Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to draw the Senate's attention to the continuing political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe. This summer, the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on this crisis. The overwhelming consensus of the witnesses at that hearing, witnesses from the administration, from NGOs, and from academia, was that Zimbabwe would continue in a downward spiral, with potentially disastrous results for the entire Southern African region, unless the rule of law is sufficiently restored to create conditions for a fair Presidential election next year. I regret that recent events suggest that the Government of Zimbabwe is intent on taking the opposite approach. Zimbabwean authorities have expelled representatives of the widely-respected International Foundation for Electoral Systems, better known to many in this body as IFES. An IFES team had traveled to Zimbabwe to monitor pre-election conditions, which are critically important to a free and fair election. If the only information available to voters is state-controlled propaganda, if opposition party leaders and supporters are intimidated, and if the administrative structure established to prepare for and govern elections is biased, the deck is stacked against democracy before voting even begins. Without international monitors in place, the international community cannot adequately assess these important issues. In fact, despite recent encouraging reports that the government of Zimbabwe had agreed to a rule-governed land reform strategy in return for significant assistance from Britain, conditions continue to be grim within the country. Reports indicate that 900 of 1,150 farms are unable to continue normal operations because they are still under occupation, and food supplies are inadequate. I strongly support rule-governed land reform in Zimbabwe. It is clearly urgently needed and the United States should provide significant assistance to such an effort. But the most pressing problem in Zimbabwe is not about land. It is about the systematic destruction of the rule of law; it is about the intimidation of independent journalists; it is about executive interference with the judiciary; and it is about the abuse of Zimbabweans who support the opposition party or have the misfortune of standing between ruling party-financed thugs and the objects of their desire. So far no evidence has come to light indicating that these fundamental issues have been resolved. As the United States quite rightly devotes itself to fighting terrorism, we must not let the horrific attacks of September 11 deter us or distract us from our other important foreign policy goals and interests. This country must continue speaking out against oppression and in favor of freedom all over the world. Sham elections will not be legitimized by the international community, and President Mugabe's government cannot regain credibility if international monitors are barred from the country. The United States and the international community must work to keep the pressure on the government in Harare and to support the forces of democracy in Zimbabwe. I have joined my colleague, Senator Frist, in sponsoring the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act for this very purpose. The bill has passed the Senate unanimously, and I urge my colleagues in the House to take it up. In Zimbabwe, where many courageous citizens continue to struggle to protect their institutions and to save their country from lawlessness, our honesty and our solidarity is needed now more than ever.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Belarus and my concerns about the country's recent presidential election. Belarus has endured tremendous difficulties in its history. For centuries, Belarus has been fought over, occupied and carved up. It has borne heavy losses, including the loss of over 2 million people, one quarter of its population, during WWII. Today, the Belarusian people continue to suffer devastating consequences from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in neighboring Ukraine. Belarus' declaration of independence in 1991 held great promise for a better future. As it broke from communist rule, it had the opportunity to build a free nation and become part of a peaceful, more secure Europe. The country began to embrace economic and political reforms and democratic principles. It courageously chose to be a nuclear-free state, ratified the START Treaty, acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and became a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace. It established a constitution and held its first Presidential election in 1994. Unfortunately, the prospect of democratic change in Belarus was quickly halted as its first President, Alexander Lukashenka, adopted increasingly authoritarian policies, including amending the constitution in a flawed referendum to extend his term and broaden his powers. Lukashenka's regime has been marked by a terrible human rights record that is progressively getting worse, with little respect for freedom of expression, assembly and an independent media. A pattern of disturbing disappearances of opposition leaders fails to be seriously investigated by authorities. The living conditions in Belarus are declining and Lukashenka's refusal to institute economic reforms has only exacerbated the situation. For months, nations throughout the world have been following closely the events leading up to the presidential election which took place on September 9, 2001, with hope that Lukashenka would take the necessary steps to allow the election to be free, fair and transparent. The United States, the European Union and leaders of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, had urged Lukashenka to uphold his commitments to democratic principles as an OSCE member state and adhere to international election standards. Lukashenka was encouraged to seize this opportunity to signal to his European neighbors and the rest of the world that he is ready to change his heavy handed policies which have isolated his government and earned him a reputation as the lone remaining dictator in Europe. Unfortunately, this election process demonstrated that Lukashenka is still unwilling to acknowledge the will of the Belarusian people. Much like last year's parliamentary elections, this election was marred by reports of intimidation, harassment and fraud. The OSCE concluded that it failed to meet internationally recognized democratic election standards. Leading up to the election the opposition was denied fair and equal access to state-controlled media coverage, the independent media was harassed, publishing houses were shut down, and newspapers reporting on the opposition were seized. International observers from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODHIR, were denied entry into the country for several weeks, and some were denied visas altogether, thus hindering efforts to establish a complete and thorough observation mission. Consequently, observation of critical aspects of a free and democratic election were missed, including the formation of election commissions and the candidate registration process. As voters cast their ballots, efforts to conduct a parallel vote-count were thwarted when Belarusian authorities disqualified thousands of domestic election observers. As a result, while most of Belarus' Central and Eastern European neighbors continue to progress toward democracy and integration into a peaceful, more secure Europe, Belarus remains on a path of its own, isolated from much of the world. The United States must continue to pressure Lukashenka to change his archaic iron fist policies and adopt political reforms that espouse democratic principles such as respect for human rights, support for civil society, and the rule of law. We must continue to urge his regime to institute desperately needed market-oriented economic reforms to promote trade, investment, growth and development in Belarus. We should also engage the Russians in high-level discussions, urging them to raise these issues with their neighbor, to pressure Lukashenka to take the steps he knows are necessary to facilitate normal, productive relations between his country and the international community. While putting pressure on the Belarusian Government, the U.S. should also continue to support programs that will strengthen civil society and build democracy. The OSCE cited one positive observation about the Presidential election in Belarus: an increasingly pluralistic civil society is emerging and working to build the core institutions neglected by the state. The U.S. should continue to support programs that will build upon this progress within civil society and help restore democracy in Belarus.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is a great sense of unity across the Nation as we begin to recover from the events of September 11. The President's speech last week gave both comfort and strength to the American people and to people around the globe. I have been heartened by the bipartisan unity demonstrated by Congress as it acts to respond to the human and economic devastation, and we will need to maintain that unity as we ask for the sacrifices necessary to end this business. Given all that has happened and all that will happen, it is all the more inappropriate for Congress to accept a $4,900 backdoor pay raise. Of course, I believe the automatic pay raise is never appropriate. As my colleagues are aware, it is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, amendment, and a vote on the Record. This process of pay raises without accountability must end. It is offensive. It is wrong. And it is unconstitutional. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. Almost exactly 212 years ago, on September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States. Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three-fourths of the States. The 27th amendment to the Constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.'' I try to honor that limitation in my own practices. In my own case, throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th amendment. This practice must end, and earlier this year I reintroduced legislation to end the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for congressional pay. But we should not wait to enact that law to say ``no'' to the $4,900 pay raise that will go into effect beginning next year. To that end, I call upon the leadership of both parties to work together, in the spirit of the bipartisan unity we have seen flourish in recent days, to stop the pay raise that is scheduled to go into effect in 2002. I very much hope it will not be necessary to fight this issue out on the floor of the Senate. I have an amendment prepared to stop this backdoor pay raise, and am willing to offer it if that becomes necessary, but I want to give our leadership the opportunity to respond and to act together. We are spending the hard-earned tax dollars of millions of Americans to recover from the horrific events of September 11 and to ensure that it does not happen again. And right this minute, our Nation is sending the men and women of our Armed Services into harm's way. This is not the time for Congress to accept a pay raise, and I am confident that upon reflection, Members of the Senate and the other body will want to stop this automatic pay raise from taking effect. Let's stop this backdoor pay raise right now, and then, let's enact legislation to end this practice once and for all.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Volunteers For Safe Skies Act of 2001. This bill will allow our Nation's firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical technicians, EMTs, to serve voluntarily on commercial aircraft to help ensure the safety of the flying public. In many cases, these public servants already notify the crew when they board that they are fully trained for emergencies and are willing to help out in the event they are needed. This bill would simply streamline and organize this practice by requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to create a program through which these officials can register voluntarily and confidentially with the airlines. Our Nation's law enforcement officials, firefighters, and EMTs are trained to respond to and keep calm during emergencies and can be of great assistance to an airline crew. When I was back in Wisconsin following the vicious attacks on our country, I was proud of the outpouring of support and the number of people who wanted to help the victims, their families, and the rescue workers in the attacks. Across Wisconsin and the country, we have all heard the stories of people lining up to donate blood and food, of charities being flooded with donations of goodwill. People are searching for ways to help. When I held one of my listening sessions last week, Fire Chief James Reseburg and Deputy Police Chief Charles Tubbs of Beloit, WI, came up to me with an idea that they thought would help make our skies safer. Part of this idea was to create a registration system through which law enforcement officials, firefighters, and EMTs could register voluntarily to serve in the event of an emergency on a commercial airplane. For example, if an official was going on vacation on an airplane, he would register with the airline beforehand to notify them that they would have a trained public safety official on that flight. Like the sky marshals, only the crew would know when one of these volunteers was on the plane. Keep in mind that this would strictly be a volunteer program. This bill will help make our skies safer while at the same time making it easier for our police officers, firefighters, and EMTs to serve their country. As many of my colleagues have stated, if the airline industry is to recover fully from the events of September 11, 2001, we must make the flying public feel safe once again in our skies. The Volunteers For Safe Skies Act would help us do just that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Volunteers For Safe Skies Act of 2001. This bill will allow our Nation's firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical technicians, EMTs, to serve voluntarily on commercial aircraft to help ensure the safety of the flying public. In many cases, these public servants already notify the crew when they board that they are fully trained for emergencies and are willing to help out in the event they are needed. This bill would simply streamline and organize this practice by requiring the Federal Aviation Administration to create a program through which these officials can register voluntarily and confidentially with the airlines. Our Nation's law enforcement officials, firefighters, and EMTs are trained to respond to and keep calm during emergencies and can be of great assistance to an airline crew. When I was back in Wisconsin following the vicious attacks on our country, I was proud of the outpouring of support and the number of people who wanted to help the victims, their families, and the rescue workers in the attacks. Across Wisconsin and the country, we have all heard the stories of people lining up to donate blood and food, of charities being flooded with donations of goodwill. People are searching for ways to help. When I held one of my listening sessions last week, Fire Chief James Reseburg and Deputy Police Chief Charles Tubbs of Beloit, WI, came up to me with an idea that they thought would help make our skies safer. Part of this idea was to create a registration system through which law enforcement officials, firefighters, and EMTs could register voluntarily to serve in the event of an emergency on a commercial airplane. For example, if an official was going on vacation on an airplane, he would register with the airline beforehand to notify them that they would have a trained public safety official on that flight. Like the sky marshals, only the crew would know when one of these volunteers was on the plane. Keep in mind that this would strictly be a volunteer program. This bill will help make our skies safer while at the same time making it easier for our police officers, firefighters, and EMTs to serve their country. As many of my colleagues have stated, if the airline industry is to recover fully from the events of September 11, 2001, we must make the flying public feel safe once again in our skies. The Volunteers For Safe Skies Act would help us do just that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to join with my colleagues in support of H. Con. Res 227 condemning bigotry and violence against Arab, Muslim, and South Asian Americans. I am sincerely grateful for and proud of the tremendous response of the American people who have shown true courage and loyalty in the face of the horrific attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. No one should doubt the resolve of this Nation to meet the challenge before us in fighting terrorism. But as we continue to wrestle with deep and conflicting emotions of sadness, pain, anger, and fear, we must ensure that the spirit of America, that ability to transcend differences in race, religion, and ethnicity to achieve greatness, is not only preserved, but strengthened as a result of this tragedy. As history has shown, America has always triumphed when we are united. That is why it is so important in this chapter in our history, as we prepare to defend and preserve our Nation, that we stay united as one Nation. This should not be an occasion for irrational impulses of fear, hate or violence towards Arab-Americans, Muslim Americans, South Asian Americans, or any other person in this country. Such actions are wrong. The idea of ``America'' knows no racial, ethnic, or religious boundaries, and no American should have to live in fear as a result of this situation. I stand together with my colleagues, and with Americans of all backgrounds, in condemning such actions. We must renew our commitment to protect our fellow Americans and our Nation against those who want to divide us with hate. Unfortunately, there has been a rash of acts of hate during the last week, compounding the anxiety of Americans in communities throughout this Nation. I have been saddened to hear of incidents in my own State. Ashraf ``Mike'' Khaled, a Wisconsin resident of Jordanian descent and gas station owner, has been the victim of several incidents of hateful statements and threats of his safety by customers and passerby. He reminded us of why our country is so great and why these actions of hatred can be so damaging. He said, ``I love this country because I found my freedom here.'' This is a critical moment for America. One in which we must all live by and honor our Pledge to live as ``One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will support this relief package, however, I have a number of concerns. There is certainly a legitimate need to assist our nation's airlines in this time of crisis. I am concerned, however, that we are forgetting about airline employees and their families, including many Wisconsinites. These massive layoffs are a double blow to an already shocked country. We should act quickly to ensure that those who work for our nation's airlines and their families receive adequate relief, including continued access to health care and unemployment and job training assistance. We must be careful that this airline relief package is targeted at those airlines that are facing economic losses due to the recent terrorist attacks and not instead used to prop up firms that were already in financial trouble before this tragedy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the attack on the United States this week leaves all of us jolted and angered. To respond to this terror is both our fate and our challenge. Our response to that attack must reflect our national character. As a great Nation, we must respond powerfully. But our response must be guided by justice and by our right to self defense, not by vengeance. We must act to hold accountable those responsible for these terrorist attacks. But to be true to our traditions and our Founders, we must act within the confines of the Constitution and the law. I believe that the resolution before us achieves that goal. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 explicitly recognizes the President's authority to take immediate action as Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces to respond to this unprovoked attack on the United States. As such, there is no reason to suggest that the action we take here today is required in advance of any immediate military response by the President. In the interest of demonstrating our national resolve to act firmly and decisively, however, and as a demonstration of our commitment to working in close cooperation with our Commander in Chief to respond to this aggression, we act today to authorize the use of force, as required by the War Powers Resolution. I commend the President and his administration for seeking the resolution before us today, for working with the Congress, and for recognizing the requirement under the Constitution and the law for joint authorization. As well, I commend those who negotiated the specific language of this resolution, and in particular, Senators Biden, Levin, and Kerry. They deserve our thanks for insisting that we honor the War Powers Resolution. Like any legislation, this resolution is not perfect. I have some concern that readers may misinterpret the preamble language that the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism as a new grant of power; rather it is merely a statement that the President has existing constitutional powers. I am gratified that in the body of this resolution, it does not contain a broad grant of powers, but is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11. And I am particularly gratified that this resolution explicitly abides by and invokes the War Powers Resolution. In taking this action today, we are not responding to a distant threat to international peace and security; we are responding to a direct attack on the United States. This is not a humanitarian response to a foreign crisis, but a defensive action to protect the lives of Americans here at home. At the same time, we must recognize that this war will be unlike any other we have fought in the past. Our enemy is not a state with clearly defined borders. We must respond instead to what is quite likely a loose network of terrorists that do not function according to a strict hierarchy. We must respond to a highly mobile, diffuse enemy that operates largely beyond the reach of our conventional war-fighting techniques. Given the immense difficulties involved in identifying our enemies, we must take great care to guard against making mistakes as we pursue them across an obscured terrain. We must not act on misguided prejudices or incomplete information. We must not cause needless harm to innocent bystanders. Our response will be judged by friends and foes, by history, and by ourselves. It must stand up to the highest level of scrutiny: It must be appropriate and constitutional. Within this confusing scenario, it will be easy to point fingers at an ever increasing number of enemies, to believe that the ``the enemy'' is all around us, that the enemy may even be our neighbor. The target can seem to grow larger and larger every day, before the first strike even occurs. And this, of course, is exactly what the terrorists want. They seek to inflate their numbers and their influence by retreating into the shadows. They seek to turn us against each other, and to turn us against our friends and allies across the world, but we will not allow this to happen. We must also take great care to maintain a careful distinction between those organizations or states that have knowingly harbored or assisted terrorists, and those that have acted carelessly in providing unintended aid or shelter. We must punish those who have knowingly supported our enemy, we must strengthen the capacity of all others to respond appropriately. We must invite those who have unintentionally harbored terrorists to work with us to locate them, to eliminate them, to renounce them, and to begin a new era of vigilance, if they are to be regarded as friends of the United States. Our fight against a faceless, shadow enemy also raises another difficult dilemma, for how will we know when we have defeated this enemy? How can we tell whether our enemy has merely regrouped to strike again on another day or at another hour? There can be no peace treaty with such an enemy, but there must be a lasting and discernible peace. We should consider this in determining the frequency and duration of consultations between the Congress and the President over the conduct and status of this demanding struggle. We enthusiastically support our President as he prepares the response to this unparalleled attack. The President has two paths open to him, as any President would under the Constitution. On the one hand, he may act using his powers as Commander in Chief, while remaining subject to the terms of the War Powers Resolution for any sustained action. Or on the other hand, he may seek a declaration of war under Article I of the Constitution. If this is indeed to be a war, then the President should seek a declaration of war. We cannot allow our cherished Constitution to become a dead letter. And it should go without saying that to declare a war, he must identify our adversary. If this will be something short of a war in the broadest sense, then it is proper that we will pass a resolution that gives such broad powers to the President that he could thereby conduct a full-scale war across the globe without the consent of Congress. This would, as well, fly in the face of the structure that our Constitution sets up. The drafters of the War Powers Resolution sought to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President would apply to the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. In today's world, when candor and cooperation between co-equal branches of government seem paramount, the War Powers Resolution has become a bit like the family relative that nobody wants to talk about. But we need to talk about it. Our legislative horizons need to move beyond the era when a President could secretly deploy thousands of troops in Cold War struggles outside of the view of a television camera. There is only one circumstance in which a President may act without statutory authorization, and that is to respond to legitimate emergencies. None among us doubt that we confront such an emergency today, and that it may grow into a sustained struggle. The Constitution foresaw and history has since demonstrated that there will continue to be events to which the President must respond in the defense of the country, or in response to urgent and vital interests abroad. Congress owns the war power. But by this resolution, Congress loans it to the President in this emergency. In so doing, we demonstrate our respect and confidence in both our Commander in Chief and our Constitution. Emergencies can well demand a response of such decisiveness, secrecy, or dispatch that can only be provided by the President as Commander in Chief. But even when emergencies occur, it is our tradition for the President to act, and then seek what has been called ``indemnification'' from the Congress. In prosecuting the Korean War, President Truman decided not to do that in 1950. And his decision is widely viewed as the most egregious abuse of constitutional war powers in the history of the United States. President Eisenhower's more constructive working relationship with Congress was tempered by the Truman experience. Even President Johnson, the father of the Tonkin Gulf resolution, considered Truman to have made a serious error in failing to seek congressional authorization. As one U.S. Congressman has said: ``Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose--and you allow him to make war at pleasure.'' Those were the words of Congressman Abraham Lincoln. Years later, at the outbreak of the Civil War, President Lincoln himself deployed U.S. Armed Forces without the authorization of Congress, but later told the Congress that these actions, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and public necessity, trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. Thus Lincoln explicitly sought congressional approval of his emergency actions by statute. He never claimed to have full and independent constitutional support for his initiatives. Congressional ratification was an essential legitimating step for his actions. Later the Supreme Court upheld his action in the famous 1863 prize cases. So, by this resolution, Congress vouchsafes the legitimacy of a struggle that must have the continuing approval of the representatives of the people. It is the framework for a continuing consensus and communicates support to our President in this emergency. We acknowledge that this legitimate emergency permits the President to act unilaterally without turning our back on who wields the war power under the Constitution, and we trust that if he does, he will turn to Congress to legitimize his actions as appropriate. We have made clear that our support for appropriate action will be forthcoming. And we trust that, by taking up this resolution at this time, there will be no need for after-the-fact measures such as indemnification, no question in anyone's mind about our resolve and commitment. I take pains to raise these issues because they matter, they go to the core of our Constitution and the brilliant separation of powers that guard our democracy. Unfortunately, there have been too many cases in which we have been asked to make loans of the war power in other than emergency situations. As many of our colleagues said during the 1994 debate regarding Haiti, it is not enough to seek the approval of the U.S. Security Council or of a regional alliance like the OAS or NATO only then to ignore the role, the central role, of the United States Congress. I also recognize that power-of-the-purse legislation relating to the commitment of U.S. armed forces is an available remedy, but not an ideal model. The distinguished President Pro Tempore, Senator Byrd, in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee in February 1994, likened the power of the purse to a watering hole in the forest to which all the animals eventually must come to drink. I agree with the distinguished President Pro Tempore's characterization; the power of the purse is an excellent and effective tool in most matters for which we appropriate public funds. But I worry, nonetheless, about how close we would come to a constitutional crisis if we were to rely on such measures as a last resort in a war powers struggle with the President. In a way, it illustrates our level of urgency about preserving our constitutional war power responsibilities, and they risk infringement upon the President's equally valid constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief. The War Powers Resolution is as relevant today as it was enacted in 1973. It is all too apparent that the post-Cold War environment has ushered in an era of threats unforeseen by the founders. These threats reinforce the need for the Congress to make its will known when our troops are to be deployed in potentially dangerous situations. While I believe that the heinous acts perpetrated against the United States by still-unidentified terrorists on September 11, 2001, could justify U.S. and allied military action, I believe that any such actions, if they are to be sustained, must be properly authorized by the Congress. Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have encouraged discussion and vigorous congressional debate regarding the situations in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo because of my conviction that Congress has both a right and a duty to express its will about the wisdom of committing our troops to a potential conflict. Many of these instances were not adequately considered and did not follow an appropriate Congressional authorization. That same conviction makes it essential that the Congress should make its will known. We must not abdicate our responsibility to the victims of September 11, and to the mothers and fathers, the sons and daughters, the wives and husbands of our servicemen and women, who for us will be the point of the sword of justice. Moreover, abiding by the constitutional and statutory scheme in this case is not only the right thing to do as a matter of law, but it is also the most effective thing to do. Because it follows the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed procedures, this resolution will strengthen our nation's efforts. Our careful and deliberate acts in this Congress are the manifestation of the will of the American people, and we will marshal that mighty force behind our President and our military. When we abide by our Constitution and our law, we are as strong as we possibly can be, and we are far stronger than the malevolent force that we soon will engage.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill, Chairman Hollings and Senator Gregg, for accepting this amendment, and to thank Senators Durbin and DeWine and Congressmen Hall and Wolf for their leadership on this issue. I also want to recognize the NGOs that have worked so hard on this bill, and to recognize the diamond industry itself, which has come forward to work with the advocates and with Congress. I now serve as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs. I have been to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I have been to Angola. And, most recently, in February I traveled to Sierra Leone. In each of these places, I have met amputees, refugees, widows and widowers and orphans. I have seen the tragic consequences of the near total disruption of a society--the malnourishment, the disillusionment, the desperation. And each time, I have been sickened by the knowledge that some people are getting rich as a result of this misery. I believe that our national values demand that the United States disassociate itself from the trade in conflict diamonds. But over the years that I have served on the Africa Subcommittee, I have also worked on issues relating to countries like South Africa and Botswana. These states depend upon their legitimate diamond industries to fuel economic growth and development. It is critical to distinguish between the entirely legitimate diamond exports of a country like Botswana, and the diamond trade that has helped the RUF and UNITA to sustain bloody wars. This legislation will help to build momentum behind the multilateral efforts currently underway to regulate the diamond trade and to create a ``clean stream'' for the legitimate diamond industry and consumers to rely upon. It is my hope that the action we take today will encourage the governmental authorities, advocacy groups and industry representatives gathering in London to work toward a multilateral solution. They must take decisive action to implement a rigorous regulatory regime, not retreat into half-hearted calls for self- regulation. It is equally important to be honest about the fact that stopping the trade in conflict diamonds is not the silver bullet that will stop the conflicts in West Africa or the D.R.C. or Angola. These complex crises call for nuanced and multi-faceted policy responses. But this one element--de-legitimizing the trade in conflict diamonds--will make it more difficult, and less lucrative, for some of the most odious actors on the international stage to continue pursuing their violent and abusive agendas. It is unquestionably a step worth taking.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me, on behalf of the people of the State of Wisconsin, express our condolences to all those who have lost loved ones and, of course, offer our expressions of concern to those who are injured, and all the family members and friends who are suffering today from this tremendous tragedy. I want to join with others who have thanked the courageous individuals in New York and Washington and elsewhere who are helping to try to save whomever they can. And, of course, I share the intense feeling of rage and resolution when it comes to these acts. I had the same reaction a lot of other people did when I heard the news. It happened when, for the first time in my life, during the recess I had a chance to visit Pearl Harbor and tour with the admiral there and get a sense of just how terrible and surprising that attack was. For many of us, that is why this action yesterday was so reminiscent of Pearl Harbor. It was an attack on our territory. It was an evil act. So when some of us make the comparison, that is not to suggest which situation was more dangerous or what was a greater sacrifice. Really, what it is about is an expression of gratitude and love across the generations but at different times in our history. Whether it be Pearl Harbor or yesterday's attack, the American people are asked to do extraordinary things --to defend our freedom. In that context, I want to mention two elements of resolve and two cautions. The first resolve is that, obviously, this situation is almost certain to require military action. As a number of people have said today, this is not about simply bringing people to trial or finding a legal standard. I agree with those who say that these were ``acts of war.'' As one who has frequently questioned our military intervention and the wisdom--for example, our intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia, whether we really went about it the right way--this situation is different. It requires a strong and aggressive military response when we are able to determine exactly who we should be going after, and I understand we are pretty close to being certain of that. One reporter already asked me if what we did today constituted something similar to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Of course not. It is not a blank check. We as Americans are all united on this issue. We can respect article I of the Constitution if we are talking about a declaration of war. We can respect the War Powers Act. We can act together as an executive and as a Congress to be sure we are unified, not just emotionally, but as a government and a country when the necessary acts have to be taken to retaliate against those who have committed these deeds. The second resolve relates to the suggestion by some that perhaps the American people will grow weary of our involvement in the Middle East and our concern about the Middle East. We will not retreat from our commitment to peace in the Middle East and, more specifically, we will not reward these terrorists by reducing one iota our support for the State of Israel, which is the only democracy in the Middle East, which is our steadfast ally militarily and otherwise. If those who committed these deeds believe this is the way to destroy Israel or destroy the link between our two nations, they have just made a very large mistake. Let me also mention two cautions, and others have already done this today, but it is important to express this. One is, as we look for answers and we look for solutions and we look for the things we must do, domestically as well as externally, we must continue to respect our Constitution and our civil liberties in this country. I am the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I recognize this is a different world with different technologies, different issues, and different threats, but we must examine every item that is proposed in response to these events to be sure we are not rewarding these terrorists by giving up our cherished freedoms that they do not believe in and that they would like to destroy. Finally, the other caution, which has been mentioned by so many, particularly eloquently by Senator Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, this should not be an occasion for ill-treatment of Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South Asians, or others in this country. It is wrong. They are as patriotic as any other Americans and are feeling extremely stressed as a result of this situation. I have already heard some reports of some acts, and I roundly condemn them. We must stand together, all Americans of all backgrounds, to condemn these actions. Let me finally say, already in the middle of this enormous sadness, I can already see our country responding. I can already feel from the contacts we have had back home and the comments and actions of our colleagues here that we are responding in the best possible way to this unprecedented challenge. I thank all my colleagues for the way in which things have been handled in the last day, and I look forward to working together to make sure our enemies understand that we will not stand back and we will remember this, we will remember it every day until we have rooted out those who perpetrated these vicious actions against our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the people of East Timor on the success of their recent Constituent Assembly elections. On August 30, 2001, the people of East Timor voted to elect a new Constituent Assembly. That Assembly will begin meeting almost immediately to adopt a new constitution and to establish the framework for future elections and a transition to full independence next year. The vote was conducted on the second anniversary of the violent 1999 independence referendum. In that earlier referendum, nearly 98 percent of eligible voters risked their lives to vote for independence from Indonesia. Last week, the people of East Timor demonstrated their continuing commitment to democracy by turning out again in force to elect the women and men who will lead them now to full democracy and independence. Final voter turnout in this recent election was reported at more than 91 percent, in a territory-wide poll that was both peaceful and orderly. After 25 years of occupation by Indonesia, and a much longer period of colonization by Portugal, many ordinary men and women walked for hours and lined up before dawn to vote for the first time for their own political leaders. Clearly, many difficult decisions and fractious debates now lie ahead for the 24 women and 64 men who have been entrusted by their election to the Constituent Assembly to establish a sound legal framework for independent governance. It is my fervent hope that the same spirit of civic participation and tolerance that guided this most recent election will continue to guide the elected representatives of the Constituent Assembly as they establish a new democratic system to promote the cause of peace, independence, and prosperity in East Timor. The United Nations must also be credited for organizing a successful election and establishing a firm foundation for future independent governance. As U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has noted, it is in many respects the conviction with which the people of East Timor have embraced democracy that continues to strengthen the commitment of the world community to their cause. I commend the United Nations Administration in East Timor, UNTEAT, for their dedication in implementing this important mission and for their success in organizing this recent election.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose the pending legislation to reauthorize the Export Administration Act. I agree with the bill's proponents and with the Administration that we should have a statutory export control process. I am concerned, however, that the process provided for in this legislation is far too relaxed and could be harmful to our national security--the very security that the EAA is supposed to protect. I commend the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, for their leadership on this important issue. It is troubling that the debate on this important piece of national security legislation has revolved around what is good for American business rather than on what is necessary to protect the national security interests of this country. As a number of our colleagues have said during this debate, the purpose of the EAA is not to promote U.S. exports. The purpose of the EAA is to protect the national security of the United States, which may mean barring certain types of sensitive technology from being exported. I fear that this bill tips the scale dangerously in favor of expanded commerce at the expense of our national security. I disagree with the argument put forth by some during this debate that the foreign availability and mass market provisions included in this bill are key to ensuring that American companies can compete in the foreign market. Just because other countries choose to make a dual- use product available to international buyers does not mean the United States should as well. We should do everything we can to stem the flow of potentially dangerous dual-use technology around the world. We should not use the questionable export decisions of other countries to justify selling products that could be used to harm our country. There is nothing wrong with having a deliberative process for considering applications to export dual-use technologies. I disagree with the contention that so many in the affected industries have advanced--that the licensing process puts them at a disadvantage because they have to wait for the licensing process to be completed before they can export the technology. This is not a race. And the object of the EAA is not to unduly delay the approval of export licenses. We should consider carefully each license application. I fear that this bill, and in particular its provisions regarding mass market and foreign availability determinations and the export of high performance computers, will have the practical effect of rendering our export control process meaningless. Supporters of this bill argue that American businesses need the relaxed controls included in this bill in order to compete in the international marketplace. That is not the case. The vast majority of export license applications submitted to the Department of Commerce are approved. The purpose is to ensure that sensitive technology does not fall into the wrong hands. Other countries look to the United States for guidance on such issues as export controls and non-proliferation efforts. If we relax controls on dual-use items because other countries are selling them, we are following, not leading. Just last week, the United States imposed sanctions on a Chinese company that transferred missile technology to Pakistan. The administration reportedly has told the Chinese Government that one of the conditions to having these sanctions lifted is for the Chinese to develop a system of export controls to regulate the transfer of sensitive technology. It is curious that the Senate is debating relaxing U.S. control of dual-use technology--a move the administration supports--at the same time the administration is calling on the Chinese Government to implement export controls. I think we have to examine closely all sides of this issue, and again I want to thank Senator Kyl and Senator thompson for the outstanding work they have done to bring concerns about this legislation to the fore. The fact is that there is a great deal of pressure from the super computer industry to pass this legislation. I don't say that to impugn the motives of any Member who supports this bill, because we are having an honest debate here about different points of view. But I do think it's important for the American people to understand who some of the strong supporters of this legislation are, so I would like to take a moment to Call the Bankroll on this issue. The computer industry has a huge stake in the passage of EAA. They want a relaxation of the export controls on supercomputers, and they are lobbying hard for their cause. And, as is usually the case, lobbying means donating big money, and that means donating soft money to the party committees. In this case, the computer industry gave $20.5 million in soft money during the 2000 election cycle. The industry ranked seventh in overall donations in the last cycle, a meteoric rise for an industry that ranked 55th in donations a decade earlier. This is clearly an industry that has learned how to play the soft money game, and play it well. I'll just name three soft money donors in the industry who are pushing for passage of EAA: Unisys Corporation and its executives gave more than $142,000 in soft money in the 2000 election cycle; Sun Microsystems gave more than $24,000 in soft money during the last cycle; and United Technologies and its subsidiaries gave a whopping $338,300 in soft money in the 2000 election cycle. As I said, this is in no way a comprehensive list, since the industry gave more than $20 million in soft money during the last cycle. But I point out these donations now because they are relevant to this debate--and relevant to the way many Americans view this debate, and so many others like it here on the Senate floor. When wealthy interests are allowed to give an unlimited amount of money to a political party, it makes the American people question us and the work we do. And I can think of few issues where the public might be more disturbed by the potential influence of soft money than an issue like this one, where national and international security are at stake. Whether or not soft money clouds our own judgment, it clouds the public's judgement of each and every one of us. I want to reiterate my opposition to this legislation. We can and should do more to protect the national security interests of the United States. I will vote against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wartime Treatment of European Americans and Refugees Study Act. This bill would create a Commission to review the United States Government's treatment during World War II of German Americans, Italian Americans, certain Latin Americans, and refugees of Nazi Germany. I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley and Kennedy, have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I particularly want to thank them for their input and valuable contributions to this bill. The allied victory in the Second World War was an American triumph, and most of all, a triumph for human freedom. Today we rightly celebrate the contributions of what Tom Brokaw has called the Greatest Generation, the courage displayed by so many Americans in that terrible struggle should be a source of pride for every American. Those Americans fought, and often gave their lives, to restore freedom and democracy abroad. But, as brave Americans fought enemies in Europe and the Pacific, here at home the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of its own people. Of course, every nation has the duty to protect its homefront in wartime. But, even in war, we must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives, including untold numbers of German and Italian Americans. Many Americans are by now aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and into camps. This evacuation policy forced Japanese Americans to endure great hardship. Approximately 15,000 additional ethnic Japanese were selectively interned in government operated internment camps. They often lost their basic freedoms, their livelihood, and perhaps worst of all, suffered the shame and humiliation of being locked behind barbed wire and military guard, by their own government. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, this shameful episode in American history received the official condemnation it deserved. Under the Act, people of Japanese ancestry who suffered either relocation or selective internment received an apology and reparations, on behalf of the people of the United States. But, while the treatment of Japanese Americans has finally received the attention it deserves by the public, most Americans have never even heard about the approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans living in America, the 3,200 ethnic Italians living in America, or the scores of ethnic Bulgarians, Hungarians, Rumanians or other European Americans who were taken from their homes and placed into internment camps during World War II. Hundreds remained interned for up to three years after the war was over. Today I introduce legislation to convene an independent commission to examine this tragic history, try to understand why it happened, and to try to ensure that it never happens again. We must learn the lessons of history, however painful they might be for us, and for the families that endured this shameful treatment. In a time of American heroism abroad, here at home we faltered. We failed to protect the liberty of all Americans. Through our restrictive immigration policies, we also failed to offer safe harbor to European refugees fleeing Nazi genocide. We turned away thousands of refugees fleeing Germany, delivering many of them to their deaths. As a Nation we have been slow to address our conduct during the war. There has finally been some measure of justice for Japanese Americans who suffered in the United States, however little or however late. And Congress has finally begun to address the treatment of Italian Americans. Last year, the President signed into law The Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act, which called for a report from the Department of Justice detailing injustices suffered by Italian-Americans during World War II. I believe that this is a step in the right direction, but an independent panel should be convened to conduct a full and thorough review. I think many Americans would be surprised to learn that, to this day, more than 50 years later, there has been no recognition of the ordeal of thousands of German Americans during and after the Second World War. There has been no justice for ethnic Germans living in America who were branded ``enemy aliens'' by their own government. The U.S. government limited their travel, imposed curfews and seized their personal property. Thousands were interned in camps, often separated from other members of their family, living in miserable conditions. Many of these families, including American children, were later shipped back to war- torn Europe in exchange for Americans held there, and suffered terribly. It is past time for the U.S. Government to recognize the pain and anguish these actions caused. And there has been no justice for European Latin Americans, including German and Austrian Jews, who were actually repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often as part of an exchange for Americans being held in those countries. The U.S. government uprooted these people from their homes and forced them into camps in the United States, essentially kidnaping them from nations not even directly involved in the War. Again, many were then shipped for exchange to Europe. And finally, there has been no justice for Europeans, often Jews, who sought refuge from the Nazis on our shores. We must examine the U.S. immigration policies of the 1930s and 1940s that turned these people away, and often delivered them into the hands of the Third Reich. This legislation proposes an independent commission to look at U.S. policies during World War II, including the policies regarding German and Italian Americans, European Latin Americans, and the refugee immigration policies of the World War II era. In the 1940s, Germans and Italians were the two largest foreign-born populations in the United States. Under the policy put in place by the U.S. government, thousands of aliens were simply arrested by the FBI. Far more often than not, these arrests were based on highly questionable evidence. Those arrested were held indefinitely pending a hearing. Many times their families did not know where they had been taken for weeks, and if both parents were taken, children were often left to fend for themselves until family members or local governments took custody of them. They received a brief hearing before local hearing boards during which the local U.S. Attorney acted as prosecutor. The hearing boards then recommended to the Department of Justice whether they should be released, paroled, or interned for the duration of the War. Despite the serious nature of this proceeding, those arrested did not have the right to have their own lawyer and did not have the right to confront witnesses against them. The hearing boards would then send their recommendations to the Department of Justice, where a final determination could take months. Internment orders were issued for the duration of the war. Ironically, many were interned on Ellis Island, where immigrants had been welcomed for decades. Families, often left destitute, struggled to survive and often lost their homes. Finally, the government would permit families to join their loved ones in a family camp, where they would live indefinitely behind barbed wire. These spouses and children were frequently American citizens. In addition to internment, all enemy aliens during World War II were subject to strict regulations affecting their daily lives. Enemy aliens were required to carry photo-bearing identification booklets at all times, were forbidden to travel beyond a five mile radius of their homes, were required to turn in any short wave radios and cameras they owned. They were required to given the government a full-week's notice if they planned to spend a night away from home, and could not ride in airplanes. Thousands of enemy aliens were prohibited from entering military zones, some even evacuated from their homes. Many aliens and European American citizens were also subject to restrictions in or excluded from military areas that collectively covered one-third of the country. As I've said, there has been some recognition of the wrongs done to Italian Americans during the war, but there has yet to be any formal recognition of the pain that German American families went through. So I want to take a few moments to give examples to help my colleagues and the public understand the kind of harassment they endured. The FBI searched tens of thousands of alien residences between 1943 and 1945. The stories of homes ransacked, or people being taken from their families for years, are chilling. Take the case of Guenther Greis. Mr. Greis, as U.S. citizen, was 17 years old when World War II began in 1941. On December 7, 1941 Guenther's father, a German citizen who had lived in the U.S. for at least 15 years, and worked in the chemical industry, was arrested. Weeks passed before Guenther, his mother, and his family of four boys, three born in the United States, finally learned where their missing father had been taken. He was to be interned for the duration of the war. In the meantime, Guenther's family had struggled to keep their home. Even as their father was being detained by the government, two sons enlisted in the merchant Marines and served in the Pacific War Zone on behalf of the United States. The remaining family eventually was sent to the internment camp in Crystal City, TX, until Guenther and his brother were released in 1946. Guenther's parents remained interned until 1947, two years after the end of the war. To this day, the Greis family does not have explanation of why their father was interned. Or take the story of Anton Schroeger, a German citizen who came to America at the age of 16, and by the time World War II began, had lived half his life in America. When World War II broke out, Anton was lucky to have a relatively high paying job as a skilled painter at the Milwaukee Road repair shops. Based on what Anton believed to be a false tip from somebody who wanted his job, however, Anton was arrested while at work, and taken to a series of interment camps. After his arrest, his wife, Anna, insisted on joining him in the internment camps, and, in fact, gave birth to a daughter in a camp in Texas. After World War II, Anton earned a living working at lower paying jobs. Despite this ordeal, Anton eventually became a U.S. citizen in 1952. His family is certain that Anton did not engage in any activity that deserved such treatment. Let me say here that there may have been people affected by these policies who harbored sympathy for our adversaries, and was potentially dangerous. And every government must take steps to protect its homefront in a time of war. But even the people who may have posed a threat to our security should have had the basic protections enshrined in our Constitution. War tests all of our principles and values, without question. But it is during these times of conflict, and fear, that we need to protect those principles the most. At least 11,000 German-Americans were placed in internment camps during WWII. Thousands more were denied basic freedoms that most of us today take for granted. These Germans and German-Americans deserve a full fact-finding review and acknowledgement from the U.S. government, and they deserve to have their story told so that we may strive to ensure that the individual rights of all Americans will remain free from arbitrary persecution. The work of the commission created by this bill would include a review of The Alien Enemy Act of 1798, which permitted this treatment under U.S. law and remains on the books today. So, the first act of the Commission would involve a full and thorough review of the federal government's treatment of European Americans and European Latin Americans. The second part of the Commission's work would be to study America's treatment of refugees from Nazi Germany. After Hitler took power in 1933, the freedoms of German Jews were eroded until many of them sought desperately to flee the country. First came an economic boycott, the loss of civil rights, citizenship, and jobs. Then, in November 1938, came the Kristallnacht pogrom, and ultimately, incarceration and systematic murder in concentration camps. Unfortunately, as restrictions began to tighten and many Jews sought refuge outside of Nazi Germany, America, instead of acting as a haven for these refugees, was tightening its immigration rules. Between 1933 and 1939, 300,000 Germans, mostly Jews fleeing Nazi persecution, applied for visas to America. Yet only about 90,000 applicants were ever admitted into our nation. The requirements just to be considered for a visa were formidable. An applicant had to submit an application, a birth certificate, a certificate of good conduct from the German police, affidavits of good conduct, submit to a physical exam, proof of permission to leave a country of origin, proof of booked passage to the U.S., two sponsors in America, and on and on. These requirements made immigrating to the U.S. very difficult. Then, in 1941, a new regulation forbidding the granting of a visa to anyone who had relatives in an Axis-occupied territory essentially made seeking refuge in America impossible for many Jews. Thanks to research conducted by the United States Holocaust Museum and other American scholars, we now have a fuller understanding of the ramifications of U.S. immigration policies. To put the tragic results of those policies into perspective, I'll recount the fate of the passengers aboard a ship called the St. Louis. The St Louis sailed from Hamburg in April 1939 with 937 passengers aboard. Over 900 of those passengers were Jews, attempting to flee Germany. America denied entry to the refugees on the ship, and it eventually sailed back to Antwerp in June 1939. From there, the refugees frantically searched for new countries to offer them protection. Some of them succeeded, while many did not, and were later detained and killed at Auschwitz. Some attempts were made to allow the most vulnerable of these refugees, children, into the United States. On February 9, 1939 the Wagner-Rogers refugee bill was introduced in this very Senate. The bill would have allowed admission to the United States of 20,000 German refugee children under the age of 14 over a period of two years, in addition to the immigration normally permitted. But sadly, that bill was not even considered by the full Senate. The United States' failure to offer refuge to Jews attempting to flee the Nazis is one of the most shameful periods in our history. We closed our borders to people fleeing persecution, and at the same time, within those borders, we treated too many people of ``enemy ethnicity'' as threats to a national security. The purpose of this proposed commission, is to understand and acknowledge the United States' actions during this period. As a Nation, we have repeatedly called on other countries to acknowledge their wartime offenses against civilians. Today we have to ask of ourselves what we ask of other nations--why did we do it, and how can we prevent it from happening again? During the Second World War, we defeated terrible enemies abroad, but we also lost something of ourselves as we denied freedoms to people at home. For many, the nation they called home would never be the same to them after their loyalty was questioned, and their lives were ripped apart. Too many German and Italian Americans were harassed and humiliated by the country where they lived, struggled, raised children, ran businesses, and built their dreams for a better life. This was the country they chose, like millions before them, and like each and every one of us. I hope by establishing a commission we can better understand how we allowed such a gross injustice, and how we can guard against implementing similar policies in the future. No American can justify using ethnicity as a basis for the terrible treatment these people endured. And there's no way we can justify the policy which allowed European Latin Americans to be torn from their homes, brought here to the U.S. under deplorable conditions to be interned, and sometimes deported back to hostile European nations. Finally, there's surely no way we can justify our World War II era immigration policy, which undoubtedly led to the deaths of thousands of people--people who turned to the U.S., in fear and desperation, for a safe harbor, and were tragically turned away. We cannot learn from this troubling history unless we first seek to acknowledge it and understand it. Coming to terms with these events will be difficult, but for the families who suffered under these wartime policies, it will be, at long last, a recognition of the ordeal they went through at the hands of their own government. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can learn from this painful past, and ensure that we will never again let our worst fears drive us to neglect our most cherished freedoms. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Wartime Treatment of European Americans and Refugees Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wartime Treatment of European Americans and Refugees Study Act. This bill would create a Commission to review the United States Government's treatment during World War II of German Americans, Italian Americans, certain Latin Americans, and refugees of Nazi Germany. I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley and Kennedy, have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I particularly want to thank them for their input and valuable contributions to this bill. The allied victory in the Second World War was an American triumph, and most of all, a triumph for human freedom. Today we rightly celebrate the contributions of what Tom Brokaw has called the Greatest Generation, the courage displayed by so many Americans in that terrible struggle should be a source of pride for every American. Those Americans fought, and often gave their lives, to restore freedom and democracy abroad. But, as brave Americans fought enemies in Europe and the Pacific, here at home the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of its own people. Of course, every nation has the duty to protect its homefront in wartime. But, even in war, we must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives, including untold numbers of German and Italian Americans. Many Americans are by now aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and into camps. This evacuation policy forced Japanese Americans to endure great hardship. Approximately 15,000 additional ethnic Japanese were selectively interned in government operated internment camps. They often lost their basic freedoms, their livelihood, and perhaps worst of all, suffered the shame and humiliation of being locked behind barbed wire and military guard, by their own government. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, this shameful episode in American history received the official condemnation it deserved. Under the Act, people of Japanese ancestry who suffered either relocation or selective internment received an apology and reparations, on behalf of the people of the United States. But, while the treatment of Japanese Americans has finally received the attention it deserves by the public, most Americans have never even heard about the approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans living in America, the 3,200 ethnic Italians living in America, or the scores of ethnic Bulgarians, Hungarians, Rumanians or other European Americans who were taken from their homes and placed into internment camps during World War II. Hundreds remained interned for up to three years after the war was over. Today I introduce legislation to convene an independent commission to examine this tragic history, try to understand why it happened, and to try to ensure that it never happens again. We must learn the lessons of history, however painful they might be for us, and for the families that endured this shameful treatment. In a time of American heroism abroad, here at home we faltered. We failed to protect the liberty of all Americans. Through our restrictive immigration policies, we also failed to offer safe harbor to European refugees fleeing Nazi genocide. We turned away thousands of refugees fleeing Germany, delivering many of them to their deaths. As a Nation we have been slow to address our conduct during the war. There has finally been some measure of justice for Japanese Americans who suffered in the United States, however little or however late. And Congress has finally begun to address the treatment of Italian Americans. Last year, the President signed into law The Wartime Violation of Italian American Civil Liberties Act, which called for a report from the Department of Justice detailing injustices suffered by Italian-Americans during World War II. I believe that this is a step in the right direction, but an independent panel should be convened to conduct a full and thorough review. I think many Americans would be surprised to learn that, to this day, more than 50 years later, there has been no recognition of the ordeal of thousands of German Americans during and after the Second World War. There has been no justice for ethnic Germans living in America who were branded ``enemy aliens'' by their own government. The U.S. government limited their travel, imposed curfews and seized their personal property. Thousands were interned in camps, often separated from other members of their family, living in miserable conditions. Many of these families, including American children, were later shipped back to war- torn Europe in exchange for Americans held there, and suffered terribly. It is past time for the U.S. Government to recognize the pain and anguish these actions caused. And there has been no justice for European Latin Americans, including German and Austrian Jews, who were actually repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often as part of an exchange for Americans being held in those countries. The U.S. government uprooted these people from their homes and forced them into camps in the United States, essentially kidnaping them from nations not even directly involved in the War. Again, many were then shipped for exchange to Europe. And finally, there has been no justice for Europeans, often Jews, who sought refuge from the Nazis on our shores. We must examine the U.S. immigration policies of the 1930s and 1940s that turned these people away, and often delivered them into the hands of the Third Reich. This legislation proposes an independent commission to look at U.S. policies during World War II, including the policies regarding German and Italian Americans, European Latin Americans, and the refugee immigration policies of the World War II era. In the 1940s, Germans and Italians were the two largest foreign-born populations in the United States. Under the policy put in place by the U.S. government, thousands of aliens were simply arrested by the FBI. Far more often than not, these arrests were based on highly questionable evidence. Those arrested were held indefinitely pending a hearing. Many times their families did not know where they had been taken for weeks, and if both parents were taken, children were often left to fend for themselves until family members or local governments took custody of them. They received a brief hearing before local hearing boards during which the local U.S. Attorney acted as prosecutor. The hearing boards then recommended to the Department of Justice whether they should be released, paroled, or interned for the duration of the War. Despite the serious nature of this proceeding, those arrested did not have the right to have their own lawyer and did not have the right to confront witnesses against them. The hearing boards would then send their recommendations to the Department of Justice, where a final determination could take months. Internment orders were issued for the duration of the war. Ironically, many were interned on Ellis Island, where immigrants had been welcomed for decades. Families, often left destitute, struggled to survive and often lost their homes. Finally, the government would permit families to join their loved ones in a family camp, where they would live indefinitely behind barbed wire. These spouses and children were frequently American citizens. In addition to internment, all enemy aliens during World War II were subject to strict regulations affecting their daily lives. Enemy aliens were required to carry photo-bearing identification booklets at all times, were forbidden to travel beyond a five mile radius of their homes, were required to turn in any short wave radios and cameras they owned. They were required to given the government a full-week's notice if they planned to spend a night away from home, and could not ride in airplanes. Thousands of enemy aliens were prohibited from entering military zones, some even evacuated from their homes. Many aliens and European American citizens were also subject to restrictions in or excluded from military areas that collectively covered one-third of the country. As I've said, there has been some recognition of the wrongs done to Italian Americans during the war, but there has yet to be any formal recognition of the pain that German American families went through. So I want to take a few moments to give examples to help my colleagues and the public understand the kind of harassment they endured. The FBI searched tens of thousands of alien residences between 1943 and 1945. The stories of homes ransacked, or people being taken from their families for years, are chilling. Take the case of Guenther Greis. Mr. Greis, as U.S. citizen, was 17 years old when World War II began in 1941. On December 7, 1941 Guenther's father, a German citizen who had lived in the U.S. for at least 15 years, and worked in the chemical industry, was arrested. Weeks passed before Guenther, his mother, and his family of four boys, three born in the United States, finally learned where their missing father had been taken. He was to be interned for the duration of the war. In the meantime, Guenther's family had struggled to keep their home. Even as their father was being detained by the government, two sons enlisted in the merchant Marines and served in the Pacific War Zone on behalf of the United States. The remaining family eventually was sent to the internment camp in Crystal City, TX, until Guenther and his brother were released in 1946. Guenther's parents remained interned until 1947, two years after the end of the war. To this day, the Greis family does not have explanation of why their father was interned. Or take the story of Anton Schroeger, a German citizen who came to America at the age of 16, and by the time World War II began, had lived half his life in America. When World War II broke out, Anton was lucky to have a relatively high paying job as a skilled painter at the Milwaukee Road repair shops. Based on what Anton believed to be a false tip from somebody who wanted his job, however, Anton was arrested while at work, and taken to a series of interment camps. After his arrest, his wife, Anna, insisted on joining him in the internment camps, and, in fact, gave birth to a daughter in a camp in Texas. After World War II, Anton earned a living working at lower paying jobs. Despite this ordeal, Anton eventually became a U.S. citizen in 1952. His family is certain that Anton did not engage in any activity that deserved such treatment. Let me say here that there may have been people affected by these policies who harbored sympathy for our adversaries, and was potentially dangerous. And every government must take steps to protect its homefront in a time of war. But even the people who may have posed a threat to our security should have had the basic protections enshrined in our Constitution. War tests all of our principles and values, without question. But it is during these times of conflict, and fear, that we need to protect those principles the most. At least 11,000 German-Americans were placed in internment camps during WWII. Thousands more were denied basic freedoms that most of us today take for granted. These Germans and German-Americans deserve a full fact-finding review and acknowledgement from the U.S. government, and they deserve to have their story told so that we may strive to ensure that the individual rights of all Americans will remain free from arbitrary persecution. The work of the commission created by this bill would include a review of The Alien Enemy Act of 1798, which permitted this treatment under U.S. law and remains on the books today. So, the first act of the Commission would involve a full and thorough review of the federal government's treatment of European Americans and European Latin Americans. The second part of the Commission's work would be to study America's treatment of refugees from Nazi Germany. After Hitler took power in 1933, the freedoms of German Jews were eroded until many of them sought desperately to flee the country. First came an economic boycott, the loss of civil rights, citizenship, and jobs. Then, in November 1938, came the Kristallnacht pogrom, and ultimately, incarceration and systematic murder in concentration camps. Unfortunately, as restrictions began to tighten and many Jews sought refuge outside of Nazi Germany, America, instead of acting as a haven for these refugees, was tightening its immigration rules. Between 1933 and 1939, 300,000 Germans, mostly Jews fleeing Nazi persecution, applied for visas to America. Yet only about 90,000 applicants were ever admitted into our nation. The requirements just to be considered for a visa were formidable. An applicant had to submit an application, a birth certificate, a certificate of good conduct from the German police, affidavits of good conduct, submit to a physical exam, proof of permission to leave a country of origin, proof of booked passage to the U.S., two sponsors in America, and on and on. These requirements made immigrating to the U.S. very difficult. Then, in 1941, a new regulation forbidding the granting of a visa to anyone who had relatives in an Axis-occupied territory essentially made seeking refuge in America impossible for many Jews. Thanks to research conducted by the United States Holocaust Museum and other American scholars, we now have a fuller understanding of the ramifications of U.S. immigration policies. To put the tragic results of those policies into perspective, I'll recount the fate of the passengers aboard a ship called the St. Louis. The St Louis sailed from Hamburg in April 1939 with 937 passengers aboard. Over 900 of those passengers were Jews, attempting to flee Germany. America denied entry to the refugees on the ship, and it eventually sailed back to Antwerp in June 1939. From there, the refugees frantically searched for new countries to offer them protection. Some of them succeeded, while many did not, and were later detained and killed at Auschwitz. Some attempts were made to allow the most vulnerable of these refugees, children, into the United States. On February 9, 1939 the Wagner-Rogers refugee bill was introduced in this very Senate. The bill would have allowed admission to the United States of 20,000 German refugee children under the age of 14 over a period of two years, in addition to the immigration normally permitted. But sadly, that bill was not even considered by the full Senate. The United States' failure to offer refuge to Jews attempting to flee the Nazis is one of the most shameful periods in our history. We closed our borders to people fleeing persecution, and at the same time, within those borders, we treated too many people of ``enemy ethnicity'' as threats to a national security. The purpose of this proposed commission, is to understand and acknowledge the United States' actions during this period. As a Nation, we have repeatedly called on other countries to acknowledge their wartime offenses against civilians. Today we have to ask of ourselves what we ask of other nations--why did we do it, and how can we prevent it from happening again? During the Second World War, we defeated terrible enemies abroad, but we also lost something of ourselves as we denied freedoms to people at home. For many, the nation they called home would never be the same to them after their loyalty was questioned, and their lives were ripped apart. Too many German and Italian Americans were harassed and humiliated by the country where they lived, struggled, raised children, ran businesses, and built their dreams for a better life. This was the country they chose, like millions before them, and like each and every one of us. I hope by establishing a commission we can better understand how we allowed such a gross injustice, and how we can guard against implementing similar policies in the future. No American can justify using ethnicity as a basis for the terrible treatment these people endured. And there's no way we can justify the policy which allowed European Latin Americans to be torn from their homes, brought here to the U.S. under deplorable conditions to be interned, and sometimes deported back to hostile European nations. Finally, there's surely no way we can justify our World War II era immigration policy, which undoubtedly led to the deaths of thousands of people--people who turned to the U.S., in fear and desperation, for a safe harbor, and were tragically turned away. We cannot learn from this troubling history unless we first seek to acknowledge it and understand it. Coming to terms with these events will be difficult, but for the families who suffered under these wartime policies, it will be, at long last, a recognition of the ordeal they went through at the hands of their own government. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can learn from this painful past, and ensure that we will never again let our worst fears drive us to neglect our most cherished freedoms. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Wartime Treatment of European Americans and Refugees Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate was able to pass a Transportation Appropriations bill that fully funds the airport and highway trust funds and provides funds for high-speed rail research and development, among other things. Ensuring that our Nation's transportation infrastructure receives adequate funding for improvement and maintenance is a critical responsibility of Congress. Due in large part to TEA-21, Congress has been able to provide these necessary funds on a consistent basis. At the same time, I continue to be concerned about unauthorized spending that is included in the accompanying report. While I appreciate the desire to respond to local requests and concerns, nevertheless Congress must work harder to rein itself in when it comes to this type of spending. We all know that this is not an easy task. While I disagree with the President's tax cut which has reduced the availability of funds for necessary programs, nevertheless I am encouraged by the Administration's recent announcement that it wants to work with Congress to cut back unauthorized spending in appropriations bills. Adequate funding for our entire transportation infrastructure is one of my highest budget priorities. I am pleased that this bill accomplishes that goal.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. It is wonderful to have a new and strong ally on this issue from Minnesota. I thank my senior colleague, Senator Kohl, for his tremendous leadership on this issue. It is a great concern to everyone in our State of Wisconsin. I rise today in opposition to this effort to expand and extend the Northeast Dairy Compact. As the senior Senator from Wisconsin has said many times, it is a price-fixing dairy cartel that hurts dairy farmers outside the compact region. In fact, a few days ago, the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, held a hearing on the record of the dairy compact. I do commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for allowing both those for and against the compact to have a chance to testify. I was there for the whole hearing. Sometimes we have hearings around here that maybe we can do without, but this was very useful. It clearly showed Congress should not renew or expand the compact. I thought that the most compelling testimony came from two people: Richard Gorder, a Wisconsin dairy farmer, who spoke about the compact's impact on dairy farmers outside the compact region, and Lois Pines, a former Massachusetts State Senator and former compact supporter, who detailed her opposition to the compact. Mr. Gorder outlined better than any other witness the true impact of the dairy compact on dairy farmers outside that region. Given that Mr. Gorder was the only dairy farmer to testify at the hearing, I think it would benefit my colleagues to hear how he described how the compact operates. According to Mr. Gorder: Regional dairy compacts place a floor under the price of milk used for fluid purposes in the compact region. This artificial price increase creates an incentive for more milk production in the region, yet represses the consumption of fluid milk in that area. The surplus that results finds its way into manufactured milk products such as cheese, butter, and milk powder. While dairy compacts insulate that market from competition by placing restrictions on milk entering the compact region, they impose no restrictions on the surplus milk and milk products that must leave the region in search of a market. As a result, the market distortions of dairy compacts have a negative effect on prices of producers in non-compact states. Mr. President, an expanded compact will cause Wisconsin dairy farms to lose between $64 million and $326 million per year. Whichever number is used, the long range consequence would be even greater if you were to calculate the economic impact to our rural communities. I thought that former Senator Pines' testimony was also incredibly compelling. Here is a former state senator--the chairman of the committee that helped push through the compact--who is now calling the dairy compact a failure. She detailed how the Northeast Dairy Compact hasn't even stopped the loss of small farmers in the Northeast. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation's data, New England has lost more dairy farms in 3 years under the compact--465--than in the 3 years prior to the compact. Let me read from former Senator Pines' statement: The evidence clearly shows that Compact supporters were wrong about how the Compact would save small family farms and protect the region's consumers . . . the claims made by compact supporters have had two debilitating impacts on state and federal policy process: (1) they have grossly misled hundreds of lawmakers in Congress and state legislatures, including myself, and persuaded them to mistakenly give their support to compacts: and (2) they have diverted lawmakers' attention from developing and implementing policies that could rally help to keep small dairy farmers on the land, genuinely protect consumers, and effectively preserve open space in rural New England. Not only does the Northeast Dairy Compact not help save New England farmers because it gives the vast majority of its subsidies to large dairy farms, it also aggravates the inequities of the Federal milk marketing order system by allowing the Compact Commission to act as a price fixing entity that walls off the market in a specific region and hurts producers outside the region. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission is empowered to set minimum prices for fluid milk higher than those established under Federal milk marketing orders. Never mind that farmers in the Northeast already receive higher minimum prices for their milk under the antiquated milk pricing system. The compact not only allows these six States to set artificially high prices for specific regions, it permits them to block entry of lower priced milk from producers in competing States. This price fixing mechanism arbitrarily provides preferential price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers in other regions who work just as hard, who love their homes just as much, and whose products are just as good or better. It also irresponsibly encourages excess milk production in one region without establishing effective supply control. This practice flaunts basic economic principles and ignores the obvious risk that it will drive down milk prices for producers outside the compact region. The dairy compact is unconstitutional. Compacts also are at odds with the will of the Framers of our Constitution. In Federalist No. 42, Madison warned that if authorities were allowed to regulate trade between States, some sort of import levy ``would be introduced by future contrivances.'' I would argue that the dairy compacts are exactly the sort of contrivance feared by Madison. Dairy compacts are clearly a restriction of commerce, and, in effect, they impose what amounts to a tariff between States. The Founding Fathers never intended the States to impose levies on imports such as those imposed by one nation on another's goods. At the recent judiciary hearing, we heard this same argument from Professor Burt Neuborne, who has taught constitutional law for 25 years. Professor Neuborne said: [the compact] violates the commerce clause, as well as the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, section 2, as well as the 14th Amendment . . . and is an inappropriate and possibly unconstitutional exercise of Congress' power. Mr. Neuborne continued to say that: The Founders abandoned the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution in order to eliminate the rampant protectionism that threatened to destroy the United States. The compact is exactly the type of protectionist barrier the Founders worried about. More than anything, the compact debate is about fairness to all dairy farmers. Over the past 50 years, America's dairy policy has put Wisconsin dairy farmers out of business by paying Wisconsin dairy farmers less for their milk. In 1950 Wisconsin had approximately 150,000 dairy farms and we are now down to about 18,000. Do we pay sugar growers more in Alaska? No. Do we pay orange growers more in New York? No. Do we pay avocado farmers more in Indiana? No, and we shouldn't. We have one nation, one dairy market, and we should pay all dairy farmers--regardless of where they live--the same price for their milk. As I said earlier, dairy farmers in the northeast and southeast already receive more for their milk. The compact makes the situation worse by walling off the majority of the country from receiving milk from outside the compact. I urge my colleagues who support compacts to go to a farm in Marathon County, WI, and explain to the family who have owned their farm for three generations that they have to sell their farm simply because they will be paid less for their milk because of some political game. Instead of focusing on regional dairy policies Congress must turn its attention to enacting a national dairy policy that helps all farmers get a fair price for their milk. Congress needs to follow the lead of people like my senior Senator, Mr. Kohl, who has demonstrated that if we work together, we can provide meaningful assistance to America's dairy farmers. I believe Congress must enact a national dairy policy such as the one envisioned by Senators Kohl and Santorum. This legislation brings a national, unified approach to a national problem. Who can defend the dairy compact with a straight face? This compact amounts to nothing short of Government-sponsored price fixing that hurts producers outside the compact region. It is outrageously unfair, and also bad policy. I hope that Congress will turn its attention away from dairy compacts which ultimately hurt both consumers and farmers. Its high time to begin to focus on enacting legislation that helps all dairy farmers. America's dairy farmers deserve a fair and truly national dairy policy, one that puts them all on a level playing field, from coast to coast. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm John Graham to be the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. Though I will vote for Mr. Graham, much of the information that has been presented during the nominations process to the Governmental Affairs Committee by labor, environmental and public health organizations and other respected academics creates concerns regarding this nominee and I want to share my views on the concerns that have been raised. The individual charged with the responsibility to head OIRA will indirectly set the direction of our national policies for our natural resources, labor and safety standards. I have tried, as a member of this body, to cast votes and offer legislation that fully reflects the importance and lasting legacy of America's regulatory decisions. I also have another tradition to defend and uphold. I have committed myself to a constructive role in the Senate's duty to provide advice and consent with respect to the President's nominees for Cabinet positions. I believe that the President should be entitled to appoint his own advisors. I have evaluated Presidential nominees with the view that, except in rare of cases, ideology alone should not be a sufficient basis to reject a Cabinet nominee. Mr. Graham is not a nominee for a Cabinet post. The Office of Management and Budget, OMB, is housed within the Executive Office of the President, making Mr. Graham one of the President's closest advisors. I believe that the President should be accorded great deference by the Senate on the appointment of this advisor. During the nominations process, I have been disturbed to learn of the fears that Mr. Graham will not live up to his responsibility to fully implement regulatory protections. I am particularly troubled by concerns that he may allow special interests greater access to OMB, and therefore greater influence in OMB's deliberations. The concerns that have been raised are that Mr. Graham will allow special interests another opportunity to plead their case during final OMB review of regulations and may permit changes to be made to regulatory proposals that those interests were unable to obtain on the merits when the regulations were developed and reviewed by the federal agency that issued them. I also have been concerned about allegations that Mr. Graham's background might cloud his judgement and objectivity on a number of regulatory issues and place him at odds with millions of Americans including members of the labor, public interest and conservation community and with this Senator. During the 1980s, OIRA came under heavy criticism for the way in which it conducted reviews of agency rules. The public was concerned that agency rules would go to OIRA for review and sometimes languish there--for years in some cases--with little explanation to the public. Rather than a filter for regulation, it became a graveyard. Shortly after taking office, President Clinton responded to this problem by issuing Executive Order 12866. This order set up new guidelines for transparency--building on a June 1986 memorandum by former OIRA Administrator Wendy Gramm--that have helped bring accountability to OIRA. With my vote for this nominee, I am calling for a commitment from him. I believe that it is essential that he maintain this transparency, and even strengthen it, in this Administration. Mr. Graham, having been the center of a controversial nominations proceeding, should be the first to call for letting sunshine disinfect OIRA under his watch. At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the new OMB Director Mitch Daniels expressed general support for transparency and accountability, but refused to endorse specifically key elements of President Clinton's executive order. At that time, Mr. Daniels would only commit to work with the Committee should the Administration decide to alter Executive Order 12866. Now that President Bush has nominated John Graham as administrator of OIRA, and he is being confirmed today, this Senate must receive more specific assurances regarding transparency and accountability. OIRA is an extremely powerful office that has the power to approve or reject agency regulations. This makes it critical that OIRA's decision-making be open to public scrutiny. I agree strongly with the sentiments expressed in today's Washington Post editorial: . . . conflicts of interest must be taken seriously if there is to be any chance of building support for more systematic cost-benefit efforts. At a minimum, the experts who carry out these analyses need to disclose their financial interests (as Mr. Graham's center did), and analysts with industry ties should not dominate government advisory panels. There may be room for dispute as to what constitutes `ties'-- should an academic who accepted a consultancy fee 10 years ago be viewed as an industry expert?--but conflict-of- interest rules should err on the strict side. The Post editorial continues, Mr. Graham's acceptance of industry money opened him to opportunistic attacks from those who favor regulation almost regardless of its price. The lesson is that those who would impose rigor on government must observe rigorous standards themselves. Even apparent conflicts of interest can harm the credibility of the cost-benefit analyses that Mr. Graham champions. In the days following his confirmation, Mr. Graham should aggressively affirm OIRA's public disclosure policies and make clear the office's continued commitment to transparency. Executive Order 12866 requires that OIRA maintain a publicly available log containing the status of all regulatory actions, including a notation as to whether Vice Presidential and Presidential consideration was requested, a notation of all written communications between OIRA and outside parties, and the dates and names of individuals involved in all substantive oral communications between OIRA and outside parties. Moreover, once a regulatory action has been published or rejected, OIRA must make publicly available all documents exchanged between OIRA and the issuing agency during the review process. Mr. Graham must continue this disclosure policy, and he should expand it to make the information more widely accessible, and make the logs available through the Internet. Executive Order 12866 gives OMB 90 days to review rules. OMB may extend the review one time only for 30 days upon the written approval of the OMB Director and upon the request of the agency head. Mr. Graham should make clear that OIRA will stick to this time frame for reviews. Moreover, OMB has invested in making this 90 day clock an action that can be tracked by the public, which must continue. Currently, the OMB web site documents when a rule is sent to OIRA, the time it took to act on the rule, and the OMB disposition. Mr. Graham has the ability to improve the public's access to this information by making the web site searchable by agency, rule, and date, rather than posting the information in simple tabular form. Executive Order 12866 requires OMB to provide a written explanation for all regulations that are returned to the agency, ``setting forth the pertinent provision of the Executive Order on which OIRA is relying.'' OIRA must continue to provide written justification for returned rules, and Mr. Graham should consider expanding this policy to require written justification for any modifications that are made to a rule. Mr. Graham must take particular care in the area of communications with outside interests and set the tone for OIRA staff actions in this regard. Executive Order 12866 directs that only the administrator of OIRA can receive oral communications from those outside government on regulatory reviews. Mr. Graham should continue this standard and be stringent that this standard be employed for all personnel working in OIRA. Present policy directs OIRA to forward an issuing agency all written communications between OIRA and outside parties, as well as ``the dates and names of individuals involved in all substantive oral communications.'' Moreover, affected agencies are also to be invited to any meetings with outside parties and OIRA. These are important procedures that protect the integrity of our regulatory system. Beyond this, however, Mr. Graham should rigorously guard against contacts that present the appearance of a conflict of interest. He is entering into a position that will, in many ways, act as judge and jury for the fate of proposed regulations. He should, like those arbiters, guard carefully his objectivity and his appearance of objectivity. I have reviewed these procedural issues because they are critical to maintaining public confidence in OIRA's functioning. I hope that Mr. Graham will be mindful of my concerns, and that he will embrace his duty to take into account the future and forseeable consequences of his actions. I also hope that he will be guided by the knowledge that this Senator will scrutinize those consequences, and will look very carefully at the question of special interest access to OMB at every appropriate time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on this motion for up to 15 minutes, and at the conclusion of my remarks that the vote on the motion commence.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for his efforts to educate our colleagues and the American people about the unfairness of this bankruptcy bill. It has been a lonely struggle for him, but the Senator from Minnesota has never avoided a struggle because it is lonely. He has succeeded in framing the issues for the conference quite well. Are we passing this reform for the credit card companies or for consumers? Who is the Senate working on behalf of here? Are we going to pass a bill that passes muster with bankruptcy law experts in the law schools and the courts or with the big banks? I spoke back when we considered this bill in March about the problems with this legislation and why I believe it should not be passed. Even with the addition of a number of important amendments during the Senate debate--and I hope that the bill that emerges from conference is more like that bill than the House bill--I still believe that the bill will do terrible damage to the bankruptcy system in this country, and even more importantly, to many hard-working American families who will bear the brunt of the unfair so-called ``reforms'' that are included in this bill. It is unfortunate to have to say it, but this is a harsh and unfair measure pushed by the most powerful and wealthy lobbying forces in this country, and it will harm the most vulnerable of our citizens. I voted against the bill when it came up for final passage in March, and I voted against proceeding to it last week. I continue to support bankruptcy reform, but not this version. One of the major problems with the bill that came to the Senate floor was fixed by an amendment offered by the senior Senator from my State, Mr. Kohl. Senator Kohl has been crusading for years against the millionaire's loophole in the bankruptcy law--abuse of the unlimited homestead exemption. By a lopsided vote of 60-39, the Senate voted not to table his amendment to set a national ceiling on the use of that exemption. It is clear to everyone that the fate of Senator Kohl's homestead exemption will be the most fiercely contested issue in a House-Senate conference. Let me put it as simply and clearly as I can: A bankruptcy reform bill that does not contain limits on abuse of the homestead exemption is a fraud on the American people. We cannot claim to be acting in an even handed fashion if we leave this major loophole untouched, while at the same time imposing harsh new limitations on average hard working people forced by circumstances to seek the protection of the bankruptcy laws. There are a number of other problems with the bill that I hope the conference committee will try to work out. I will take my remaining time this morning to highlight one. It has to do with the new definition of ``household goods'' in section 313 of the substitute amendment. As written, this bill very quietly undermines an extremely important protection that current bankruptcy law offers to debtors. Section 313 is a gift to finance companies who have what I consider to be a questionable practice of taking liens on the personal property of the people to whom they lend money. To understand how unfair the bill is here, my colleagues must be aware that the practice of taking a non-purchase money security interest in certain household goods has been illegal for many years. Under 16 C.F.R. Sec. 444.2, a regulation first promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission during the Reagan Administration, it is an unfair credit practice under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act for a lender to ``take or receive from a consumer an obligation that constitutes or contains a non-possessory security interest in household goods other than a purchase money security interest.'' Let me take a step back and remind my colleagues of the difference between a purchase money security interest and a non-purchase money security interest. A purchase money security interest is a lien that is taken on the property that is being purchased with the proceeds of a loan. For example, an auto manufacturer or a bank takes a purchase money security interest in your car when you get a loan to pay for it. That security means the lender can repossess the car to satisfy the loan if you don't make your payments. Major department stores might take a purchase money security interest in a home entertainment center or a computer or a major appliance that you buy on credit. It makes perfect sense for these lenders to be secured creditors and to protect their interest in getting their loans repaid. No one has a problem with that. But when a finance company takes an interest in property already in the home to secure a loan, property that is already purchased and paid for, that is a non-purchase money security interest. And as I said, the FTC determined long ago that such an interest on household goods is illegal. The FTC's definition of household goods, however, is limited. On this chart, you can see the definition of household goods in the FTC regulation--clothing, furniture, appliances, one radio and one television, linens, crockery, kitchenware, and personal effects, including wedding rings. So this definition of household goods is relatively narrow. It includes only a single TV, for example, and it doesn't cover things such as CD players that hadn't even been invented in 1984, or personal computers that were not nearly as common in family homes as they are today. Nonetheless, the FTC rule prohibits finance companies from taking non-purchase money liens on items covered by this definition. But finance companies that like having these liens as a bargaining chip with their borrowers have hardly been deterred. They want to turn what is essentially an unsecured loan into a secured loan. So they take liens in everything in the house they can get their hands on that is not on the FTC's list of household goods. This chart shows a typical form that the finance companies use to get borrowers to list their personal property when they apply for a loan. They take a lien on everything that a borrower identifies--things like garden tools, jewelry, rugs, cameras, exercise equipment. Make no mistake, these companies have no intention of repossessing these items--most of them are probably worthless--they just use them as a threat to try to get their loans repaid. This chart shows a typical loan application with a list of household goods that these lenders try to take an interest in. They try to cover it all: bicycles, tennis rackets, hedge trimmers, leaf blowers, mirrors, model airplanes, sleeping bags, the list goes on and on and on. Under section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor can apply to the bankruptcy court to avoid these non-purchase money liens in household goods. And the courts have generally interpreted household goods broadly to include all items kept in or around the home to facilitate the day-to-day living of the debtor. The courts have specifically rejected the narrow list of household goods contained in the FTC's regulation as too narrow. Remember, in bankruptcy, liens can't be avoided on extremely expensive items. The power of lien avoidance under section 522(f) only applies to property that falls under an exemption from the bankruptcy estate, and there are strict limits on the value of property that is exempt from liquidation in bankruptcy under State and Federal law. But the power of lien avoidance serves the purpose of treating creditors equally and fairly, particularly in Chapter 13, and it protects debtors from being pressured into reaffirming debts that they would otherwise be able to discharge in bankruptcy because they fear they will lose their family heirlooms or their child's model airplanes. Section 313 of the bill is a new and very restrictive definition of household goods for purposes of the lien avoidance power. It essentially codifies the FTC's list of household goods and makes it the exclusive list of household goods on which liens can be avoided in bankruptcy. This chart shows how section 313 compares to the FTC's definition. The bill would turn the law on its head. In effect, it says that virtually the only liens that can be avoided are those that the FTC's regulation already prohibits. As you can see here, liens can be avoided on clothing, furniture, appliances, one radio and one television, linens, crockery, kitchenware, and personal effects, including wedding rings--all items that are on the FTC's list already. Thus, under this definition, section 522(f) lien avoidance, which is intended to protect the exemptions for personal property that states and federal law provide, is almost completely gutted. All of the things I mentioned before that finance companies commonly take liens in are not included in the definition--garden tools, jewelry, rugs, cameras, exercise equipment, bicycles, tennis rackets, hedge trimmers, leaf blowers, mirrors, model airplanes, and sleeping bags. Finance companies can take liens in these items and enforce them in a bankruptcy case. The real problem here is that no list can be exhaustive. And there is really no reason to have an exhaustive list anyway. The courts are fully capable of determining in a bankruptcy case what kinds of things are standard household items. The list in the bill is far too narrow, and there is absolutely no evidence that there are abuses taking place that need to be addressed. The reason that this provision is in the bill is simple--the finance companies that support the bill want more power to take these borderline unethical liens. They want more power to coerce people into reaffirming debts because they don't want their home stripped bare by a company that holds an interest in everything in it. This provision is part of the ``deal'' between all the creditors that support this bill. All of them are getting their special protections in this bill, and consumers are left with nothing. Mr. President, I was prepared to offer an amendment to strike section 313 back in March, but time ran out before I could offer it. I filed it so that it could be offered once cloture is invoked. I will not offer it today, but I believe we should remove this offensive provision in conference. That would move this bill just a little closer to one that actually treats American families fairly. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for all he has done to fight for American families on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wish to comment on the Interior appropriations bill which the Senate has passed by voice vote. I am satisfied, that unlike in years past, this bill is relatively free from anti-environmental riders. I commend the chairman (Mr. Byrd) and the ranking member (Mr. Stevens) for producing a bill that is largely free from riders which many of my constituents view as an undemocratic way to address environmental issues. I have been pleased by the progress on this bill, and by the manager's efforts to allow important environmental issues the benefit of an up or down vote on the floor. Though the bill this year has been considered by the Senate with an improved process, I do have some concerns about a few of the bill's provisions. First, I understand that the Senate fiscal year 2002 Interior bill includes $65 million for the Forest Legacy Program of the U.S. Forest Service, a program I strongly support. I further understand that, of the $65 million provided for the Forest Legacy program, $35.26 million has been allocated by the Senate Interior appropriations Subcommittee in the committee report to fund specific projects. I hope tat this allocation leaves approximately $29.8 million available to be distributed by the Forest Service to other priority projects, such as the Tomahawk Northwoods project in Northern Wisconsin. The Tomahawk project was specifically enumerated to receive funds by in the House report on the 2002 Interior appropriations bill, and it is my hope that the Senate's bill leaves flexibility so that this project can indeed be funded by the Forest Service. I also want to share my concern regarding section 330 of the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill. Section 330 extends for 50 years a special use permit for a cabin located in the Absaroka- Beartooth Wilderness Area in Montana. I hope that the conferees on this legislation will give serious consideration to removing this provision and referring the matters to the Senate Energy Committee for their review. My concern, as a Senator who is concerned about federal wilderness management, is that allowing the cabin to remain, without the benefit of review by the appropriate authorizing committee, could set a precedent that is contrary to the Wilderness Act, Forest Service policy and the Custer National Forest Management plan. It would be my hope that review by the Energy Committee would clarify whether the Montana State University-Billings indeed has the ability to apply for an extension of the special use permit that had been held by the cabin's previous owner. Finally, I understand that the managers' amendment contains language concerning the management of cruise ships in Glacier Bay National Park. Though I understand that this language represents a compromise worked out over the last few hours, I feel that an important policy matter such as this one would be better left to the authorizing committee. I believe legislative language which seeks to addresses serious legal issues over the reduction of cruise ship traffic required by Federal courts deserves full and fair consideration through proper hearings and review. I hope that the conference committee will give serious consideration to removing this provision. I am pleased to support this year's bill, and I hope so see a bill free from environmental riders emerge from conference.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Home Health Nurse and Patient Act of 2001. This legislation reduces administrative burdens, requires a focused analysis of crucial claims processing concerns, and provides the opportunity for constructive reforms of current inefficiencies. I am especially pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues, including Senator Murkowski and Senator Kerry who have been leaders in the regulatory reform movement, and Senator Collins, who has truly been a champion for preserving access to home health care. Without Senator Collins' leadership on this issue, including the 1999 hearing that she held on the issue of regulatory burdens facing the home health care industry, this legislation would not be where it is today. Senator Collins' legislation to repeal the 15 percent reduction in payments to home health care providers is also of the utmost importance, and is the other piece to the puzzle in terms of preserving access to home health care. It is my hope that the Senate Finance Committee will report out her legislation this year. Scope of the problem: As many of my colleagues know, home health care provides compassionate, at-home care to seniors and people with disabilities in cities and towns throughout America. Without it, many patients have no choice but to go to a nursing home, or even an emergency room, to get the care they need. For too many home health patients in my home state of Wisconsin, that day has arrived. Over the past few years, home health agencies around Wisconsin have closed their doors due to massive changes in Medicare, and seniors and the disabled have been forced to go elsewhere for care. In Wisconsin, over 40 Medicare home health providers have shut down since the implementation of the Interim Payment System. Still more have shrunken their service areas, stopped accepting Medicare patients, or refused assignment for high cost patients because the payments are simply too low. Over the past 3 years, nearly 30 of Wisconsin's 72 counties have lost between one and fifteen home health care agencies. Quite frankly, in many parts of Wisconsin, beneficiaries in certain areas or with certain diagnoses simply don't have access to home health care. While we have thankfully moved beyond the interim payment system, many home health agencies are facing another cloud in the horizon--an impending nursing shortage and a regulatory system that causes nurses to fill out paperwork instead of caring for patients. Burdensome and excessive paperwork often causes nurses to leave the home health care profession, and that can mean that patients stay in the hospital longer than necessary. A 2000 national survey by the Hospital and Healthcare Compensation Service reported a 21-percent turnover rate for home health registered nurses, a 24-percent turnover rate for home health licensed practicing nurses, and a 28-percent turnover for home health aides. The actual amount of time that a nurse provides medical care during an average ``start of care'' home health visit is approximately 45 minutes, only 30 percent of the average 2.5 hours of a nurse's time during the admission visit. According to Price Waterhouse Cooper, every hour of patient care time requires 48 minutes of paperwork time for hospital-owned home health agencies. I would like to share with my colleagues this advertisement from Nursing Spectrum magazine. Let me read this line here in bold print: ``No OASIS.'' As you can see the main selling point in the advertisement is the fact that the job will not force nurses to collect OASIS data. This is just one simple example of how the administrative burden we have imposed on our nurses. Our legislation takes a common sense approach to developing Medicare home health regulatory policies that are pro-consumer, provider- friendly, and efficient for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to administer. It would also help to ensure that the policies are successful, fair and effective because all parties would collaborate on recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, through joint task forces. This legislation would significantly alleviate the burdens that the Outcomes Assessment and Information Set (OASIS), the claims process for patients who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, and certain audit and medical review processes have had on home health providers. More importantly, the changes to the OASIS and the claims review process also would reduce the stress often experienced by home health patients due to the complexity of both regulations. It would also create a task force to analyze the appropriateness and efficacy of the OASIS patient assessment instrument on Medicare, Medicaid and non-government financed patients. During the study, the OASIS process would be optional for the non- Medicare and non-Medicaid patients and inapplicable to those patients receiving personal care services only. Many beneficiaries are also concerned about arbitrary coverage decisions, that leaves beneficiaries in the lurch. That is why this legislation requires the Secretary to form a task force to develop an efficient process for the handling of Medicare claims related to individuals also eligible for Medicaid coverage where the claim may not be covered under Medicare. Finally, the Home Health Nurse and Patient Act would create a task force that would engage in a wholesale evaluation of the process used by Medicare to select and review home health services' claims. The task force would consider such changes as establishing time limits for claim determinations, the use of alternative dispute resolution processes, the development of formal claims sampling protocols, allowing re-submission of corrected claims, and permitting physician assistants and nurse practitioners to establish care plans. I hope to continue to work with both providers and beneficiaries to take a serious look at what refinements need to occur to ensure the home bound elderly and disabled can receive the services they need. Without that fine-tuning, I am quite certain that more home health agencies in Wisconsin and across our country will close, leaving some of our frailest Medicare beneficiaries without the choice to receive care at home.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Home Health Nurse and Patient Act of 2001. This legislation reduces administrative burdens, requires a focused analysis of crucial claims processing concerns, and provides the opportunity for constructive reforms of current inefficiencies. I am especially pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues, including Senator Murkowski and Senator Kerry who have been leaders in the regulatory reform movement, and Senator Collins, who has truly been a champion for preserving access to home health care. Without Senator Collins' leadership on this issue, including the 1999 hearing that she held on the issue of regulatory burdens facing the home health care industry, this legislation would not be where it is today. Senator Collins' legislation to repeal the 15 percent reduction in payments to home health care providers is also of the utmost importance, and is the other piece to the puzzle in terms of preserving access to home health care. It is my hope that the Senate Finance Committee will report out her legislation this year. Scope of the problem: As many of my colleagues know, home health care provides compassionate, at-home care to seniors and people with disabilities in cities and towns throughout America. Without it, many patients have no choice but to go to a nursing home, or even an emergency room, to get the care they need. For too many home health patients in my home state of Wisconsin, that day has arrived. Over the past few years, home health agencies around Wisconsin have closed their doors due to massive changes in Medicare, and seniors and the disabled have been forced to go elsewhere for care. In Wisconsin, over 40 Medicare home health providers have shut down since the implementation of the Interim Payment System. Still more have shrunken their service areas, stopped accepting Medicare patients, or refused assignment for high cost patients because the payments are simply too low. Over the past 3 years, nearly 30 of Wisconsin's 72 counties have lost between one and fifteen home health care agencies. Quite frankly, in many parts of Wisconsin, beneficiaries in certain areas or with certain diagnoses simply don't have access to home health care. While we have thankfully moved beyond the interim payment system, many home health agencies are facing another cloud in the horizon--an impending nursing shortage and a regulatory system that causes nurses to fill out paperwork instead of caring for patients. Burdensome and excessive paperwork often causes nurses to leave the home health care profession, and that can mean that patients stay in the hospital longer than necessary. A 2000 national survey by the Hospital and Healthcare Compensation Service reported a 21-percent turnover rate for home health registered nurses, a 24-percent turnover rate for home health licensed practicing nurses, and a 28-percent turnover for home health aides. The actual amount of time that a nurse provides medical care during an average ``start of care'' home health visit is approximately 45 minutes, only 30 percent of the average 2.5 hours of a nurse's time during the admission visit. According to Price Waterhouse Cooper, every hour of patient care time requires 48 minutes of paperwork time for hospital-owned home health agencies. I would like to share with my colleagues this advertisement from Nursing Spectrum magazine. Let me read this line here in bold print: ``No OASIS.'' As you can see the main selling point in the advertisement is the fact that the job will not force nurses to collect OASIS data. This is just one simple example of how the administrative burden we have imposed on our nurses. Our legislation takes a common sense approach to developing Medicare home health regulatory policies that are pro-consumer, provider- friendly, and efficient for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to administer. It would also help to ensure that the policies are successful, fair and effective because all parties would collaborate on recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, through joint task forces. This legislation would significantly alleviate the burdens that the Outcomes Assessment and Information Set (OASIS), the claims process for patients who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, and certain audit and medical review processes have had on home health providers. More importantly, the changes to the OASIS and the claims review process also would reduce the stress often experienced by home health patients due to the complexity of both regulations. It would also create a task force to analyze the appropriateness and efficacy of the OASIS patient assessment instrument on Medicare, Medicaid and non-government financed patients. During the study, the OASIS process would be optional for the non- Medicare and non-Medicaid patients and inapplicable to those patients receiving personal care services only. Many beneficiaries are also concerned about arbitrary coverage decisions, that leaves beneficiaries in the lurch. That is why this legislation requires the Secretary to form a task force to develop an efficient process for the handling of Medicare claims related to individuals also eligible for Medicaid coverage where the claim may not be covered under Medicare. Finally, the Home Health Nurse and Patient Act would create a task force that would engage in a wholesale evaluation of the process used by Medicare to select and review home health services' claims. The task force would consider such changes as establishing time limits for claim determinations, the use of alternative dispute resolution processes, the development of formal claims sampling protocols, allowing re-submission of corrected claims, and permitting physician assistants and nurse practitioners to establish care plans. I hope to continue to work with both providers and beneficiaries to take a serious look at what refinements need to occur to ensure the home bound elderly and disabled can receive the services they need. Without that fine-tuning, I am quite certain that more home health agencies in Wisconsin and across our country will close, leaving some of our frailest Medicare beneficiaries without the choice to receive care at home.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to support also the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin. I am proud to join him in this effort and to be an original cosponsor of his amendment. My colleague from Illinois seeks to make certain that amendment language offered by the Congressman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall, which would prohibit drilling for oil and gas and mining in our national monuments is included in the Senate bill. The Rahall amendment passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 242-173. Madam President, I support this amendment because I believe that to not speak loudly against the Bush administration's proposals to re-open many of these monuments under the guise of our present energy concerns is a dereliction of responsibility for this body and this Senator. It is the responsibility of this body to review areas designated as national monuments to determine whether or not additional designations should be conferred--such as creating a national park or a wilderness area out of lands administratively protected as a monument. Presidents have designated about 120 national monuments, totaling more than 70 million acres, and given that Congress has done its review, most of this acreage is no longer in monument status. For instance, Grand Canyon National Park initially was proclaimed a national monument but was converted by Congress into a national park. Congress should responsibly exercise its authority, and be clear about its intent, which this amendment does. This amendment prohibits the administration from proceeding with drilling for oil and gas and mining in our national monuments. This amendment will prevent these activities which are incompatible with many of the federal land use designations Congress might confer until we truly examine these areas. Monument designations create expectations on behalf of our constituents, Madam President, that these areas are protected and we should work to make certain that is so. I am aware that Presidential establishment of national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 has protected valuable sites but also has been contentious. President Clinton used his authority 22 times to proclaim 19 new monuments and to enlarge 3 others. The monuments were designated during his last year in office, with one exception, and I will speak about that exception in greater detail. President Clinton's 19 new and 3 enlarged monuments comprise 5.9 million Federal acres. Only President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used his authority more often--28 times--and only President Jimmy Carter created more monument acreage--56 million acres in Alaska. The monument actions, regardless of one's position on them, were needed because Congress had not acted quickly enough to protect these Federal lands. The best response to concerns about the monument process is to support my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and not allow modifications to the monuments that some perceive were created unfairly to be made in an equally concerning fashion. My constituents do not support expansion of oil and gas drilling and mining in lands designated by Presidential declaration as national monuments. I personally know the value of wild areas, and the threats that mineral, coal and oil and gas exploration pose. Though I have not been to all the monuments designated by President Clinton, I have hiked the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, an area that the Senator from Illinois and I believe should be designated as wilderness. I hiked down a 65-degree slope to Upper Calf Creek Falls in the Grand Staircase. It was a challenging and spectacular trip. Calf Creek meanders along a shallow valley with several deep clear pools before the upper falls, where the creek drops 88 feet over a cliff face at the head of Calf Creek Canyon. This deepens gradually for 2.5 miles south then doubles in size below the 126-foot lower falls. The path to the falls is down a steep slope of white slickrock marked by cairns of dark, volcanic pebbles then across flatter sandy ground to the canyon edge, with a total elevation loss of almost 600 feet. My experience is that this monument is a spectacular place and one with now tremendous recreational value and use. I should be preserved that way. I use my Upper Calf Creek trip as an example of why the Senator's amendment is needed. We should be preserving our options with these lands, not opening them for development. I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to my amendment, No. 863.