Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

Mr. President, at the heart of the deep recession is a crisis in our financial system that has choked off credit upon which the health of our economy depends. With their jobs disappearing and their life savings evaporating, the American people rightly ask why the Federal Government failed to protect them from Wall Street's greed, unwise decisions, and manipulations that have caused so much harm.

As a former Maine financial regulator, I am convinced regulatory reform is essential to restoring public confidence in our financial markets. America's main street small businesses, homeowners, employees, savers, and investors deserve the protection of a new regulatory system that modernizes regulatory agencies, sets safety and soundness requirements for financial institutions to prevent excessive risk- taking, and improves oversight, accountability, and transparency.

To achieve those goals, I am introducing the Financial System Stabilization and Reform Act of 2009. This legislation will fundamentally restructure our financial regulatory system. It will strengthen oversight and accountability in our financial markets, and it would help rebuild the confidence of our citizens in our economy and help restore stability to our financial markets.

Mr. President, as financial institutions speculated in increasingly risky products and practices, not one of the hundreds of Federal and State agencies involved in financial regulation was responsible for detecting and assessing the risk to the system as a whole. The financial sector was gambling on the rise of the housing market, yet no single regulator could see that everyone, from mortgage brokers to credit default swap traders, was betting on a bubble that was about to burst. Instead, each agency viewed its regulated market through a narrow lens, missing the total risk that permeated our financial markets.

In order to prevent this problem from recurring, a single financial regulator must be tasked with understanding the full range of risks our financial system faces. This regulator also must have the authority to take proactive steps to prevent or minimize systemic risk.

This is an urgent need. Unemployment reached 7.8 percent in my home State in January. Last month, the national unemployment rate hit 8.1 percent, the highest in 25 years. Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve reported that the net worth of American households plummeted by more than $11 trillion in 2008, a staggering drop of nearly 20 percent, the most in 63 years. And, at the same time, court proceedings and congressional hearings on the Bernie Madoff case revealed that this multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme of nonexistent transactions and fraudulent statements was perpetrated for

years under the very noses of the Federal agencies that should have stopped it.

The American people need more than words of optimism or promises of a turnaround. With their jobs lost or in jeopardy, with their financial plans in ruin, and now with their hard-earned tax dollars on the line to clean up the mess, they need reforms. They need action.

The American people are angry, and rightfully so. They are angry because the current crisis was not created from their own bad investments or decisions, but by those on Wall Street who concocted complicated financial instruments that ended up backfiring. Investment firms borrowed to the hilt when they did not have the resources to do so.

When the average American decides to purchase a security on credit, margin requirements dictate that he or she put up at least 50 percent of its value in cash. But investment banks did not have to play by the same rules when they bought for their own accounts. And they took advantage of this system.

Indicative of the extent of the borrowing, Bear Stearns had a leverage ratio of 35 to 1, which means the firm borrowed $35 for every dollar of its own money. For example, suppose your net worth is a dollar and you combine that dollar with $35 in borrowed money to buy an asset worth $36. If the value of that asset declines by only $2, to $34, you are now bankrupt. This is exactly what happened to Bear Stearns and other investment banks.

Since last spring, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I serve as ranking member, has held a series of hearings on the roots of the present crisis. We began by looking at the derivatives and commodity markets and more recently looked at the steps that can be taken to protect our Nation's financial system as a whole by creating a systemic-risk regulator. The many expert witnesses who have appeared before us have described how our financial system was destabilized by a combination of reckless lending, complex new instruments, securitization of assets, poor disclosure and understanding of risks, excessive leverage, and inadequate regulation.

Our witnesses were in wide agreement that the mounting risk went virtually undetected by the vast network of Federal and State regulatory agencies. As the Government Accountability Office put it in a recent report to the committee, ``it has become apparent that the regulatory system is ill-suited to meet the nation's needs in the 21st century.'' To meet this challenge, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke said recently:

We must have a strategy that regulates the financial system

as a whole, in a holistic way, not just its individual

components.

This statement confirms a view that I find inescapable, our current system suffers from regulatory gaps that pose enormous risks to our entire economy. The holistic approach recommended by Chairman Bernanke is the guiding principle of the comprehensive legislation I introduce today. Like legislation I introduced last fall, this bill would also regulate Wall Street investment banks for safety and soundness and close the gap that has allowed credit default swaps and other financial instruments to escape regulation by both Federal and State regulators.

To ensure a systemic approach to Federal financial regulation, this legislation calls for the creation of an independent financial stability council to serve as a ``systemic-risk regulator.'' The council would maintain comprehensive oversight of all potential risks to the financial system, and would have the power to act to prevent or mitigate those risks. The financial stability council would be composed of representatives from existing Federal agencies which now have the responsibility to oversee segments of the financial system--the Federal Reserve; the Treasury Department; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and the National Credit Union Administration.

The council would be led by a chairman nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with the responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the council. The chairman would be required to appear before Congress twice a year to report on the state of the country's financial system, areas in which systemic risk are anticipated, and whether any legislation is needed for the council to carry out its mission of preventing systemic risks.

Witnesses who have appeared before our committee have stressed the need to ensure that the systemic-risk regulator has the responsibility and the authority to ensure that risks to our financial system are identified and addressed. If it is not clear who has that responsibility, then agencies will dig in their heels and resist changes they do not agree with, and engage in finger-pointing when things go bad. At the same time, other witnesses have stressed the dangers of consolidating too much power in the hands of a single regulator and the need to maintain the level of oversight Congress has historically exercised with respect to financial market regulation.

The financial stability council created by this legislation balances these concerns. As Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO representative on the TARP congressional oversight panel, testified before our committee earlier this month:

[T]he best approach is a body made up of the key

regulators. . . . It is unlikely a systemic risk regulator

would develop deep enough expertise on its own. . . . To be

effective it would need to cooperate. . . . with all the

routine regulators where the relevant expertise would be

resident. . . .

Former Senator John Sununu, another member of the congressional oversight panel, recognized that ``systemic risk can materialize in a broad range of areas within our financial system. . . . Thus, it is impractical, and perhaps a dangerous concentration of power, to give one single regulator the power to set or modify any and all standards relating to such risk. Systemic risk oversight and management must be a collaborative effort. . . .''

The financial stability council will be the primary entity responsible for detecting systemic risk and implementing the steps necessary to protect against that risk. The key to such a structure, I believe, is to ensure that the council is headed by a chairman confirmed by the Senate and subject to oversight by Congress, who is dedicated entirely to the mission of the council, and who does not carry a bias in favor of any particular agency on the council.

Some have suggested that the Federal Reserve play the role of systemic-risk regulator. That is not what my bill contemplates. The chairman of the Federal Reserve will be a member of the council, and of course, the Nation's top banker will play a critical role in how the council discharges its responsibilities. But in my view, the Federal Reserve already has enough on its plate, and does not need additional, heavy responsibilities. I should add that nothing in my bill alters the Federal Reserve's role with respect to monetary policy in any way.

This bill, however, would apply safety and soundness regulation to investment bank holding companies by assigning the Federal Reserve this responsibility. Although the five big firms have left the field, this is a necessary step. Any new investment bank would fall into the same regulatory void as its predecessors. The SEC would be able to regulate its broker-dealer operations, but no agency would have the explicit authority to examine its operations for safety and soundness or for systemic risk. The collapses at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers illustrate the tremendous costs that can be inflicted if these investment banks are not regulated for safety and soundness. Under this legislation, the council's role as the systemic-risk regulator will support the critical importance of the Federal Reserve's safety and soundness duties.

Under my bill, whenever the financial stability council believes that a risk to the financial system is present due to a lack of proper regulation, or by the appearance of new and unregulated financial products or services, it would have the power to propose changes to regulatory policy, using the statutory authority provided to our existing Federal financial regulatory agencies.

The financial stability council will have the power to obtain information directly from any regulated provider of financial products and, in limited form, from State regulators regarding the solvency of State-regulated insurers.

The council will also be able to propose regulations of financial instruments which are designed to look like insurance products, but that in reality are financial products which could present a systemic risk. But--and I want to stress this point--my bill does not preempt State law governing traditional insurance products.

In keeping with the recommendations of the experts who testified before our committee, the bill provides the council with the power to adopt rules designed to address the ``too big to fail'' problem. How often we have heard that term lately. We hear financial experts and Federal officials telling us we have to continue to bail out large institutions like AIG because they are ``too big to fail.'' We need to remedy this problem so we don't find ourselves in the same situation a decade from now. This bill provides the council with the power to adopt rules designed to discourage financial institutions from becoming ``too big to fail'' or to regulate them appropriately if they become what we call ``systemically important financial institutions.'' The need to regulate how these systemically important financial institutions, or ``SIFIs,'' invest their own capital was not previously recognized. Indeed, the prevailing attitude was that if firms failed because of bad investments, possibly bringing some of their creditors down with them, that was how the market was supposed to work. In true Darwinian fashion, eliminating firms with less investment acumen would only serve to strengthen American capitalism. We now know the fallacy of that reasoning, and it has been a very painful lesson, for it is not just the large investment houses that are hurt, but average Americans from Maine to California also suffer.

Under this legislation the council would help make sure financial institutions do not become ``too big to fail'' by imposing different capital requirements on them as they grow in size, raising their risk premiums, or requiring them to hold a larger percentage of their debt as long-term debt. The TARP congressional oversight panel adopted this position, explaining:

We should not identify specific institutions in advance as

too big to fail, but rather have a regulatory framework in

which institutions have higher capital requirements and

pay more on insurance funds on a percentage basis than

smaller institutions which are less likely to be rescued

as being too systemic to fail.

I want to make clear, though, that the power this bill provides to the council is not meant to restrict financial institutions from growing in size, but rather from becoming risks to the system as a whole.

The bill also provides the council with authority to address so- called regulatory ``black holes,'' created by new and imaginative financial instruments that do not fall within the jurisdictional authority of any Federal financial regulatory agency. Credit default swaps are a perfect example of this problem. Prior to 2000, credit default swaps existed in a regulatory limbo. Neither the SEC nor the CFTC were willing to exert authority over the credit default swap market. As a result, they fell through the jurisdictional cracks. Congress then compounded the problem by explicitly exempting credit default swaps from regulation under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

As was the case with AIG, serious problems can arise when a major ``credit event'' suddenly reveals that massive claims for collateral posting or payment are converging on credit default swap parties who cannot meet their obligations. But because the market was bilateral and over-the-counter, it was often impossible for regulators--and even market participants--to know in advance how all the tangled webs of contract commitments overlapped and affected any particular party. Under the current system which lacks a systemic-risk regulator, regulators at times lack the authority to take action against excessive debt, inadequate reserves, and other threats, even when they see them occurring.

This legislation specifically addresses the credit default swap problem by repealing the exemption from regulation that Congress created for these instruments in 2000, and by setting up a government- regulated clearinghouse.

But beyond credit default swaps, risky new financial instruments could still avoid the reach of our regulatory system. For that reason, my legislation provides the council with the power to propose regulations and legislation governing the sale or marketing of any financial instrument which would fall into a ``black hole,'' and would otherwise present a systemic risk to the financial systems of the United States if left unmonitored.

Professor Howell Jackson, the acting dean of Harvard Law School, discussed this ``black hole'' problem in his testimony to our committee early this year. He stated that the underlying issue is that ``well- advised financial services firms are capable of exploiting the legalistic boundaries of jurisdictional authority that characterize our system of financial regulation. Without broad jurisdictional mandates, our financial regulators will remain at a serious disadvantage in setting policy for new financial products and risks.''

Finally, my bill will merge the Office of Thrift Supervision, OTS, into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, OCC. Secretary Paulson recommended this merger in the plan he released last year, and 2 years ago, John Dugan, the U.S. Comptroller, said that such a merger would be ``appropriate and healthy.'' There are currently at least four agencies involved in bank regulation, including the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the OCC and OTC. Consolidating and reducing the number of banking regulators would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this system.

OTS is the best candidate for several reasons, including that many of its largest regulated entities, thrifts, have either collapsed or been acquired in the midst of the financial crisis--such as Washington Mutual and Indy Mac. And in the last 4 months, the inspector general for Treasury has raised serious questions about the objectivity and effectiveness of OTS's supervision of the largest thrifts.

Mr. President, the regulatory reforms in this legislation are absolutely essential to restoring public confidence in our financial markets. We have relied too long on a patchwork of regulatory agencies that is incapable of understanding or controlling risks to the system as a whole. The overarching purpose of this legislation is to ensure that, as the financial-services industry becomes ever more global and complex, those in government, responsible for overseeing the system's stability, can see the whole picture. We are in this crisis precisely because firms, whether for good or bad, exploited legal boundaries, risky financial instruments fell beyond the reach of regulators, and institutions doomed to fail grew too big to fail.

Honest savers, borrowers, investors, Main Street businesses, and responsible financial institutions deserve a regulatory system suited to demands of modern times, where dangerous gaps are closed, and where risky transactions are indentified and controlled before they pose a threat to the markets as a whole. These reforms must be made to restore the confidence necessary to stabilize our financial markets. That is what this legislation aims to do, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue I have been working on for 2 years--namely, ending the arbitrary process through which our own government takes away the second amendment rights of veterans. Let me briefly describe what I mean about this issue.

As most of my colleagues know, the Federal Gun Control Act prohibits the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including convicted felons, fugitives, drug users, illegal aliens, and individuals who have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' Furthermore, the Gun Control Act prohibits possession of firearms by any of these classified individuals. Needless to say, it is a serious matter. Criminal prosecution is

an option against those who violate the law.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires the government to maintain a database of these individuals. We call this the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. The Brady law and the NICS database aim to prevent those who may pose a danger to society or to themselves from purchasing a firearm. Gun owners reference to the NICS screen customers--again, it goes without saying it is a serious matter to have one's name on NICS.

Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process before their right to buy arms and bear arms is taken away, especially when criminal prosecution is involved. Unfortunately, when it comes to certain veterans, their spouses, their dependent children, their dependent parents, the process is neither rigorous nor fair. Since 1999--now 10 years--the Veterans' Administration has sent the names of 116,000 of its beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion under the NICS list. Again, the NICS list means those 116,000 individuals can never purchase a firearm. None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were determined to be criminals or a danger to themselves or, for that fact, a danger to others; they were listed in NICS because they couldn't manage their own financial affairs. We should not take away a constitutional right because someone can't balance their checkbook on time.

VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided cash assistance, such as VA disability payments, pension benefits, and other benefits. For example, a veteran may be assigned a fiduciary if they have a credit problem. The VA focuses on whether benefits paid by the VA will be spent in a manner for which they were intended to be spent. If you held that threshold to every veteran, you would probably assign a fiduciary to all of them because we don't know in fact where the payments go or what they were intended for.

Nothing involved in the appointment of a fiduciary even gets to the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others or whether the person should or should not own a firearm. Yet that is exactly what happens when the VA appoints a fiduciary to one of our Nation's veterans.

Let me put a human face on the issue, if I can. I want to read excerpts from a letter I received from Jennifer Briest. I have her approval to read it. Jennifer is the wife of Corey Briest. Corey served in Iraq. He was a paramedic. He was severely injured in an IED explosion in 2004, which caused severe burns, damage to his lungs, and severe traumatic brain injury after shrapnel entered his skull. Corey has spent the last 5 years recovering from his injuries. Jennifer reports that he is walking, talking, and enjoying life at home with his two children.

Now it gets really sad. Because of his head injury, Corey still requires help with certain things. The VA said he needed help managing his disability compensation payments, and they named Jennifer, his spouse, as his fiduciary. That is where I would like to read from her letter. Again, I quote from her letter:

On May 19, 2009, we had our annual fiduciary meeting with

the VA field examiner. At the end of the meeting our field

examiner said he needed to read a statement to us. He read

the Brady bill statement and then stated that Corey can't

own, possess, use, be around, et cetera, any firearms. He

then went on to say that anyone in our household can't own a

gun while living in this household.

I asked him about Corey going on adaptive hunting trips and

he said that he couldn't. Corey stated that he had a gun that

was handed down from his grandfather and that Corey was going

to hand it down to his son and the field examiner told him

that he couldn't have it. He stated to Corey that if he did

own a gun or be around a gun that he would be threatened with

imprisonment.

The way that field examiner talked to Corey about this

issue was not appropriate. The field examiner said that I

could challenge it and handed me a blank sheet of paper with

a VA heading. I asked the field examiner for the statement he

read to me, but he said that he had to ask his boss [if he

could actually provide a copy of that statement]. After two

weeks of me e-mailing him, I finally got the attached papers

in the mail. I think the VA is taking this way out of concept

and I would greatly appreciate your support.

Well, in case any of my colleagues think the government would never prosecute someone like Corey Briest for possession of a firearm, being around a firearm, I wish to read to my colleagues excerpts from a VA directive that went out to all VA regional offices on September 29, this year, on this very issue.

The directive is meant to inform fiduciary field examiners of their obligation if they were to witness a violation of the Brady Act. I am going to quote from this VA memorandum to their field examiners.

Field Examiners or other VA employees who encounter

beneficiaries believed to be in violation of the Brady Act

are required to notify the Fiduciary Activity Manager as soon

as safely possible. At no time should the employee place him/

herself in danger. The Fiduciary Activity Manager at the VA

regional office of jurisdiction must immediately report the

alleged violation to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and

Firearms at 1-800-ATF-GUNS.

That is straight out of the Department of Veterans Affairs memorandum to their field examiners. For 2 years I have gone through this in the VA Committee. I have tried to plead with my colleagues that this is a breach of the second amendment of our country's veterans, that no veteran who has had their name reported of the 116,000, have ever been judged by a court to have a mental deficiency. In most cases, this is because there is a fiduciary needed to make sure they stay up to date. But there is not an incapacity on their part that has been judged to be a flaw in their judgment. Quite frankly, I find it offensive. I find the language of this directive offensive because the premise seems to be that our veterans are dangerous.

But as I mentioned, there is nothing about the current process that even gets to the question of an individual as dangerous. The current process is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries fall under these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns fiduciaries to help beneficiaries every single day. Yet it does not send their name to the NICS list.

We have a policy on the books that discriminates against individuals because they wore our Nation's uniform, because they fought on behalf of this country. I find it unacceptable and it must end.

I have a bill, S. 669, that would prohibit the VA from continuing this arbitrary and unfair practice. It would require a judge, a magistrate, or another judicial authority to determine that a VA beneficiary is a danger to themselves or to others before their name could be sent to the NICS list.

Twice the Veterans Affairs Committee approved this bipartisan legislation to afford veterans with due process before their second amendment right was snatched away from them. But twice the bill languished on the Senate floor. S. 669 was approved unanimously by the committee back in May. But it has gone nowhere. And the question is: Can veterans wait any longer or should veterans wait any longer?

I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous people. I am here to ask you, to plead with you, that we treat veterans fairly and that their rights are protected like every other citizen.

Many of our veteran organizations and other groups agree with me. The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act has the support of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of America.

I plead with my colleagues: Ask for S. 669 to be brought to the floor. Do not sit back and say this is an obscure thing that the VA sometimes engages in and sometimes does not. Again, September 29, 2009, 1 month ago, this directive goes out: Subject: Reporting violations of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

This letter provides guidance to our field personnel who

may encounter violations--

Violations by a veteran who served his country, is not a danger to himself or to anybody else, but has been deemed to need fiduciary help even if it is a spouse and a second amendment right was yanked from his hands, and now the VA says to their field examiners: Report it because we will prosecute these individuals.

I am not exactly sure how to respond to Jennifer Briest. That letter she sent

me about: Corey continues to make progress after an IED explosion December 4, 2005.

How do you say to a kid who served his country, who is raising a family: One, we had to turn you in so you can never own a gun. And, two, that gun your father handed down to you, Corey, you have to get rid of it. You cannot hand it down to your child, because even if you handed it down today to your son living in your home, they cannot have that gun, because the Veterans Administration says you cannot.

But if a fiduciary was assigned to Corey's father or to his mother, the Social Security Administration does not send that in to the NICS list to deprive them of their second amendment right. This is the most unfair thing I have seen this country do. It is time we end this practice. It is time we respect our veterans. It is time we treat them fairly. It is time we uphold the Constitution of this United States.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. President, the first day of spring is appropriately also National Agriculture Day and a time to recognize the important contribution made by farmers, ranchers and the agriculture industry that is largely responsible for putting food on the table and clothes on our backs. Agriculture is critically important to both our Nation and Wisconsin. Over 22 million Americans and 420,000 Wisconsinites are employed by farms or agriculture related businesses. Approximately a fifth of U.S. gross domestic product is linked to agriculture and Wisconsin's farms and farm-related businesses create $51.5 billion in economic activity each year.

Unfortunately, Agriculture Day this year comes at an unusually stressful time for the farm community. Even for an industry used to ups and downs from

a variety of sources, the recent problems associated with the global economic troubles are taxing farmers and agriculture in general more than usual. Dairy farmers have been particularly hard hit recently, with the price they receive for their milk having fallen by 50 percent or more since last year. While I was glad that the dairy safety net or Milk Income Loss Contract program was reauthorized and improved during the farm bill, the dramatic drop in prices combined with relatively high input costs will mean that many dairy farmers are not coming close to covering their expenses even with the safety net.

Given these serious challenges facing dairy farmers, on January 30, 2009, I sent a letter with Senator Kohl and 33 other Senators to U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, Secretary Tom Vilsack that calls on the USDA to take a series of actions to protect the industry from instability. This geographically diverse group of senators is asking the USDA to more fully utilize existing programs like the Dairy Product Price Support Program, DPPSP, and the Dairy Export Incentive Program, to reverse the outgoing administration's recent decision to halt purchases of value-added dairy products by the DPPSP, and to help more low-income individuals, food banks and schools gain access to nutritious dairy products.

As Americans and businesses are feeling the impact of the current economic troubles and sometimes falling behind on payments, farmers across the country are increasingly facing the same prospect as well. This is one reason I supported $193 million for Farm Service Agency farm loans and loan restructuring as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, P.L. 111-5, also known as the stimulus bill--to ensure that credit for farmers is available during these difficult times. Also along these lines, on March 5, 2009, I sent a letter with Senators Brown, Kohl, Gillibrand and 15 other Senators urging the Obama administration to help reduce farm foreclosures related to the troubled economy. The letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner called for additional requirements for banks and other financial institutions that have taken Federal bailout funds to work with farmers to restructure farm loans to help keep them in their homes and businesses. These conditions would mirror requirements that are already in place on farm loans supported by the USDA Farm Service Agency and the requirements being developed for home loans held by these same lenders that have taken bailout funds. While I did not support the flawed bailout bill, I believe it is essential that bailout funds be used as much as possible to help consumers, farmers, home- owners and others feeling the pain of the economic crisis we are in.

In addition to focusing resources to help farmers and others in agriculture ride out the current economic storm, it is still important to seek solutions to long term inequities in agriculture. I have been particularly concerned about the increasing concentration in agriculture sectors and the potential for this market power to be used unduly against farmers and small independent businesses. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on March 10, 2009, I discussed the grave concerns of Wisconsin farmers about slumping dairy prices and the Bush administration's failure to take action against anti-competitive behavior in the agriculture industry. Under my questioning, Christine Anne Varney, the nominee to be Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division in the Department of Justice, committed, if she is confirmed, to make agriculture a priority of the Antitrust Division. She indicated that she will examine questionable antitrust decisions of the Bush administration and order a thorough review of slumping farm- level dairy prices, which do not appear to be reflected in retail prices paid by consumers.

Even with the troubles currently facing agriculture, farmers, and agriculture are resilient and entrepreneurial. I am certain that these individuals and businesses will bounce back and continue to push for more opportunities for farmers, agriculture and the rural communities that depend on them. Wisconsin's diverse agricultural producers--from ginseng growers to cheese makers to cranberry growers and everything in between--are rightly proud of their work and look for ways to differentiate themselves and add value whether it is through country- of-origin or other labeling, converting to organic production or other measures. During debate on the farm bill, I was glad to support federal programs such as organic programs, Value-Added Producer Grants and the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program as ways that the federal government can support important new opportunities for farmers to improve their livelihood without drastically changing the size and methods of their production.

Of more general importance to all rural residents is closing the digital divide and providing affordable broadband Internet access to all Americans. I was glad the farm bill made improvements to the USDA broadband programs and that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act followed this up with a commitment to spend $7.2 billion. On March, 9, 2009, I cosigned a series of letters to the administrators of the Federal broadband programs highlighting the need to ensure that these funds are targeted toward bringing broadband and the opportunities that come with this connectivity to rural areas without service.

Finally, the first day of spring also seems like an opportune time to reintroduce some legislation related to agriculture. While I was able to include several of my proposals in the farm bill last year including a tax provision to allow farmers to remain eligible for Social Security benefits in lean years, country-of-origin labeling for ginseng, a new higher profile office at USDA for small farms, and a provision similar to a bill I had with Senator Grassley to give farmers an option to opt out of mandatory binding arbitration in contracts, I have three bills to reintroduce: The Quality Cheese Act, The Democracy for Dairy Farmers Act and the Federal Milk Marketing Reform Act.

The import of milk protein concentrates and casein, which can substitute for domestic milk in many food products, continues to put pressure on our farmers and can threaten the integrity of our dairy products. For example, concerns about the safety of imported dairy products such as the recent Chinese melamine adulteration have the potential to threaten consumer confidence even for U.S. dairy products. The Quality Cheese Act will preserve the integrity of our natural cheeses by preventing milk protein concentrates and other imported milk substitutes from ever entering cheese vats.

Under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system, the deck has been stacked against Wisconsin's dairy farmers for some time. The legacy of transportation costs being calculated for the base milk price based on the distance from Eau Claire, WI, remains a problem to this day. This rule unfairly keeps Wisconsin's milk price disproportionately low, and bears no relation to the actual costs of transportation. While I hope that the commission provided for by the farm bill can address this problem also, my Federal Milk Market Reform Act would even the playing field for Wisconsin's producers and remove this longstanding inequity.

If a dairy cooperative decides to vote on behalf of all of its members or ``bloc vote,'' individual members have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2007 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot to opt to vote separately from the cooperative. It also contains safeguards to make sure that farmers have information about each vote and is structured in such a way that it will not slow down the process, and the implementation of any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule.

Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce bipartisan legislation that would end an arbitrary process through which our own government takes away the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans.

I am pleased to be joined by three of my fellow Veterans' Affairs Committee Members on this legislation--Senators Webb, Graham, and Wicker--and 12 other members of the Senate, all as original cosponsors.

The legislation is nearly identical to the bill I introduced last Congress under the same title. Unfortunately, after it was approved as an amendment at a Committee markup and reported to the full Senate, no further action was taken. I am hopeful that things will be different this Congress.

As most of my colleagues know, the Federal Gun Control Act prohibits the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including convicted felons, fugitives, drug users, illegal aliens, and individuals who have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.''

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires the government to maintain a database on these individuals called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ``NICS''. The Brady Law and the NICS database aim to prevent those who may pose a danger to society or themselves from purchasing a firearm.

Gun shop owners reference the NICS to screen customers. Needless to say, it is a serious matter to have one's name on the NICS. Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process before their right to bear arms is taken away.

Unfortunately, when it comes to certain veterans, spouses, dependent children, and dependent parents, the process is neither rigorous nor fair.

Since 1999, VA has sent the names of 116,000 of its beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS.

None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were determined to be a danger to themselves or others. They were listed in NICS because they could not manage their financial affairs. We should not take away a Constitutional right because someone can't balance a checkbook or pay their bills on time.

VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided cash assistance such as disability compensation, pension, and other benefits.

For example, a veteran may be assigned a fiduciary if they have credit problems.

VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in the manner for which they were intended. Nothing involved with VA's appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person should own a firearm.

Yet that is exactly what happens if VA appoints a fiduciary. Over 116,000 individuals have been listed in NICS since 1999 because they were appointed a fiduciary.

Again, this includes veterans, surviving spouses and, strangely enough, dependent children. That's right, a child entitled to receive survivor's compensation because their mother or father died as a result of service has their name sent to a government database filled with criminals. Even worse, the child's name stays on this list permanently unless he or she petitions to have it taken off.

This makes no sense. States have age restrictions preventing kids from purchasing firearms. VA sending the names of innocent children to Government database of criminals just because their parent died as a result of service to their country simply makes no sense, and it is downright insulting.

This process is not only arbitrary, it is unfair. Taking away a Constitutional right is a serious action and veterans should be afforded due process under the law. At the very least we should expect such decisions to be made by a competent judicial authority and not by civilian government employees.

The current process is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries fall under these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns fiduciaries to help beneficiaries, yet it does not send their names to the NICS.

Why are we singling out those who fought for this country and those who sacrificed while their spouse or parent served?

My legislation would end this arbitrary and unfair practice that strips the finest men and women of this country of their right to bear arms. This legislation would require a judicial authority to determine that an individual is a danger to themselves or others before their 2nd Amendment rights are taken away.

I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous people. I am here to ask that we treat our veterans fairly and that we take their rights seriously. Many of our veterans' organizations and other groups agree.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act has the support of the The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, AMVETS, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of America.

No matter where my colleagues fall on the gun issue, I hope we can all agree that we need a process that is consistent and fair. Our veterans took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They deserve to enjoy the rights they fought so hard to protect.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce bipartisan legislation that would end an arbitrary process through which our own government takes away the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans.

I am pleased to be joined by three of my fellow Veterans' Affairs Committee Members on this legislation--Senators Webb, Graham, and Wicker--and 12 other members of the Senate, all as original cosponsors.

The legislation is nearly identical to the bill I introduced last Congress under the same title. Unfortunately, after it was approved as an amendment at a Committee markup and reported to the full Senate, no further action was taken. I am hopeful that things will be different this Congress.

As most of my colleagues know, the Federal Gun Control Act prohibits the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including convicted felons, fugitives, drug users, illegal aliens, and individuals who have been ``adjudicated as a mental defective.''

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires the government to maintain a database on these individuals called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ``NICS''. The Brady Law and the NICS database aim to prevent those who may pose a danger to society or themselves from purchasing a firearm.

Gun shop owners reference the NICS to screen customers. Needless to say, it is a serious matter to have one's name on the NICS. Every American should expect a rigorous and fair process before their right to bear arms is taken away.

Unfortunately, when it comes to certain veterans, spouses, dependent children, and dependent parents, the process is neither rigorous nor fair.

Since 1999, VA has sent the names of 116,000 of its beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion on the NICS.

None of these names were sent to the FBI because they were determined to be a danger to themselves or others. They were listed in NICS because they could not manage their financial affairs. We should not take away a Constitutional right because someone can't balance a checkbook or pay their bills on time.

VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine one's financial responsibility in managing VA-provided cash assistance such as disability compensation, pension, and other benefits.

For example, a veteran may be assigned a fiduciary if they have credit problems.

VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in the manner for which they were intended. Nothing involved with VA's appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person should own a firearm.

Yet that is exactly what happens if VA appoints a fiduciary. Over 116,000 individuals have been listed in NICS since 1999 because they were appointed a fiduciary.

Again, this includes veterans, surviving spouses and, strangely enough, dependent children. That's right, a child entitled to receive survivor's compensation because their mother or father died as a result of service has their name sent to a government database filled with criminals. Even worse, the child's name stays on this list permanently unless he or she petitions to have it taken off.

This makes no sense. States have age restrictions preventing kids from purchasing firearms. VA sending the names of innocent children to Government database of criminals just because their parent died as a result of service to their country simply makes no sense, and it is downright insulting.

This process is not only arbitrary, it is unfair. Taking away a Constitutional right is a serious action and veterans should be afforded due process under the law. At the very least we should expect such decisions to be made by a competent judicial authority and not by civilian government employees.

The current process is also a double standard. Only VA beneficiaries fall under these guidelines. The Social Security Administration assigns fiduciaries to help beneficiaries, yet it does not send their names to the NICS.

Why are we singling out those who fought for this country and those who sacrificed while their spouse or parent served?

My legislation would end this arbitrary and unfair practice that strips the finest men and women of this country of their right to bear arms. This legislation would require a judicial authority to determine that an individual is a danger to themselves or others before their 2nd Amendment rights are taken away.

I am not here to ask that we put guns in the hands of dangerous people. I am here to ask that we treat our veterans fairly and that we take their rights seriously. Many of our veterans' organizations and other groups agree.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act has the support of the The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, AMVETS, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of America.

No matter where my colleagues fall on the gun issue, I hope we can all agree that we need a process that is consistent and fair. Our veterans took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They deserve to enjoy the rights they fought so hard to protect.

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