Colorado; Edward O. Fritts, President and CEO, National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, DC; Eddy W. Hartenstein, President and CEO, DIRECTV, Inc., El Segundo, California; Gene Kimmelman, Co-Director, Consumers Union, Washington, DC; and Robert Pitofsky, former Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., on the Nation's wireline and wireless communications infrastructure in light of September 11.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have been quiet the last few days about this because I have a lot of respect for the Senator from Kentucky, and I admire the patience of my partner, Senator McCain, to go through these proposals with the Senator from Kentucky. But I have to say, in my mind, the time has run out. The proposals the Senator from Kentucky is talking about, as he indicated, in some cases are technical. In those instances, we can simply deal with these matters in a separate piece of legislation. But the Senator from Arizona is right. The other matters are substantive; they are controversial. But I add, they do not go to the core issues of the McCain-Feingold bill. A broad consensus in both Houses, a bipartisan consensus, has voted strongly to pass those items. That has to happen now. And given the fact that one of the Members on the other side of the aisle has indicated--not the Senator from Kentucky, but another Member--that there will be a filibuster, in any event, the time has come not to be quiet anymore but to support the majority leader, who has come out here diligently and tried to move us forward. Consistent with the other commitments he has made, consistent with all the pressures he has, he has been here and tried again today to get us to the final process. It is regrettable, but I think we have to go now to the final stage: to represent the will of this body, the will of the House, and to finally clean up this system. I don't think any more delay is merited.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, in introducing the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002. I am very pleased to be working with him on this issue, and admire his dedication to fiscal responsibility as embodied in this measure. As the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and I introduce this bill, we realize that Corps Reform is a work in progress. Reforming the Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a gloomy Federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and many other States across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aids to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services to my state. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy. This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the then Chairman, the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their Manager's Package which should help get the Authorizing Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the additional information it needs to develop and refine legislation on this issue through a study by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, on peer review. Earlier this Congress, I introduced the Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2001, S. 646. The measure the Senator from New Hampshire and I introduce today includes many provisions that were included in my original bill, and codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps about which we agreed in the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects. The bill put forward bold concepts. It streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. Under the bill a project authorized for construction but never started is deauthorized if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion of construction for five straight years. In addition, a project that has begun construction but denied appropriations funds towards completion for three straight years. The bill also preserves Congressional prerogative over setting the Corps' construction priorities by allowing Congress a chance to reauthorize any of these projects before they are automatically deauthorized. This process will be transparently to all interests, because the bill requires the Corps to make an annual list of projects in the construction backlog available to Congress and the public at large via the Internet. The bill also allows a point of order to be raised in the Senate against projects included in legislation for which the Corps has not completed necessary studies determining that a project is economically justified and in the federal interest. The Senator from New Hampshire and I came to a meeting of the minds on the issue of independent review of Corps projects. But the bill we introduce today is much more than that. It is a comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our joint goal is to have the Corps to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. We are committed to that goal, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this year's Water Resources bill. I also look forward, to the upcoming hearing process, and stand ready to work with the Senator from New Hampshire in merging the bill we introduce today with S. 646, my bill from earlier this Congress. My bill, S. 646, which is sponsored in the other body by my colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Kind, includes a number of important concepts that are central to environmental protection and that should be part of Corps Reform. The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the federal government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks. I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of S. 646 would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible. I look forward to exploring these ideas with the Senator from New Hampshire as we work to produce a final product. I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include Congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance. I wish it were the case, that I could argue that the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the Corps do a better job which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, in introducing the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002. I am very pleased to be working with him on this issue, and admire his dedication to fiscal responsibility as embodied in this measure. As the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and I introduce this bill, we realize that Corps Reform is a work in progress. Reforming the Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a gloomy Federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and many other States across the country, have come to rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in providing aids to navigation, environmental remediation, water control and a variety of other services to my state. My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our economy. This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the then Chairman, the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their Manager's Package which should help get the Authorizing Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the additional information it needs to develop and refine legislation on this issue through a study by the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, on peer review. Earlier this Congress, I introduced the Corps of Engineers Reform Act of 2001, S. 646. The measure the Senator from New Hampshire and I introduce today includes many provisions that were included in my original bill, and codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps about which we agreed in the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful projects. The bill put forward bold concepts. It streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. Under the bill a project authorized for construction but never started is deauthorized if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion of construction for five straight years. In addition, a project that has begun construction but denied appropriations funds towards completion for three straight years. The bill also preserves Congressional prerogative over setting the Corps' construction priorities by allowing Congress a chance to reauthorize any of these projects before they are automatically deauthorized. This process will be transparently to all interests, because the bill requires the Corps to make an annual list of projects in the construction backlog available to Congress and the public at large via the Internet. The bill also allows a point of order to be raised in the Senate against projects included in legislation for which the Corps has not completed necessary studies determining that a project is economically justified and in the federal interest. The Senator from New Hampshire and I came to a meeting of the minds on the issue of independent review of Corps projects. But the bill we introduce today is much more than that. It is a comprehensive revision of the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our joint goal is to have the Corps to increase transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. We are committed to that goal, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this year's Water Resources bill. I also look forward, to the upcoming hearing process, and stand ready to work with the Senator from New Hampshire in merging the bill we introduce today with S. 646, my bill from earlier this Congress. My bill, S. 646, which is sponsored in the other body by my colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Kind, includes a number of important concepts that are central to environmental protection and that should be part of Corps Reform. The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the federal government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks. I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of S. 646 would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible. I look forward to exploring these ideas with the Senator from New Hampshire as we work to produce a final product. I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include Congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no substance. I wish it were the case, that I could argue that the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the Corps do a better job which is what the taxpayers and the environment deserve.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, as a proud alumnus, I congratulate the Men's basketball team at the University of Wisconsin in Madison for their victory over the University of Michigan this week. This victory allowed UW's Coach Bo Ryan and his Badgers to claim the Big Ten conference title for the first time since 1947. As a fellow Badger, I am proud of their accomplishment and I look forward to their play in the post season. This marks the 104th season since the UW-Madison men's basketball program began. From their first season in 1898 to their Cinderella season two years ago, to this week, when they clinched the title, Badger Basketball has more than earned this Big Ten Championship. The people of Wisconsin continue to support and cheer for our Badgers each season. Known as one of the finest institutions of public higher education, UW-Madison also has proven to be a powerhouse in Big Ten sports. I take great pride in commending our men's basketball team. As a graduate of UW-Madison, I wish Coach Ryan and his Badger team all the best in the upcoming post season. Wisconsin is behind you, and we wish you all the luck. Go Badgers!

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I certainly thank the majority leader for his comments, and I thank the Republican leader for his comments. It sounds as if we may be moving toward a resolution of the campaign finance issue without a filibuster in the Senate. I am actually confident we will prevail if such a tactic is actually employed against us, but I do not think the American people will be well served if we have to take a significant amount of time to further debate an issue that we dealt with and essentially resolved last year during a very good 2-week debate process. We passed the McCain-Feingold bill by a vote of 59 to 41. The House passed the Shays-Meehan bill by a vote of 240 to 189. These are wide bipartisan margins in both Houses. Actually, I disagree with the minority leader. The differences between the bills are actually very slight. It is not enough to justify a conference committee which very well may never report a final bill. So Senator McCain and I have endorsed the House-passed bill and will ask our colleagues to vote for it, rejecting all attempts to amend it, however meritorious, so we can send this bill to the President. Should there be technical amendments necessary on which we could agree, we will be glad to consider supporting a technical corrections bill after the bill is enacted. I hope the leader's discussion bears fruit and we can come to agreement on terms of final debate and a vote on this legislation very soon. We have waited many years for this moment, as you know well because you have been one of the key leaders on this. The time to act is now upon us. The days of soft money are truly numbered. The American people want us to finish this job, and we are going to do it. I again thank the majority leader for his consistent and excellent efforts to bring this bill quickly to a conclusion. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to restore fairness to the Medicare program. This package of legislation will reduce regional inequalities in Medicare spending and support providers of high-quality, low-cost Medicare services. Just about a month ago, I met with representatives of Wisconsin's hospitals, doctors, and seniors, who spoke passionately about how Medicare inequities have a real and serious impact on the lives of Wisconsin seniors, and on health care providers in my State. Wisconsin seniors and providers came to me with these concerns, and this legislation is a direct result of their advocacy. I thank them for their efforts. I also want to thank my colleague from Maine, who has joined me on a number of health care initiatives that address the mutual concerns of our constituents. I am grateful for her efforts on health care issues that concern both of our States, such as home health care, access to emergency services, and this legislation on Medicare fairness. The Medicare program should encourage the kind of high-quality, cost- effective Medicare services that we have in Wisconsin and Maine. But unfortunately, that's not the case. To give an idea of how inequitable the distribution of Medicare dollars is, imagine identical twins over the age of 65. Both twins worked at the same company all their lives, at the same salary, and paid the same amount to the Federal Government in payroll taxes, the tax that goes into the Medicare Trust Fund. But if one twin retired to another part of the country and the other retired in Wisconsin, they would have vastly different health care options under the Medicare system. The high Medicare payments in some areas allow Medicare beneficiaries a wide array of options, they can choose between an HMO or traditional fee-for-service plan, and, because area health care providers are reimbursed at such a high rate, those providers can afford to offer seniors a broad range of health care services. The twin in Wisconsin, however, would not have the same access to care, there is no option to choose an HMO, and there are fewer health care agencies that can afford to provide care under the traditional fee-for-service plan. How can two people with identical backgrounds, who paid the same amount in payroll taxes, have such different options under Medicare? They do, because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and many other states around the country. Too many Americans in Wisconsin and other States like it pay just as much in taxes as everyone else, but the Medicare funds they get in return don't come close to matching the money they pay in to the program. Wisconsin has a lot of company in this predicament. More than 35 States are below the national average in terms of per beneficiary Medicare spending. In some States, such as Wyoming and Idaho, Medicare spends almost $2,000 less per beneficiary than the national average. While there are different reasons for this wide range in Medicare payments, their result is often the same, higher private sector insurance costs and a loss of access to care. In Milwaukee WI, there are reports that lower Medicare reimbursement rates often causes costs to shift to the private sector. In rural parts of Wisconsin, these low reimbursement rates jeopardize access to health care services. In the case of my home State of Wisconsin, low payment rates are in large part a result of health care proviers' historically high-quality, cost-effective health care. In the early 1980s, Wisconsin's lower-than- average cost were used to justify lower payment rates. Since that time, Medicare's payment policies have only widened the gap between low- and high-cost States. This package of legislation will take us a step in the right direction by reducing the inequities in Medicare payments to hospitals, physicians, and skilled nursing facilities that the majority of States across the country now face. At the same time, our proposal would establish pilot programs to encourage high-quality, cost-effective Medicare practices. Our proposal would reward providers who deliver higher quality at lower cost. It would also require that the pilot States create a plan to increase the amount of providers providing high quality, cost-effective care to Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation would also help to address the unique workforce needs of urban and very rural areas by encouraging clinical rotations in those areas. These rotations could help focus a workforce on the specific challenges facing these areas, so that they can deliver care that serves the unique needs that they have. Congress must modernize Medicare. But it must also restore basic fairness to the Medicare program. My legislation demands Medicare fairness for Wisconsin and other affected States, plain and simple. Medicare shouldn't penalize high- quality providers of Medicare services, and most of all Medicare should stop penalizing seniors who depend on the program for their health care. They have worked hard and paid into the program all their lives, and in return they deserve full access to the wide range of benefits that Medicare has to offer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward. I believe that we can rebalance the budget, while at the same time encouraging efficient, quality enhancing services, and that's what my legislation sets out to do.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to restore fairness to the Medicare program. This package of legislation will reduce regional inequalities in Medicare spending and support providers of high-quality, low-cost Medicare services. Just about a month ago, I met with representatives of Wisconsin's hospitals, doctors, and seniors, who spoke passionately about how Medicare inequities have a real and serious impact on the lives of Wisconsin seniors, and on health care providers in my State. Wisconsin seniors and providers came to me with these concerns, and this legislation is a direct result of their advocacy. I thank them for their efforts. I also want to thank my colleague from Maine, who has joined me on a number of health care initiatives that address the mutual concerns of our constituents. I am grateful for her efforts on health care issues that concern both of our States, such as home health care, access to emergency services, and this legislation on Medicare fairness. The Medicare program should encourage the kind of high-quality, cost- effective Medicare services that we have in Wisconsin and Maine. But unfortunately, that's not the case. To give an idea of how inequitable the distribution of Medicare dollars is, imagine identical twins over the age of 65. Both twins worked at the same company all their lives, at the same salary, and paid the same amount to the Federal Government in payroll taxes, the tax that goes into the Medicare Trust Fund. But if one twin retired to another part of the country and the other retired in Wisconsin, they would have vastly different health care options under the Medicare system. The high Medicare payments in some areas allow Medicare beneficiaries a wide array of options, they can choose between an HMO or traditional fee-for-service plan, and, because area health care providers are reimbursed at such a high rate, those providers can afford to offer seniors a broad range of health care services. The twin in Wisconsin, however, would not have the same access to care, there is no option to choose an HMO, and there are fewer health care agencies that can afford to provide care under the traditional fee-for-service plan. How can two people with identical backgrounds, who paid the same amount in payroll taxes, have such different options under Medicare? They do, because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and many other states around the country. Too many Americans in Wisconsin and other States like it pay just as much in taxes as everyone else, but the Medicare funds they get in return don't come close to matching the money they pay in to the program. Wisconsin has a lot of company in this predicament. More than 35 States are below the national average in terms of per beneficiary Medicare spending. In some States, such as Wyoming and Idaho, Medicare spends almost $2,000 less per beneficiary than the national average. While there are different reasons for this wide range in Medicare payments, their result is often the same, higher private sector insurance costs and a loss of access to care. In Milwaukee WI, there are reports that lower Medicare reimbursement rates often causes costs to shift to the private sector. In rural parts of Wisconsin, these low reimbursement rates jeopardize access to health care services. In the case of my home State of Wisconsin, low payment rates are in large part a result of health care proviers' historically high-quality, cost-effective health care. In the early 1980s, Wisconsin's lower-than- average cost were used to justify lower payment rates. Since that time, Medicare's payment policies have only widened the gap between low- and high-cost States. This package of legislation will take us a step in the right direction by reducing the inequities in Medicare payments to hospitals, physicians, and skilled nursing facilities that the majority of States across the country now face. At the same time, our proposal would establish pilot programs to encourage high-quality, cost-effective Medicare practices. Our proposal would reward providers who deliver higher quality at lower cost. It would also require that the pilot States create a plan to increase the amount of providers providing high quality, cost-effective care to Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation would also help to address the unique workforce needs of urban and very rural areas by encouraging clinical rotations in those areas. These rotations could help focus a workforce on the specific challenges facing these areas, so that they can deliver care that serves the unique needs that they have. Congress must modernize Medicare. But it must also restore basic fairness to the Medicare program. My legislation demands Medicare fairness for Wisconsin and other affected States, plain and simple. Medicare shouldn't penalize high- quality providers of Medicare services, and most of all Medicare should stop penalizing seniors who depend on the program for their health care. They have worked hard and paid into the program all their lives, and in return they deserve full access to the wide range of benefits that Medicare has to offer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward. I believe that we can rebalance the budget, while at the same time encouraging efficient, quality enhancing services, and that's what my legislation sets out to do.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first in light of Senator Reid's comments about my personal financing, which were accurate, he is buying me dinner tonight. I thank him for the lovely remarks. Senator Dodd and Senator Reid were absolutely critical to the McCain- Feingold bill getting through this body. They were the two Senators out here every day during those 2 weeks doing an absolutely masterful job managing the bill. It was very tricky. I thank them again. We need your help one more time now that it is coming back to this body. I am grateful. As we know, in light of the papers and the comments this morning, early this morning the House of Representatives passed campaign finance reform. Thanks to the courageous leadership of Chris Shays, Marty Meehan, and Dick Gephardt, the House voted firmly in favor of reform. The House had to weather a great storm--a storm of lobbying that rained down from the opponents of reform. Frankly, they tried every trick in the book to kill the Shays-Meehan bill. They tried everything. Mr. President, you saw similar attempts in this House, and you helped us fight them every day. The proponents of reform tried to love Shays-Meehan to death, they tried to make Members swallow poison pill amendments, and when all else failed, they tried old-fashioned arm twisting to get supporters to back down. But reform supporters did not back down. Instead, they were courageous and they brought about a historic moment for campaign finance reform. This was the time in the House when, as we all know, it really counted. A lot of people said it would not happen because this time, as some said, they were shooting with real bullets. But the House came through, as they have done twice before. This really was--and I think many Americans feel this way--a soaring moment for democracy. Reform has now prevailed in both Houses of Congress. That is something for which all of us can be proud. With the passage of the Shays-Meehan bill in the House, both bodies have finally acknowledged the will of the American people, and that is that the campaign finance system must be reformed. But passage in the House, however great an achievement, does not quite get the bill to the finish line, as we know. We need to pass the Shays-Meehan bill in this body, and to do that, we need to receive the Shays-Meehan bill from the House of Representatives. It sounds like a mechanical thing, Mr. President, but as you may recall, we had a little problem in this House with the McCain-Feingold bill being sent over to the House after it was passed. A majority in this body is eager to take up Shays-Meehan, but we cannot pass the bill until we have it in hand. I urge the House to send the legislation to us today without delay. We cannot get this bill to the President's desk unless we can take it up and pass the legislation in this body. I urge the House to send us the bill so we can get it to the President for his signature. I also add--and I am grateful for this--I welcome the President's remarks yesterday morning through his spokesperson that the Shays- Meehan bill would ``make progress and improve the system.'' That is what the President's spokesman said. The President seeks a bill that improves the system, and that is exactly what our bill does. I am pleased and delighted the President has signaled his support for our legislation which will finally end the corrupt soft money system once and for all. I, of course, look forward to working with my friend and partner on this, John McCain, to pass Shays-Meehan in this body and send it to the President. The American people will be watching, as they watched us last year and as they watched the House this week. They want to know whether we can finally do what is right. Can we finally close the door on the soft money system that leaves us so vulnerable to an appearance of corruption? Can we finally say together as legislators, as representatives of our people, the soft money system simply is not worth the risk? It is time for us to show that we can live up to our role as stewards of this cherished democracy. We have the power to seize this moment for reform, and I really believe we will. We have had a decisive victory this week, just as we had a decisive victory last year in the Senate. Now we have to get this legislation across the finish line so we can ban soft money and begin to restore the people's faith in us and the work we do. I certainly look forward to working with my colleagues to do that. I am grateful for the time. I thank the Senator from Nevada, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the felony voter re-enfranchisement amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. The American people have long recognized voting and participating in elections as one of our greatest rights and responsibilities as citizens. Over the course of our Nation's history many Americans have struggled for this right. African Americans, women, the uneducated, and the poor have all, at some time or another, been excluded from the voting population. Our Nation looks back at these dark times in our history with great embarrassment. All of these groups are now included in our country's great democratic process. But we continue to exclude one other group of American citizens--rehabilitated felons. In 13 States, a felony conviction can result in disenfranchisement for life. Other States have procedures by which a rehabilitated felon can regain his right to vote. Those procedures, however, often have many hurdles. Several States require a pardon before a person who has served his or her sentence is able to regain the right to vote. Many former felons do not have the financial, legal, or educational abilities to pursue the restoration of their rights. It is time to eliminate this disparity and to ensure equality in felony voter laws. It is time to create a level playing field so that people who serve their time for felony convictions can regain their right to vote in Federal elections. Senator Reid's amendment would re- establish this fundamental right for persons who have fully served their time in prison, and who have completed their probation or parole. Senator Reid's amendment would appropriately restore this basic right of citizenship to those who have paid their debt to society. According to the Americans for Democratic Action Education Fund, an estimated 4.2 million Americans, or 1 in 50 adults, have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction. A majority of these Americans are no longer incarcerated. One million four hundred thousand Americans are ex-offenders who have fully completed their sentences. Another 1.5 million of the disenfranchised are on parole or probation. Only 1.2 million of the disenfranchised are actually still serving their sentences. With the increasing number of persons who are entering our criminal justice system, the number of disenfranchised voters is growing as well. There are many reasons why this amendment makes sense. Over 95 percent of prisoners will return to our communities after serving their sentences. We return rehabilitated felons to our communities because Americans expect that they will reintegrate themselves as productive citizens. Yet, without the right to vote, rehabilitated felons are already a step behind in regaining a sense of civic responsibility and commitment to their communities. If we want rehabilitated felons to succeed at becoming better citizens, who both abide by the law and act as responsible individuals, then our country needs to restore this most fundamental right. State disenfranchisement laws also disproportionately impact ethnic minorities. Approximately 13 percent of the African-American adult male population is disenfranchised. This reflects a rate of disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. More then one-third, 36 percent, of the total disenfranchised population are African-American males. In 10 States, more than 1 in 5 black men are currently disenfranchised. As a result of the current rates of felony convictions and incarceration, it is estimated that in the next generation of black men, 30 to 40 percent will lose the right to vote for some or all of their adult lives. Thirty to forty percent. That is both an astonishing and deeply troubling figure. Constitutional principles of fundamental fairness and equal protection require us to address this discrepancy. Denying the right to vote should not be a continued punishment for people who have served their sentences. When people are convicted and sentenced for felony crimes, they are expected to serve their time. The disenfranchisement of felons who have completed their court-imposed sentence serves only as a continuing punitive measure. Given the importance to our democracy of an actively participating citizenry, it should be of great concern to our country that so many citizens are losing one of their most basic rights as Americans: the right to participate in our political process. Rehabilitated felons, who have served their sentences to completion and have paid their debt to society, should be able to exercise this right. Basic constitutional principles of fundamental fairness and equal protection require an equal opportunity for United States citizens to vote in Federal elections. Felony disenfranchisement laws that deny the right to vote to people who have served their sentences run counter to these principles. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Reid's amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is no value we can attach to the most basic right of every citizen living in a democracy. The right to vote is much more than dropping a ballot in a box. The right to vote symbolizes freedom, equality, and participation in the government that creates the laws and policies under which we all live. This is why I rise today, in support of Senator Lieberman's D.C. voting rights amendment. Under our representational democracy, every American is entitled to a voting voice in Congress, a voice that seeks to speak for their interests and present their needs, unless you live in the District of Columbia. When the District of Columbia was created as the United States Capital 200 years ago, its residents lost their right to congressional representation. It is time for us to right this wrong. District of Columbia residents serve in the U.S. armed forces, and some of them are currently overseas fighting in our war on terrorism. D.C. residents fought and died in the Vietnam war. They keep our Federal Government and capital city running, day and night. They pay Federal taxes. And yet they have no voice. We fail to give them a say on even basic administrative matters that other states and cities decide for themselves. D.C. residents can fight and die in the name of their country, but they can't implement a local budget without the approval of Congress. What makes this inequity particularly egregious is that District of Columbia residents, like all Americans, pay Federal taxes. So while the rest of the Nation benefits from our victory in the Revolutionary War, the voice of D.C. residents continues the rallying cry, ``No taxation without representation.'' This founding principle of our Nation, which so vigorously carried us to our Nation's independence, has still not been honored for this group of Americans. There are approximately 490,000 Americans living in the State of Wyoming. Residents of Wyoming have three voting voices in Congress. There are 550,000 Americans living in Washington, D.C. These Americans, however, purely due to the location of their residence, have no representative with full voting authority in either the House or Senate. D.C. has one delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, but she does not enjoy the same right to participate in decision-making as her colleagues. And, of course, D.C. has no representation in the Senate. This is not equal representation. It is unequal representation. It is wrong. It is un-American. And it should end. Virtually every other nation, from Albania to Zimbabwe, grants the residents of their capital cities equal representation in their legislature. It is simply an embarrassment that in these modern times, we, as the world's most powerful democracy, are denying suffrage to half a million Americans. Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the United States has forged its own suffrage history, overcoming the denial of access and extending voting rights to all Americans regardless of race, gender, wealth, marital status, or land ownership. Through our interpretation of the one-person/one-vote doctrine, we have made great strides in overcoming inequality and underrepresentation. There remains, however, this suffrage hurdle: the disenfranchisement of 550,000 District of Columbia residents. This hurdle has been recognized by Republicans and Democrats alike. In 1978, Congress debated and passed a Constitutional amendment granting D.C. voting representation. Then-Senator Bob Dole said: The Republican party supported DC voting representation because it was just, and in justice we could do nothing else. The 1976 Democratic and Republican platforms were almost identical on this issue, the Republican platform stating: We support giving the District of Columbia voting representation in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The Democratic platform echoed: We support full Home Rule for the District of Columbia, including full voting representation in the Congress. Unfortunately, since 1978, the Senate has not considered this important issue. President Lincoln spoke of a ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' This guiding principle has sustained America throughout some of her most trying times. Shouldn't the people who work and reside in the presence of this former president's monument, and who have contributed so much to making our Nation the great nation that it is, have the right to live by this ideal? It is time to address this injustice. At a time when the Senate is debating election reform and reflecting on issues like antiquated voting machines, the Senate should also address one of the oldest and most egregious violations of the fundamental right to vote--the lack of full voting representation in Congress for D.C. residents. I thank Senator Lieberman for offering this important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join our effort to allow D.C. residents to enjoy the full rights and privileges of American citizenship.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I spoke this morning of the great victory of campaign finance reform in the House last night and the importance of taking up a bill quickly in the Senate so we can send it to the President. I expressed concern that games might be played by the House leadership in transmitting the bill to the Senate so we can consider it. I was pleased by the announcement this afternoon by Speaker Hastert that the bill should come over to us in a matter of days. That is good news, and I am pleased to hear it. I, too, thank the Senator from Kentucky. He was very gracious in his remarks today. Whether or not we miss this process in the future is one issue. Certainly that has been the nature of the experience over these many years, and I sincerely thank him for that. The possibility of delay still exists in this body. I sincerely thank the majority leader for his tremendous commitment today to bring up the bill in the Senate as soon as it comes over and to lead us in fighting through whatever procedural hoops might be placed in our path to try to stop the Senate from acting on the bill. We had a long, fair, and good debate last year on this legislation. Any effort to prevent the Senate from acting on the bill I think will simply delay the inevitable; it would frustrate the will of the Senate and the will of the American people. Yesterday's strong bipartisan vote in the House after marathon debate demonstrates once again the time has come to pass the bill. As much as some tried to deny or rationalize it, the soft money system taints all of us in this body, and it truly undermines our credibility with the American people. There does come a time when we have to say enough. That time is now. As soon as the bill comes to us from the House, let's take it up; let everyone say a final word about their positions, and then send it to the President to be signed into law. Again, I thank the majority leader. I thank my good friend, Senator McCain. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to express my concern regarding recent events in Nigeria. On January 27, an armory of the Nigerian military located within the massive city of Lagos erupted in a series of explosions, prompting desperate residents to flee the area. Reports indicate that more than 1,000 Nigerians were killed that night, many trampled to death or drowned in nearby canals as they tried to escape the disaster. Many of those who escaped with their lives lost their possessions and remain displaced. Disturbingly, reports quickly surfaced suggesting that child traffickers attempted to take advantage of the tragedy, raising questions about the fate of the missing. The entire episode, is horrifying, and my deepest sympathies go out to the families of the area. But, I fear that this incident, whatever its precise cause, is only one more in a series of horrors visited on the Nigerian people. My colleagues have undoubtedly read about soaring levels of communal violence in this critically important African state. Such violence now grips parts of Lagos, adding to the sense of insecurity and fear in a city that just suffered such a terrible series of blasts. Yet sadly, reports of fighting in Lagos sound all too familiar, given recent history in Jos, in Kano, in Nasarawa, in Bauchi, and in the delta region. In some cases, the government failed to act. For example, Human Rights Watch recently released a report indicating that the Nigerian authorities could have done more to prevent the massacres in Jos in September, where as many as a thousand Nigerians may have been killed in one week. Yet in other cases, security forces have turned on civilians, as is alleged to have happened in Benue in October. Consistent and reliable reports indicated that many unarmed civilians were killed and a great deal of private property destroyed when members of the armed forces sought revenge for the murder of their fellow soldiers by a local militia group. The facts surrounding this incident are still in dispute, but coming in the wake of the 1999 incident in Odi, where the Nigerian military massacred hundreds of civilians, this incident calls into question the wisdom of continued engagement with the Nigerian military. If that force is truly committed to reform, those responsible for killing civilians in Benue must be held accountable for their actions. In addition, the manner in which sharia, or Islamic law, is being implemented in parts of northern Nigeria calls into question the country's commitment to fundamental and universal human rights. The case, recently highlighted by the New York Times, of a woman sentenced to be stoned to death after having been found guilty of adultery, raises a number of important questions. In her case, her pregnancy was evidence of her guilt in the eyes of the court, although the alleged father of the baby was set free after the same court concluded it lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute him. The relationship between the court's decision, the sentence, and the protections contained in Nigeria's constitution is utterly unclear. The Nigerian government's silence on these pressing issues is baffling. It is not my intention to encourage pessimism about Africa in this body. And no one wants Nigeria's democracy to succeed more than I do. But all is not well in Nigeria, and we do our Nigerian partners no favors when we pretend that the situation is better than it is. The Nigerian people want what all people want--a chance to improve their lives and the lives of their children. It is no surprise that many are dissatisfied, as it is hard to seize opportunities in a context of violence and corruption. Elections were an important first step in Nigeria's transition from the dark days of military rule. But for too many Nigerians, the days are still quite dark.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, one of Wisconsin's great progressives died a few days ago. Former Wisconsin Governor John Reynolds passed away on January 6. He was 80. The son of an Attorney General, and the grandson of a Representative in the State Assembly, John Reynolds came from one of Wisconsin's most distinguished political families, and he himself was the model of what public service should mean. Reynolds, a native of Green Bay, was one of the founding fathers of the modern Democratic Party of Wisconsin, but his roots were in the Progressive Party of Robert and Phil La Follette. His grandfather was elected to the State Assembly as a Progressive Republican, and his father, who served as the State's Attorney General, was chairman of the independent Progressive Party. John Reynolds, like his father, served as Wisconsin's Attorney General. He was the State's Governor from 1963 to 1965, and was appointed by President Johnson to serve as a Federal Judge in Wisconsin's Eastern District where he served as Chief Judge from 1971 until 1986. But as impressive as it is, that resume does not do him justice. In memorializing John Reynolds, the Wisconsin State Journal wrote that his true legacy was his support of the rule of law and equal rights under the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, he may be remembered best as a civil rights advocate. His most famous decision as a judge was his 1976 order that Milwaukee schools be desegregated. As columnist John Nichols wrote of him, ``John Reynolds never surrendered the Progressive vision that the political and economic rights of individuals must be protected against encroachments by corporate and political elites bent on self-service.'' In 1963, as a sitting Governor, John Reynolds supported civil rights demonstrations. In a statement he made in support of those demonstrations, John Reynolds said: ``The time is long past when Americans can be content with foot-dragging in civil rights. Those who have urged caution forget that those who suffer the pains of discrimination suffer them every day.'' Those words ring true today. They are a mark of the greatness of John Reynolds, a greatness that did not come from the offices he held, but from his principled compassion and political courage.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to bring my colleagues' attention to the desperate situation of the people of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A natural disaster recently added to the man-made tragedies that have already had a profound effect on the population in and around Goma. Basic human decency demands that the United States and the international community take prompt action to provide relief to the Congolese people, and to help them in their efforts to rebuild their communities. On January 17, Mount Nyiragongo, which is situated in the eastern part of the country near Lake Kivu, erupted and eventually produced several different paths of lava, including one that ran directly through Goma, destroying one-fifth to one-third of the city and displacing over 200,000 people. Some 62,500 people's homes were destroyed, and reports indicate that hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs, their places of work utterly destroyed. It appears that scores lost their lives. For days, the displaced suffered without assistance, desperately searching for food, water, and shelter. Witnesses to the misery of the Rwandan refugees who fled the 1994 genocide, many were unwilling to become refugees themselves, and rapidly returned to the devastated city. The international community has now been able to mobilize help. As of yesterday, the water system in Goma had resumed limited operations, but there are still parts of the city with no access to clean water, forcing families to drink from contaminated sources and increasing the risk of a cholera outbreak. Today, U.S. relief assistance has reached the people of Goma, and I commend the Administration for working to get blankets, water, emergency food aid, and temporary emergency shelter materials to the communities in need. I want to stress that life has been precarious for the people of this region for far too long. They have been among the millions of Congolese suffering from the all too often overlooked humanitarian crisis that has gripped much of central Africa. The Congolese people suffered unspeakably during the colonial era. Then they endured the repression and astonishing corruption of the Mobutu regime. Next came the civil war that still leaves the country divided. Throughout these political trials, the most basic infrastructure of the country has crumbled, year by year, the victim of neglect, of corruption, and of conflict. Not only are the Congolese people still denied basic political rights--no matter which force controls the section of the country in which they live--but many also do not have access to even rudimentary health care. Several credible surveys and reports indicate that malnutrition levels have reached appalling levels. As chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I am committed to holding a hearing to focus attention on the DRC in the months ahead. My colleagues will surely recognize that a vast country gripped by deprivation and fear provides opportunities for some of the worst international actors. Surely they will see that the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo creates a zone of instability at the heart of the continent--a direct challenge to our global efforts to stand on the side of both order and justice. Surely we will all realize that both our interests and our morals demand that we help the people of Goma not just to survive their immediate ordeal, but to rebuild their communities. We must work to support the inter-Congolese dialogue that aims to bring peace and a democratic political solution to the country, and we must demand all signatories to the Lusaka Accords respect the fundamental human rights of the Congolese people. We must work with the international community to provide desperately needed development assistance to the people who have long been denied meaningful control over the course of their own country's destiny. The disaster in Goma has finally drawn international attention to the plight of the Congolese. We cannot avert our eyes now that the lava has stopped its terrible advance.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express concern over the outcome of the presidential elections last month in Zambia. A number of African states will hold important elections this year, the results of which could shape the governance and prosperity of the continent for years to come. Unfortunately, several troubling aspects of the Zambian elections demonstrate the need for a more concerted international effort to demand democratic accountability and transparency in many African states. The Movement for Multiparty Democracy's candidate for President of Zambia, Levy Mwanawasa, was inaugurated on January 2 as the new President, after claiming a very narrow victory in general elections held on December 27. As the handpicked successor of outgoing president Frederick Chiluba, Mwanawasa approached the contest from an advantaged institutional position and ran against a divided opposition. But polls leading up to the election predicted that Anderson Mazoka, a prominent business executive, would win, or that the race would at least be exceptionally close. Unfortunately election monitoring reports from the Carter Center, the European Union and national nongovernmental organizations suggest that the balloting may have been marred by fraud. There are credible reports of tabulation irregularities and voter intimidation. Those reports corroborate claims made by the opposition parties themselves. The Carter Center has issued a statement expressing serious concern over the reports of irregularities in the tabulation process, although they have not been able to verify those irregularities independently. At minimum, it seems clear that the elections were characterized by highly troubling inconsistencies and exceptionally poor management. Equal consideration must also be given to alarming pre-election reports. An assessment conducted by the Carter Center immediately prior to the voting concluded that some steps taken by Zambian authorities in the pre-election period ``handicapped the opposition, created barriers to civil society participation and disenfranchised many voters.'' Reports of intimidation and the misuse of state resources by government officials undermined the credibility of the ruling party's campaign. At the same time, the Carter Center estimated that only 2.6 million out of an eligible 4.6 million citizens were registered to vote. In part, this low level of registration related to difficulties in obtaining national registration cards. But prolonged uncertainty about the election date, followed by the selection of a date in the middle of the rainy season and during a common holiday travel period also complicated the administration of the elections and lowered participation in certain regions. And the failure of President Chiluba to declare an official holiday on the date of the elections prevented some workers from waiting in long lines that day to vote. The mismanaged December elections have led to protests in Zambia, although it is a testament to the Zambian people's desire for a genuinely democratic state, governed by the rule of law, that the protests have not exploded into more destabilizing violence. Turning to the courts, the opposition is expected to lodge a full appeal to the Supreme Court. The high court in Lusaka dismissed an earlier opposition petition, declaring that Zambian law required that such petitions be filed after the winning candidate assumed office. But most legal professionals note that the judiciary remains weak and that it will be exceptionally difficult to overturn any election results now that the results have been certified. In the meantime, the United States and the rest of the international community must work with the Zambian advocates of democracy as they seek credible political options that might resolve the current crisis. Some influential voices are calling for the creation of an independent commission to review the election. That is one option that the United States could support, particularly if the courts are unable or unwilling to resolve the dispute. But any attempt by the United States to help mediate the impasse must be transparent and must have as its goal the inauguration of a Zambian government that responds to the will, and the needs, of the Zambian electorate. And above all, the United States must stand firm in defending the right of the opposition to speak out, and to contest the election results through legal means. Unfortunately, in his first days after assuming the presidency, Mr. Mwanawasa has demonstrated an ominous reluctance to tolerate opposition politics, and he has publicly warned the opposition against taking any additional steps to contest the results. A peaceful and credible resolution to election disputes is essential. Without the confidence of the Zambian people, the President of that country will find it difficult, if not impossible, to address the country's precipitous social decline, which has been nudged along by a worsening economic climate, widespread corruption and a massive HIV/ AIDS epidemic in a country where the average income is only about one dollar a day. Once the election dispute is resolved, the United States will have to work closely with the legitimate government of Zambia to help address this growing humanitarian crisis.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was pleased to hear the Attorney General's announcement of the first indictment of a co-conspirator to the terrorist attacks on our Nation on September 11. Zacarias Moussaoui, who was detained by the FBI for carrying a false passport before September 11 and has been in custody since that time, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Virginia. I commend the Justice Department, the FBI, and our intelligence services, for their tireless work in seeking to bring Moussaoui and other terrorists to justice. We have known about Mr. Moussaoui since a few short days after September 11, but we still do not know the identities of hundreds of other individuals still held in detention, the vast majority of whom have no link to September 11 or al-Qaida. And so I rise today to speak about the Justice Department's detention of these individuals in connection with its investigation of the September 11 attacks and the administration's continued refusal to provide a full accounting of who these people are and why they have been detained. On October 31, along with Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, Representative Conyers, Representative Nadler, Representative Scott, and Representative Jackson-Lee, I sent a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft requesting basic information about the detention of over 1,100 individuals in connection with the investigation of the September 11 attacks. We wanted to know who is being detained and why; the basis for continuing to hold individuals who have been cleared of any connection to terrorism; and the identity and contact information for lawyers representing detainees. We also wanted information regarding the government's efforts to seal or close proceedings and its legal justification for doing so. I thank and commend Senator Leahy, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his efforts and leadership. Chairman Leahy held four oversight hearings on the Justice Department's actions, including one hearing that I chaired focusing on the Department's detention of individuals. Those hearings culminated with the testimony of the Attorney General himself before the Committee. I come to the floor today because I remain dissatisfied with the Administration's response to our request for information about the detainees. Seven weeks after our letter, the Department of Justice has given flimsy and contradictory excuses but no convincing legal justification for keeping secret the identities of the over 550 people it now holds in custody for minor immigration violations. In addition, the Department has not yet provided any information on perhaps hundreds of additional people who have been detained. These people might still be being held on state or local charges, or without charges, or they might have been released. Nor has the Department given definite information on the number of individuals held as material witnesses. After our hearings last week, I am more convinced than ever that Congress and the American people are entitled to this information to assess the Justice Department's assertions that everyone in custody has access to legal counsel and is being treated fairly. In the days and weeks after the attacks, the Department made announcements about the status of the investigation, including tallies of the number of individuals detained. In fact, on October 25, the Attorney General announced that ``[t]o date, our anti-terrorism offensive has arrested or detained nearly 1,000 individuals as part of the September 11 investigation.'' In early November, however, the Department reversed course and decided it would no longer publicly release comprehensive tallies of the number of individuals detained in connection with the September 11 investigation and that it would limit its counts to those held on federal criminal or immigration violations. Thus, it would no longer keep track of those held on state or local charges, nor would it indicate how many people have been released after being detained or have been held without charges being filed. sAccording to some recent news reports relying on sources in the Justice Department, other than Zacarias Moussaoui, none of the over 1,100 individuals who have been detained are believed to be involved with the September 11 attacks. It now appears that the Department believes that at least Mr. Moussaoui is connected to September 11. And only 10-15 of the detainees are believed to have any links to the al- Qaida organization. Furthermore, according to senior Justice Department officials quoted in the press, apart from Moussaoui, not a single one of the over 550 people detained on immigration charges is linked to al- Qaida. This leads us to a simple, critical question: Who are the remaining hundreds of people and why have they been detained? The Attorney General undoubtedly faces an enormous challenge: He must work to find the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks and bring them to justice, while, at the same time, protect Americans from future attacks. I fully support our law enforcement officials in their tireless efforts to leave no stone unturned as they investigate the September 11 attacks and strive to protect our nation from future attacks. But, as the Attorney General moves forward in our fight against terrorism, he has a responsibility to ensure that the constitutional foundations of our nation are not eroded. The torch of Lady Liberty must continue to shine on our Nation. This is not just an abstract or theoretical concern. Our Constitution protects the people of this country from the arbitrary or unfair deployment of the awesome power of the Federal Government. The Federal Government has the power to ruin the lives of innocent people. The checks and balances of our Constitution are crucial in protecting the governed from an unfair government. While the Justice Department recently began releasing some information about the people who have been detained on federal criminal charges or immigration violations, we still do not have a full picture of who is being detained and why. And there are reports that detainees have been denied their fundamental right to due process of law, including access to counsel, and have suffered serious bodily injury. We simply cannot tell if those cases are aberrations or an indication of systemic problems, if the Justice Department will not release further information about those being held in custody. The Attorney General has repeatedly and emphatically asserted that he is acting with constitutional restraint. He even went so far as to suggest last week that those who question his actions are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. I reject that charge in the strongest terms. And I further believe that the Department of Justice has a responsibility to release sufficient information about the investigation and the detainees to allow Congress and the American people to decide whether the Department has acted appropriately and consistent with the Constitution. It is not disloyal to view the government's assertions with skepticism. It is the American way. Just before Thanksgiving, in response to our October 31 letter, the Department provided copies of the complaints or indictments for about 46 people held on federal criminal charges. It also provided similar information on about 49 people held on immigration violations, but edited out their identities. Then, three weeks ago, the Attorney General announced the number and identities of all persons held on federal criminal charges and the number, but not the identities, of persons held on immigration charges. The total number of detainees is roughly 600 individuals. But the Department continues to refuse to identify the over 550 persons held for immigration violations, or provide the number and identity of persons held without charge, the number and identities of persons held on state or local charges, or even the number of material witnesses. In statements to the press and in the Attorney General's and his associates' testimony before Congress, the Justice Department has cited a number of reasons for its refusal to provide additional information. Very troubling is the Department's assertion that those being held for immigration violations have violated the law and therefore ``do not belong in the country.'' Without full information about who is being detained and why, we cannot accept blindly this suggestion that each and every immigration detainee does not deserve to be in the country. Do all of these immigration violations merit detention without bond and deportation? I doubt it, as the hearing on detainees the Judiciary Committee held showed that some are very minor violations, which under normal circumstances can be cleared up with a phone call or by completing some additional paperwork. Another reason the Attorney General has cited for refusing to disclose information about detainees is that he does not want to aid Osama bin Laden in determining which of his associates we have in custody. Yet, the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff have said nothing prevents the detainees from ``self- identifying.'' This, it strikes me, entirely undercuts the argument that giving out this information will help bin Laden. If the Justice Department really thought it would, it would never permit self- identification and would not have released the names of those 93 individuals who have been charged with Federal crimes. Nor would the Department have released the name of Zacarias Moussaoui and the basis for his detention. The public has known about Moussaoui and his alleged role in September 11 and al-Qaida since shortly after the attacks. The Department never tried to keep his identity or why he was being detained a secret or try to prevent its disclosure. Moreover, the claim that detainees can self-identify rings somewhat hollow, since we heard during the hearing on detainees that some of these individuals have been denied access to lawyers or family, for days or weeks at a time. Ali Al-Maqtari, a Yemeni national married to a U.S. citizen, testified that for most of the nearly two months he was detained, he was allowed only one phone call, of no more than 15 minutes, per week. He was never charged with perpetrating, aiding or abetting terrorism or with any crime whatsoever, and was eventually released on bond. Dr. Al Bader Al-Hazmi was held incommunicado--denied access to his lawyer or family--for seven days. After nearly two weeks in detention, Dr. Al-Hazmi was released with no charges filed against him. Tarek Mohamed Fayad is an Egyptian national and dentist residing in California. He was picked up by the FBI on September 13 and then transferred to the Brooklyn Detention Center in New York City, where he remains to this day. According to the Wall Street Journal, it took his lawyer one month before she was able to locate and talk to him. Unfortunately, there could be many more cases like these three I have mentioned. But if the Justice Department will not tell the public who is in detention, we can never know the circumstances of their cases. It is apparent that the option of `self-identification' is not a real option. Indeed, it borders on the fanciful to suggest that all the detainees are in a position to self-identify. Rather, there are serious questions about whether the Department has denied those detained their due process rights, including access to counsel. The Department has also said that it is prohibited by law from disclosing the information. But when I questioned both Assistant Attorney General Chertoff and later the Attorney General himself, they admitted that there is no law that provides for a blanket prohibition on the disclosure of information about individuals who have been detained. The Attorney General cited a section of the Privacy Act, as justification for not providing this information. The Privacy Act, however, only applies to citizens and legal permanent residents. It does not apply to aliens who are not legal permanent residents. From the information provided by the Department thus far, we know the vast majority of the detainees are not permanent residents. Furthermore, case law under the Freedom of Information Act explicitly allows the government to release private information about even citizens and legal permanent residents where that information reflects on the performance of the agency. And that's exactly why this information has been requested. There are serious questions about whether individuals who have been detained have been denied their constitutional right to due process of law. And the kind of information we have requested will help Congress evaluate whether the Justice Department has deprived any detainee of his or her constitutional rights. We seek this information not to embarrass or harass the detainees but to provide oversight of the Justice Department's treatment of them. To make matters worse and further thwart public or congressional scrutiny of the Department's actions, we also learned during the oversight hearings that the Attorney General has taken the extraordinary step of closing all immigration proceedings involving about 550 of the 1,100 or more individuals who have been detained. This means no visitors, no family and no press are allowed. As Mr. Al- Maqtari's attorney Michael Boyle has said, this secrecy taints the proceedings, even when, in cases like Mr. Al-Maqtari's, the FBI has cleared the immigrant of any link to terrorism whatsoever. This should give us all pause. People innocent of any connection to terrorism are being branded terrorists and being evaluated in secret proceedings. This is not right. In sum, the various reasons cited by the Department for not disclosing information about the detainees are contradictory and lack legal justification. I once again urge the Administration to release basic information about the people now held in federal custody, except for the identities of material witnesses. And the Administration should also give us whatever help it can in identifying people who may be held in state custody. Rather than expending its resources trying to keep these detentions secret, the Administration should show that it has confidence in what it is doing by opening up its actions to public scrutiny. This is not simply a question of constitutional rights, it is a question of effective law enforcement. It became clear during our hearing on the detainees that the roadblocks to individuals consulting with counsel not only cause great hardship to the detainees and violate their rights, but also hinder the investigation and waste the resources of law enforcement on people who have no connection with terrorism. As Mr. Goldstein, an attorney for Dr. Al-Hazmi, testified: Dr. Al Hazmi's attorneys had notified the appropriate law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice in writing, requesting the whereabouts of their client and expressing their desire to communicate with him. Despite these efforts--and despite Dr. Al Hazmi's repeated requests to consult with his counsel--Federal authorities stonewalled and continued to interrogate Dr. Al Hazmi in the absence of his counsel. Mr. Goldstein added: By denying Dr. Al-Hazmi access to his retained counsel, Federal law enforcement officials not only violated my clients rights, they deprived themselves of valuable information and documentation that would have eliminated many of their concerns. Their obstructionism prolonged the investigative process, wasting valuable time and precious resources. I was gratified that a number of my colleagues expressed concern about the treatment of Mr. Al Maqtari and Mr. Al-Hazmi, and particularly about the difficulties they had in communicating with counsel. I have focused in recent weeks on the issue of access to counsel because I believe this issue is at the center of how our justice system is treating these detainees. This is the issue that takes the concern over the fate of the detainees from an abstract debate over civil liberties versus security to a very specific and very important inquiry about how our government actions affect the lives of hundreds of people. What happened to Mr. Al Maqtari and his wife Tiffany had a severe impact on their well being. What has happened to hundreds of other detainees has similarly affected them. We are not just engaged in a hypothetical law school exam question or a mock crisis where we each play a role. We are talking about taking the liberty of real people, with real families and real lives. It is not enough to say that some liberties have to be sacrificed in these difficult times. Rather, we must be able to determine whether the actions of the Department have been reasonable, and whether the sacrifices that are being requested are justified. That is where lawyers come in. With a lawyer, a detainee can much more readily answer concerns about his behavior, provide documents to show his whereabouts during crucial periods, and generally provide information to show that he is not a terrorist. Lawyers can help determine whether the extreme step of detention without bond is warranted. And they can explain what is going on to the detainee and the public. I asked the Attorney General at our hearing to take steps to ensure that everyone under detention who wants a lawyer can obtain one. And I asked him to determine how many of the detainees are not represented by counsel. I hope he will follow through on our discussion. It is essential that anyone who is being held have counsel and be able to communicate with counsel. The Attorney General has said reasoned discourse should prevail. I agree. But in order to have that reasoned discourse, the Justice Department should provide Congress and the American people with enough information to promote a fair and open dialogue and make our oversight meaningful. Our hearings showed that not all the detainees have adequate access to counsel. They showed, at least, that the Congress has reason to test and examine the Administration's assertions that everyone's constitutional rights are being respected in this investigation. By continually saying in the face of this evidence that we should take its assertions about the treatment of the detainees on faith, the Administration furthers the appearance that it has something to hide. I hope that we are not in some sense following those who rounded up over 120,000 Japanese Americans and thousands of German and Italian Americans during World War II. The rhetoric we hear today rings awfully familiar. We must not return to the time when immigrants who provided so much to our nation were suddenly branded ``enemy aliens'' and deprived of their liberty and other fundamental rights. Let us not repeat these mistakes of history. I again call on the Administration to fulfill its responsibility to protect the Constitution in its pursuit of liberty and justice for all. It can begin by identifying those now held in Federal Custody and providing the other information requested in our October 31 letter.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I also have come to the floor, along with the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Illinois, to talk about this very important topic; and that is, the confirmation process for Federal judges. The first thing I want to do is commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for the professional and diligent way in which he has handled the confirmation process this year, since taking the helm of the committee in June. His, in some way, is a thankless job, because, as we have observed, no matter how many hearings he holds or judges he moves through the committee, there are those in this body who will never be satisfied. Indeed, it seems that the only thing that will satisfy the critics is for Chairman Leahy to shortchange the important constitutional role that the Senate and the committee play in the confirmation process. But that, I know, he will never do, and the Nation should be very grateful to him for that. There has been some harsh criticism of Chairman Leahy from our colleagues on the other side, and in the press. Given how President Clinton's nominees were treated during 6 years of Republican control of the Senate, I find it kind of hard to believe some of the arguments we now hear. We have here, really, a numbers game. The argument has reached a new level of absurdity when our Republican friends start talking about things such as the average number of nominees per hearing. It is pretty obvious that is a meaningless calculation. To the extent that statistics matter, the numbers that count are the number of judges for which hearings have been held and the number of judges confirmed. When you look at those numbers, the numbers that really matter, I have to say that our chairman really does have the better of the argument. In just 5 months since taking over the committee, Senator Leahy has already held hearings for 34 judges. That is more than the number of judges who received hearings in the entire firs year of the George H.W. Bush administration and the entire first year of the Clinton administration. And so far, we have confirmed 27 judges this year. Remember again that the Democrats have only been in control since June I understand that probably 3 more judges will be confirmed before this session concludes, meaning that 30 judges will be confirmed this year. That would be more than were confirmed during the entire first year of President Clinton's first term in office and more than double the number confirmed during the entire first year of the elder President Bush's administration. Think about that. Given all that we have had to deal with on the Judiciary Committee this year, I think Chairman Leahy has shown more than good faith in trying to move the process along, especially since September 11. There have been times this year when I have been concerned about hearings being held too soon on some nominees. A hearing that is held before Senators can review the records of the nominees is really nothing more than just a formality. Particularly given the large number of circuit court nominees, I think our colleagues on the Republican side are asking us, in a way, to ignore our constitutional responsibilities when they make blanket demands such as: You should confirm all judges who were nominated before the August recess. Those kinds of arguments are particularly inappropriate when you think about the appointments we are being asked to confirm with to little scrutiny. Lifetime appointments to the circuit courts and district courts are not to be taken lightly. With the Supreme Court taking only about 100 cases each year, the decisions made in the lower courts are usually final, and have a huge impact on the development of the law. They also have a huge impact on the people's lives. In addition, there are a number of circuits in this country that are extremely unbalanced ideologically, and the nominations made by President Bush seem to be designed to exacerbate that imbalance. It is entirely reasonable--indeed, our constitutional role demands--that we examine the records of individuals chosen for the circuit courts very carefully before we approve their nominations It is clear to me that neither side in a fight such as this is ever going to be satisfied. In the current situation, despite everything that the chairman has tried to do to move quickly on judges--including holding hearings in August, holding more hearings after September 11 when our committee was more than occupied with the so-called anti- terrorism legislation, and even holding a hearing in October when the Senate office buildings were closed and some of our staffs had had nowhere to work for the previous 2 days--despite all of this, my Republican colleagues continue to complain. At one point, they even held up appropriations bills on the floor for over a week, something that our side never did despite our frustration with the pace of confirmations under President Clinton. And now we understand that the minority leader placed a hold on every Judiciary Committee bill because of his displeasure with the pace of the nomination of a judge he has championed to the Fifth Circuit. Let us recall that in the last 6 years of President Clinton's term, the Judiciary Committee did not hold a single hearing on a Fifth Circuit nominee. No fewer than three highly qualified nominees for positions on that court never got a hearing, much less a vote in committee or on the floor. The thing that has troubled me the most about the criticism of the pace of judicial confirmations is the complete unwillingness of those who are now criticizing Chairman Leahy to acknowledge that they really contributed to the judge shortage that they are complaining about today, or that they did anything in the last 6 years to deserve our criticism of them at that time. It is particularly frustrating to hear our Republican colleagues invoking the ABA review in support of President Bush and the Republican leadership in the Congress broke with over 40 years of tradition, dating back to the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower, when they refused to submit the names of nominees to the ABA prior to the nominations being formally made. Now they complain about the delays in confirming nominees and invoke the ratings of the ABA panels as evidence that these nominees are beyond reproach. It just does not add up. The very act of forcing the ABA to begin its assessment after a nomination has been made has delayed confirmation hearings for at least a month and often longer. Chairman Leahy very sensibly has insisted that an ABA review on a nominee be completed before scheduling a hearing. So I suppose that if we are playing a numbers game and are going to compare apples to apples, we should subtract 30 to 45 days of consideration from each of President Bush's nominees. My conclusion is that until I hear the critics of Chairman Leahy say, ``Yes, it was wrong to let Judge Helene White go 4 years without even a hearing; yes, we now agree that Kathleen McCree Lewis should have at least had a hearing; yes, the delays in voting on the confirmations of Judge Berzon and Judge Paez were unconscionable; yes, it was wrong to not confirm a single circuit court nominee in 1996; yes, it was wrong to confirm only 44 percent of the circuit judges nominated by President Clinton in the last Congress of his term; yes, it was wrong to have 68 of President Clinton's nominees in the 106th Congress never come up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee; and yes, we are in large part responsible for the fact that there are now so many vacancies to fill on our federal courts,'' until I hear those statements, the statistics they cite, and the argument that they make ring a little hollow. If and when I do hear those statements accepting responsibility, I think a bipartisan solution will emerge. Because of my Republican colleagues acknowledge that they bear some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in today, they can suggest to the President that he try to ``change the tone'' on this issue in a tangible and meaningful way. He can do that by renominating some of those highly qualified candidates who never got a hearing or a vote in the Judiciary Committee when it was chaired by my friend, the Senator from Utah. The President did that with Roger Gregory, and I applauded him for it. We can wipe the slate clean with some courageous work, and there are enough vacancies to do this in many circuits. That is the challenge. Are we gong to continue the numbers game? Are we going to continue the recriminations? Or are we going to move forward in a bipartisan way and get on with our business on this committee and in the Senate. I think the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is doing an admirable job under the circumstances. I urge him and the majority leader not to submit to pressure tactics. The ball is in the President's and the minority's court. They can decide if they want to ``change the tone in Washington.'' We simply cannot do it alone. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am delighted the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, is in the Chamber and is supportive of our amendment. I hope he will offer his remarks in support of our amendment at this point.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit an amendment that will give farmers some options in identifying the forum to resolve disputes with agribusinesses. I, along with a number of other Members of this body, am deeply concerned that the concentration of power in the hands of a few large agribusiness firms--firms that can raise $1 billion 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 what is really a position of weakness through unfair concentration and other uses of market leverage. In some cases, the domestic marketplace has become almost noncompetitive for family farmers. Farmers have few buyers and suppliers than ever before. One indication of their dominance is the 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. I was very disappointed when I learned that the Agriculture Committee did not approve Senator Harkin's proposal to add a competition title to this bill. I commend the work of the chairman, Chairman Harkin, of the Agriculture Committee for his leadership on this issue. When I testified at a hearing on the packers, stockyards, and processors last year, I thought a number of important reforms outlined should have been addressed in the farm bill. Senator Harkin's competition title would have done a lot. It would have provided a measure of fairness and transparency and equity in America's agricultural markets. I believe this proposal would have taken a huge step toward ensuring the future prosperity of our farmers and ranchers. One important aspect of the competition title would have provided farmers with options to resolve disputes with agribusinesses by providing farmers with a choice as to the forum for resolving disputes with agribusinesses. I want to be clear about this. I think that alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration can and often do 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 rights in advance and agree to arbitrate any future disputes that may arise. It has recently come to my attention that large agribusiness companies often present producers with what is basically take-it-or- leave-it contracts which increasingly include mandatory and binding arbitration clauses as a condition of initially entering into the contract. This practice forces farmers to submit their disputes with packers and processors to arbitration. As a result, farmers are required to waive access completely to judicial or administrative forums, substantive contract rights, and to statutorily provided protection. In short, this practice works and deprives dealers of their fundamental due process rights and runs directly counter to basic principles of fairness. Arbitration is also billed as an inexpensive alternative to civil action, but this is often not actually the case. Filing fees and other expenses often can result in much higher fees than actually being in a civil action. Attorney's fees, whether hourly or contingency, can be similar regardless of the 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 or $250 cost of filing a civil suit. It makes no sense for a farmer to seek payment for wrongdoing when he or she has lost $1,000 when it costs $11,000 up front just to get the case into an arbitration proceeding. The result of those mandatory arbitration clauses is that farmers often have no forum in which to bring their dispute against the company. Arbitration clauses often require farmers to waive their right to a jury trial. Since the arbitration itself is extremely costly, the farmer, who likely has a substantial debt due to low prices and a large mortgage on his farm, is basically left unable to access this costly arbitration process. Since the litigation option is taken away by contract, and the arbitration forum can be taken away by its high cost, the grower has no forum in which to bring his dispute against the company. If a poultry farmer suffers losses as a result of mis-weighed animals, the farmer should have the right to hold the company accountable. If farmers are hurt because they received bad feed, we must ensure that farmers have options to choose the forum through which they can resolve their concerns about this product they received. If a farmer believes he or she has been provided a diseased animal from an agribusiness, the farmer should have at least a forum to address his or her concerns. In short, we must give farmers a fair choice that both parties to an agricultural contract may willingly and knowingly select. This amendment, again, does not prohibit arbitration. It would ensure simply that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that the rights and remedies provided by our judicial system are not waived under coercion. Let me add that I believe two of the lead cosponsors of this amendment are the chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin, and the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. I am also pleased to inform the Chair and my colleagues that both the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union support that. I am sure the Senator from Indiana knows that does not always happen. It is a good sign we are on the right track for America's farmers with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and give farmers options to resolve disputes in the agricultural marketplace. I yield the floor.