Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about Judge Sotomayor and about the hearing process we have just been through.

First, I commend Chairman Leahy and his staff for a remarkably well- run proceeding in the Judiciary Committee. I think anyone who saw the 4 days of hearings would agree that the

process was scrupulously fair. Everyone got a chance to ask all the questions they wanted to ask. They had the time they needed for follow up questions, and for follow ups to those follow ups. No stone was left unturned, even if the answers the Judge gave weren't always what the questioner hoped to hear.

What the public doesn't see is the work that is done behind the scenes to get us to that point. Not just the setup of the room and all the complex preparations that go into the smooth running of the hearing itself, but also the enormous effort to make all of the background information that came to the Judiciary Committee available online virtually immediately--all of Judge Sotomayor's speeches and articles, over 100 letters and reports from people who know her, or organizations that wished to express their views on her nomination, as well as all of the materials received from the PRLDEF organization in response to the Judiciary Committee's request. Chairman Leahy has set a new standard for transparency and public access to Supreme Court nomination proceedings, and I truly commend him for that, and I also thank him and his staff for the tremendous work they have done over the last several weeks.

The scrutiny to be applied to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination. The Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents, and so I believe that anyone who sits on that Court must not have a pre-set agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees, and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the Court to do justice when other branches of government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of our citizens. This is the same standard I applied to the nominations of both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito during the last administration.

What we saw over 4 days of hearings on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor was a thoughtful, intelligent, and careful judge, a person committed to her craft and to the law, someone whose remarkable life story and varied experience will add diversity and perspective, which the Court sorely needs. Not only will Judge Sotomayor become the first Latina Justice, and only the third woman, to serve on the Court, but she will be the only Justice who has served as a trial court judge, and she will have more judicial experience at the outset of her service on the Court than any of her colleagues did. There is no doubt she is highly qualified, and I think we saw during those 4 days of hearings that she has an admirable judicial temperament and demeanor that will serve her well on the Court.

Judge Sotomayor's record and testimony satisfied me that she understands the important role of the Court in protecting civil liberties, even in a time of war. She sat on a Second Circuit panel that struck down portions of the National Security Letter statute that was so dramatically expanded by the Patriot Act. And when I asked her how September 11 changed her view of the law, she gave the following answer:

The Constitution is a timeless document. It was intended to

guide us through decades, generation after generation, to

everything that would develop in our country. It has

protected us as a nation. It has inspired our survival. That

doesn't change.

Later, when we discussed the Korematsu case, she said:

A judge should never rule from fear. A judge should rule

from law and the Constitution.

Those words give me hope that she will have the courage to defend the liberties of the American people from an overreaching executive or legislative branch.

At the same time, she appreciates the deference the judiciary must give to the legislature as it seeks to solve the problems facing the American people. I don't see in her record or in her public statements a burning desire to overturn precedent or to remake constitutional law in the image of her own personal preference, and I certainly don't see bias of any kind. I was also impressed with her record and statements during the hearing on judicial ethics. Judge Sotomayor seems to understand that the extraordinary power she will wield as a Justice must be accompanied by extraordinary care to guard against any apparent conflict of interest.

All that being said, I do want to express a note of dissatisfaction. Not with Chairman Leahy, or with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, and certainly not with Judge Sotomayor, but with a nominations process that I think fails to educate the Senate or the public about the views of potential Justices on the Supreme Court. I have said before that I do not understand why the only person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the Supreme Court has done in recent years is the person from whom the American public most needs to hear. It makes no sense to me that the current Justices can hear future cases notwithstanding the fact that we know their views on a legal issue because they wrote or joined an opinion in a previous case that raised a similar issue, but nominees for the Court can refuse to tell us what they think about that previous case under the theory that doing so would compromise their independence or their ability to keep an open mind in a future case.

I remain unconvinced that the dodge that all nominees now use--``I can't answer that question because the issue might come before me on the Court''--is justified. Nomination hearings have become little more than theater, where Senators try to ask clever questions and nominees try to come up with cleverer ways to respond without answering. This problem certainly did not start with these hearings or this nominee, but perhaps it is inevitable. The chances of the Senate rejecting a nominee who adopts this strategy are very remote, based on the recent history of nominations. Nonetheless, I do not think it makes for meaningful advice and consent.

So I cannot say that I learned everything about Judge Sonia Sotomayor that I would have liked to learn. But what I did learn makes me believe that she will serve with distinction on the Court, and that I should vote in favor of her confirmation.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I rise to discuss a new and relatively small office within USDA that will help ensure the Department adequately addresses the needs of all farmers and ranchers. For too long, USDA has not had adequate focus on policy, programs, and outreach for small farms, beginning farmers and ranchers, and minority farmers and ranchers. A provision in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, the farm bill, which was partially based on a proposal I made with Senator Harkin is intended to reverse that situation by creating the Office of Advocacy and Outreach. The farm bill provision places the new office within executive operations at the Department to ensure that it has overarching coordination functions across all of the mission areas of USDA and that the director of the office is not within any of the under or assistant secretariats so he or she can have a higher profile and be better able to analyze and improve access to the functions and activities of USDA across the entire Department. The office will have two divisions--the socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers group and the small and beginning farmers and ranchers group.

The socially disadvantaged farmers group includes a new Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers established under section 14009 of the farm bill, and a new farmworker coordinator established in section 14013 of the farm bill. The existing functions of the current Office of Outreach and Diversity that serve socially disadvantaged producers and minority serving institutions are also transferred to the Office of Advocacy and Outreach.

The small and beginning farmers and ranchers group is given responsibility for continuing and building upon the functions for the existing Office of Small Farms Coordination, the existing Small Farms and Beginning Farmer and Rancher Council, and the existing Advisory Committee for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, plus a consultative role on the administration of the Beginning Farmer and Ranchers Development Program administered by CSREES.

The new office builds upon the recommendations made to Congress by the Government Accountability Office. The new office will establish departmental goals and objectives, measure outcomes, and provide input into programmatic and policy directions and decisions. The office will also improve outreach and assistance to these farm communities in order to help make the goals and objectives a reality.

It is very important this new office receive an appropriation so it can begin its important and historic mission. It is my understanding the administration's request for $3 million is provided for in the House bill. I would ask Chairman Kohl if it is his intent to try to find a way to secure funding for the new office during conference.

I am also concerned with information coming from the Department of a possible plan to move the Office out of Executive Operations and to place it elsewhere. This is very troubling. Congress was very clear about where the office was to be situated and I believe it is the responsibility of USDA to follow the law in this regard. I would like to ask the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, if he agrees with my assessment.

I thank the Senator for that assurance.

Let me make one final point. As I mentioned, the law creates two divisions within the OA&O. Both areas are extremely important. It is my firm belief that any funding provided for this office should be equally divided between the two divisions, after accounting for the funds to establish the overall Director of the office.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code the ``Percentage Depletion Allowance'' for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I want to thank Senators Cantwell, Feinstein, and Sanders for joining me in introducing this legislation.

The Elimination of Double Subsidies for the Hardrock Mining Industry Act of 2009 would result in estimated savings of at least $250 million over 5 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Under this legislation, half of these savings would be returned to the Federal treasury and half would help address the serious contamination at the thousands of abandoned mines throughout the U.S.

Percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, these allowances were initiated 100 years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since.

Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration, and output. The problem, however, is that percentage depletion also makes it possible to recover many times the amount of the original investment.

There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment.

Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested. The set rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the Internal Revenue Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent.

There is no restriction in the tax code to ensure that over time companies do not deduct more than the capital that they have invested. Furthermore, a percentage deduction allowance makes sense only so long as the deducting company actually pays for the investment for which it claims the deduction.

The result is a double subsidy for hardrock mining companies: first they can mine on public lands for free under the General Mining Law of 1872, and then they are allowed to take a deduction for capital investment that they

have not made for the privilege to mine on public lands. My legislation would eliminate the use of the Percentage Depletion Allowance for mining on public lands, while continuing to allow companies to use the reasonable cost depletion method for determining tax deductions.

My bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Half of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $125 million dollars, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Though there is no comprehensive inventory of abandoned mines, estimates put the figure at upwards of 100,000 abandoned mines on public lands.

There are currently no comprehensive Federal or State programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources.

In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: the taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the Nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry.

The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the Percentage Depletion Allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to use the reasonable cost depletion method for determining tax deductions.

Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, the arguments in favor of a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses are overwhelming. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified.

I thank the following organizations for endorsing this legislation: EARTHWORKS, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Pew Environment Group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, and the Western Organization of Resource Councils.

Mr. President, Burundi is a country that should receive much greater attention from this Congress and the Obama administration in the months and year ahead. As many of my colleagues will recall, Burundi was devastated by political violence throughout the 1990s, leaving over 100,000 people dead. Yet with the mediation of the late Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere and then South African President Nelson Mandela, and the active engagement of President Clinton, a peace agreement was finally signed in August 2000. Several armed groups refused to accept the agreement, but they were brought into the fold over subsequent years. And in 2005, Burundi held multiparty national and local elections, a major milestone on its transition to peace.

In 2010, Burundi is set to hold its next round of elections. These elections have the potential to be another milestone in Burundi's path toward reconciliation, lasting stability and democratic institutions. Over the last 4 years, Burundi has made significant progress in that direction. However, there are still persistent tensions within Burundian society, which could be strained during this electoral period.

Despite all the progress that has been made, Burundi remains a fragile state and regularly appears on watch lists of countries vulnerable to internal conflict. For example, the Brookings Institution's Weak States Index last year listed Burundi as the fifth weakest state in the world, behind Iraq, the DRC, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Moreover, according to the U.N. Human Development Index, Burundi continues to be one of the poorest countries in the world.

I have been particularly concerned by reports that both the Burundian government and the armed opposition Forces for National Liberation-- FNL--continue to resort to violence, intimidation and repression. According to the State Department's ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,'' members of the army, the police, and the National Intelligence Service were responsible for killings, torture, and beatings of civilians and detainees in 2008, although there were fewer such reports than in the previous year. Human Rights Watch has documented a number of abuses committed against democratic political opponents by state agents and unofficial proxies in the first few months of 2009. Meanwhile, the FNL reportedly continues to abduct civilians and use violence against local officials.

In the run-up to the 2010 elections, it is quite possible that these abuses and killings will increase as the parties compete for political power. Therefore, it is critical that the international community speak out now against human rights violations and the importance of maintaining the rule of law. We need to press the Burundian government to ensure it is not participating in any abusive behavior and help it to improve the independence and capacity of its judicial institutions. We also need to engage with and help strengthen the Electoral Commission so it can guard against any manipulation actual or perceived of the electoral process. Finally, we need to continue working with the United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi and the new Partnership for Peace in Burundi to advance disarmament and demobilization, transitional justice, reconciliation and development efforts. Burundi's peace process has come a long way, but the process is far from complete.

The United States has a unique role to play in these efforts. Because of our role in helping to broker the Arusha peace accord, the United States has significant good will in Burundi and is seen by many as a credible arbiter. In the years since, we have continued to work with regional stakeholders in support of peace. In the months leading up to Burundi's election, we need to increase that support and amplify our voice against abuses and political violence. I know President Obama's nominee to be our next ambassador to Burundi, Ambassador Pamela Slutz, understands these challenges and I look forward to working with her. Working together, regional leaders and the international community can help Burundians avert an electoral crisis and keep the peace process on track.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would establish an independent, bipartisan Foreign Intelligence and Information Commission to significantly reform and improve our intelligence capabilities. On July 16, the bill was approved, on a bipartisan basis, by the Senate Intelligence Committee as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Intelligence Authorization bill. The bill is similar to the one I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Hagel, which also had bipartisan support in the Intelligence Committee, and it is my hope and expectation that it will soon become law. The New York Times has also expressed its support for the commission.

The work of this commission is critical to our national security. For years, our intelligence officials have acknowledged that we lack adequate coverage around the world and that we have gaps in our ability to anticipate threats and crises before they emerge. The 2006 Annual Report of the Intelligence Community described how current crises divert resources from emerging and strategic issues. In 2007, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection testified that we need to ``pay attention to places that we are not.'' In 2008, the DNI testified that current crisis support ``takes a disproportionate share'' of intelligence resources over emerging and strategic issues. Earlier this year, during his confirmation process, the current CIA Director expressed his concern about the broad set of issues to which insufficient resources are being devoted. The problem, in other words, is not new, nor is it unique to any administration. It is systematic and it results from structural problems in how we develop priorities and allocate resources.

These structural problems afflict the Intelligence Community, but they are also much broader. Around the world, information our government needs to inform our foreign policy and protect our country is obtained openly by State Department officials. Yet there is no interagency strategy that integrates the capabilities of our diplomats and other embassy personnel with the activities of our clandestine collectors. The result is big gaps in what we know about the world-- gaps that don't necessarily require more spying.

This information pertains to instability and civil conflict, threats to democratic institutions, human rights abuses and corruption, and whether we can count on the support of a country for our policies. This information is also directly related to the threat from al Qaeda, its affiliates and other terrorist organizations. The 9/11 Commission recommended that our government identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. Yet, as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee, ``much of the information about the instability that can lead to safe havens or ideological radicalization comes not from covert collection but from open collection, best done by Foreign Service Officers.'' The solution, then, is to ensure that, if State Department or other U.S. officials are best suited to gather this kind of critical information, they have the capabilities and resources to do so.

At the core of the commission's mandate is the need for an interagency strategy that asks and answers four key questions: ``What is it that the U.S. Government needs to know?'' ``How do we best anticipate threats and crises around the world, before they emerge?'' ``Who in our government, within and outside of the Intelligence Community, is best equipped to get this information, report on it, and analyze it?'' ``And how do we develop missions and provide resources so that we are using all of our capabilities on behalf of our national security?'' The commission will provide recommendations on how the government can and should develop this strategy and whether new legislation is needed to clarify the authority of existing executive branch entities or create a new one. And it will provide recommendations on how to ensure that the budget process reflects the best and most efficient means to collect, report on and analyze intelligence and information, rather than the influence of individual bureaucracies.

The reform recommendations made by this commission will provide a critical and welcome boost to everyone, in the executive branch and in Congress, responsible for defending our national security. The Intelligence Community, as its own leadership has attested, needs guidance if it is to reprioritize global coverage and long-term threats. It also needs help in areas that need not be its top priorities: if State Department or other U.S. officials outside the Intelligence Community are best equipped to obtain certain information and are given sufficient resources, the IC can focus on areas where clandestine collection is most needed. The State Department will benefit from an interagency process that recognizes the critical reporting capabilities of the diplomatic service and allocates resources accordingly. The President will be provided with recommendations on interagency reforms that extend beyond the purview of any one department or agency.

Implementation of the commission's recommendations will allow the congressional intelligence and foreign relations committees to conduct oversight of the Intelligence Community and the State Department in the context of a clearly defined strategy. The

budget committees and the appropriators as well as authorizers will have an interagency strategy that explains the rationale for the President's budget request. Congress as a whole will be provided recommendations on whether new legislation is needed to reform the process.

This is not just a step toward good governance. It will ensure that taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently and effectively. Most of all, it will make us safer. This bill is not partisan, and it has nothing to do with who is in the White House. The commission will not investigate anyone, nor cast blame for long-standing structural problems. It seeks only to identify the reforms still needed and to provide recommendations, to the executive branch and to Congress, on how to achieve them.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would establish an independent, bipartisan Foreign Intelligence and Information Commission to significantly reform and improve our intelligence capabilities. On July 16, the bill was approved, on a bipartisan basis, by the Senate Intelligence Committee as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Intelligence Authorization bill. The bill is similar to the one I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Hagel, which also had bipartisan support in the Intelligence Committee, and it is my hope and expectation that it will soon become law. The New York Times has also expressed its support for the commission.

The work of this commission is critical to our national security. For years, our intelligence officials have acknowledged that we lack adequate coverage around the world and that we have gaps in our ability to anticipate threats and crises before they emerge. The 2006 Annual Report of the Intelligence Community described how current crises divert resources from emerging and strategic issues. In 2007, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection testified that we need to ``pay attention to places that we are not.'' In 2008, the DNI testified that current crisis support ``takes a disproportionate share'' of intelligence resources over emerging and strategic issues. Earlier this year, during his confirmation process, the current CIA Director expressed his concern about the broad set of issues to which insufficient resources are being devoted. The problem, in other words, is not new, nor is it unique to any administration. It is systematic and it results from structural problems in how we develop priorities and allocate resources.

These structural problems afflict the Intelligence Community, but they are also much broader. Around the world, information our government needs to inform our foreign policy and protect our country is obtained openly by State Department officials. Yet there is no interagency strategy that integrates the capabilities of our diplomats and other embassy personnel with the activities of our clandestine collectors. The result is big gaps in what we know about the world-- gaps that don't necessarily require more spying.

This information pertains to instability and civil conflict, threats to democratic institutions, human rights abuses and corruption, and whether we can count on the support of a country for our policies. This information is also directly related to the threat from al Qaeda, its affiliates and other terrorist organizations. The 9/11 Commission recommended that our government identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. Yet, as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee, ``much of the information about the instability that can lead to safe havens or ideological radicalization comes not from covert collection but from open collection, best done by Foreign Service Officers.'' The solution, then, is to ensure that, if State Department or other U.S. officials are best suited to gather this kind of critical information, they have the capabilities and resources to do so.

At the core of the commission's mandate is the need for an interagency strategy that asks and answers four key questions: ``What is it that the U.S. Government needs to know?'' ``How do we best anticipate threats and crises around the world, before they emerge?'' ``Who in our government, within and outside of the Intelligence Community, is best equipped to get this information, report on it, and analyze it?'' ``And how do we develop missions and provide resources so that we are using all of our capabilities on behalf of our national security?'' The commission will provide recommendations on how the government can and should develop this strategy and whether new legislation is needed to clarify the authority of existing executive branch entities or create a new one. And it will provide recommendations on how to ensure that the budget process reflects the best and most efficient means to collect, report on and analyze intelligence and information, rather than the influence of individual bureaucracies.

The reform recommendations made by this commission will provide a critical and welcome boost to everyone, in the executive branch and in Congress, responsible for defending our national security. The Intelligence Community, as its own leadership has attested, needs guidance if it is to reprioritize global coverage and long-term threats. It also needs help in areas that need not be its top priorities: if State Department or other U.S. officials outside the Intelligence Community are best equipped to obtain certain information and are given sufficient resources, the IC can focus on areas where clandestine collection is most needed. The State Department will benefit from an interagency process that recognizes the critical reporting capabilities of the diplomatic service and allocates resources accordingly. The President will be provided with recommendations on interagency reforms that extend beyond the purview of any one department or agency.

Implementation of the commission's recommendations will allow the congressional intelligence and foreign relations committees to conduct oversight of the Intelligence Community and the State Department in the context of a clearly defined strategy. The

budget committees and the appropriators as well as authorizers will have an interagency strategy that explains the rationale for the President's budget request. Congress as a whole will be provided recommendations on whether new legislation is needed to reform the process.

This is not just a step toward good governance. It will ensure that taxpayer dollars are used more efficiently and effectively. Most of all, it will make us safer. This bill is not partisan, and it has nothing to do with who is in the White House. The commission will not investigate anyone, nor cast blame for long-standing structural problems. It seeks only to identify the reforms still needed and to provide recommendations, to the executive branch and to Congress, on how to achieve them.

Mr. President, while there are a number of provisions in the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act that I support, I have some serious concerns about the bill that prevent me from supporting it. In particular, this bill does not contain a binding deadline to end the war in Iraq. While I am pleased that the President has committed to withdrawing our troops by the end of 2011, this redeployment schedule is too long and therefore may undermine our ability to combat al-Qaida and further strain our Armed Forces unnecessarily. In addition, while the President clearly understands that the greatest threat to our Nation resides in Pakistan, I remain concerned that his strategy regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan does not adequately address, and may even exacerbate, the problems we face in Pakistan. This bill authorizes funding that is being used to increase our military presence in Afghanistan, without ensuring that this strategy does not end up pushing militants into neighboring Pakistan and further destabilizing that nuclear-armed nation.

Among the provisions in the bill that I strongly support are a pay raise for those serving in uniform, a task force to review care for wounded warriors, and $20 million in additional funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.

In addition, my amendment to ensure that wounded members of the Reserve component are not discharged until their disabilities have been evaluated will help ensure a smooth transition back into civilian life for these service members. I am pleased that this amendment was accepted and thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their cooperation.

I am also pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment to require a report on the adequacy of funding for forces needed to respond to the consequences of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear explosive incident in the United States. Historically, the Defense Department has delayed efforts to stand up these forces and underfunded similar capabilities. This amendment will help ensure that these key civil support forces receive necessary funds.

Unfortunately, the Senate Armed Services Committee rejected my amendment to ensure our troops are not exposed to toxic fumes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This commonsense amendment would have prohibited the burning, in open pits, of waste that produces toxic fumes, including that which produces known carcinogens. I have urged the chairman to accede to the language in the House bill, which I helped to draft, that would prohibit this practice.

I continue to be concerned that foreign military assistance funds authorized by this bill are being awarded in violation of the Foreign Assistance Act. I will continue to work to ensure that the Pentagon complies with Federal law in its administration of these programs. The Foreign Assistance Act ensures that our foreign military assistance is administered in a manner that will promote legitimate governments and the rule of law. Failure to comply with these statutory requirements runs the risk of provoking instability, militancy and anti-Americanism in key regions throughout the world.

The bill contains a provision prohibiting the outsourcing of interrogations ``during or in the aftermath of hostilities.'' I have previously cosponsored similar amendments covering the intelligence community.

I am pleased that the legislation includes changes to the Military Commissions Act to improve the procedures that would be used in military commission trials. The Military Commissions Act violated the basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government, and any improvement to it is welcome. However, I remain concerned that the military commission process is so discredited that it may not be possible to fix it. And I have yet to hear a convincing argument that other options for bringing detainees to justice--the civilian Federal criminal justice system and the military courts martial system--are insufficient or unworkable.

The bill requires a report on the Department's efforts to reduce spending on unneeded spare parts. I have long had concerns about wasteful spending on unnecessary spare parts. I was pleased that early this year, at my urging, the Air Force committed to reducing its on order excess inventory by half, thus saving American taxpayers roughly $50 million.

This bill largely supports the President's efforts to restore fiscal responsibility to the defense budget. I was

pleased to support Senator Levin and Senator McCain's amendment stripping funds for the F-22 from the bill. The Defense Department has stated that it does not need any more of these aircraft, and that these funds are urgently needed to meet the real-world threats that we face today. I am also pleased that the President has reduced spending on redundant and unproven missile defense technologies. I am disappointed, however, that this bill contains billions of dollars of earmarks not requested by the Pentagon. This wasteful spending takes money away from our troops and endangers our national security.

Mr. President, in a democracy, no right is more important than the right to vote; in our democracy, no right has been so dearly won. This country was founded on the idea that a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a principle codified in the very first words of our Constitution: ``We the People of the United States.'' From the Civil War through the women's suffrage movement through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through the 26th Amendment, the continuing expansion of the franchise, a broadening of who ``we the people'' are, is one of our great American narratives.

Today I introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2009. This bill will guarantee that citizens who are not incarcerated have the right to vote in Federal elections. I am proud that the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Sen. Whitehouse, and the junior Senator from Maryland, Sen. Cardin, have agreed to cosponsor this legislation.

Once, only wealthy white men could vote. Once, African Americans, ethnic minorities, women, young people, the poor, and the uneducated were all excluded. Today, we look back at those times and wonder how our country could have denied its citizens such a fundamental right for so long. Yet today, we continue to disenfranchise an estimated four million of our fellow citizens who were convicted of felonies but are no longer in prison. Two million of these people have fully served their sentences, and the other two million are on probation, parole, or supervised release. These people are living and working in the community, paying taxes, and contributing to society. But they cannot vote.

At this time, 10 States still strip some people who have entirely completed their sentences--who have paid their debt to society--of their right to vote. Some 35 States deny the vote to people on parole, and 30 of those states also deny the vote to people on probation. I believe that the practice of stripping our fellow citizens of their voting rights is un-American. It weakens our democracy. It is an anachronism, one of the last vestiges of a medieval jurisprudence that declared convicted criminals to be outlaws, irrevocably expelled from society. This principle was called ``civil death.''

Back then, in the despotisms of medieval Europe, it was reserved for the worst crimes. Yet today, here, in the greatest democracy in the world, we continue to sentence 4 million people--people who have served their time, people who are contributing members of society--to civil death.

One might ask how something as undemocratic as civil death could have survived to the present day. Unfortunately the practice of disenfranchising people with felony convictions has an explicitly racist history. Like the grandfather clause, the literacy test, and the poll tax, civil death became a tool of Jim Crow.

Across the country, thirteen percent of African-American men are disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. In 14 States, civil death provisions have stripped more than ten percent of the entire African-American voting-age population of the right to vote. In 4 States, civil death provisions disenfranchise more than 20 percent of eligible African-American voters.

The architects of Jim Crow would be proud of their handiwork, and how it has lasted long after the rest of their evil system was dismantled. The rest of us should be ashamed, and yes, outraged. If we believe in redemption, we should be outraged. Because civil death has denied 4 million Americans a chance at redemption. If we believe in progress, we should be outraged. Because civil death keeps this country chained to the worst moments of our past. If we believe in democracy, we should be outraged. Because civil death strikes at the heart of our democracy.

There is a growing movement across the country to expand the franchise and restore voting rights to people coming out of prison and reentering the community. In the last decade, 16 states have reformed their laws to expand the franchise or ease voting rights restoration procedures. This bill continues that movement. It provides

that the right to vote for candidates for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because a person has been convicted of a crime unless that person is actually in prison serving a felony sentence. It gives the Attorney General of the U.S. the power to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce that right. It gives a person whose rights are being violated a right to go to court to get relief.

The bill also requires federal and state officials to notify individuals of their right to vote once their sentences have been served. This is an important part of the bill, given the long history of these civil death provisions. Even after this bill passes, many ex- offenders may not know their rights, and we should take affirmative steps to make sure that they do.

Upon signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said:

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by

man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible

walls which imprison men because they are different from

other men.

When prisoners return to their communities after serving their sentences, we expect and hope that they will reintegrate themselves into society as productive citizens. Yet, without the right to vote, rehabilitated felons are already a step behind in regaining a sense of civic responsibility and commitment to their communities. If our country wants ex-offenders to succeed at becoming better citizens, who both abide by the law and act as responsible individuals, then we need to restore this most fundamental right. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, in a democracy, no right is more important than the right to vote; in our democracy, no right has been so dearly won. This country was founded on the idea that a just government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a principle codified in the very first words of our Constitution: ``We the People of the United States.'' From the Civil War through the women's suffrage movement through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through the 26th Amendment, the continuing expansion of the franchise, a broadening of who ``we the people'' are, is one of our great American narratives.

Today I introduce the Democracy Restoration Act of 2009. This bill will guarantee that citizens who are not incarcerated have the right to vote in Federal elections. I am proud that the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Sen. Whitehouse, and the junior Senator from Maryland, Sen. Cardin, have agreed to cosponsor this legislation.

Once, only wealthy white men could vote. Once, African Americans, ethnic minorities, women, young people, the poor, and the uneducated were all excluded. Today, we look back at those times and wonder how our country could have denied its citizens such a fundamental right for so long. Yet today, we continue to disenfranchise an estimated four million of our fellow citizens who were convicted of felonies but are no longer in prison. Two million of these people have fully served their sentences, and the other two million are on probation, parole, or supervised release. These people are living and working in the community, paying taxes, and contributing to society. But they cannot vote.

At this time, 10 States still strip some people who have entirely completed their sentences--who have paid their debt to society--of their right to vote. Some 35 States deny the vote to people on parole, and 30 of those states also deny the vote to people on probation. I believe that the practice of stripping our fellow citizens of their voting rights is un-American. It weakens our democracy. It is an anachronism, one of the last vestiges of a medieval jurisprudence that declared convicted criminals to be outlaws, irrevocably expelled from society. This principle was called ``civil death.''

Back then, in the despotisms of medieval Europe, it was reserved for the worst crimes. Yet today, here, in the greatest democracy in the world, we continue to sentence 4 million people--people who have served their time, people who are contributing members of society--to civil death.

One might ask how something as undemocratic as civil death could have survived to the present day. Unfortunately the practice of disenfranchising people with felony convictions has an explicitly racist history. Like the grandfather clause, the literacy test, and the poll tax, civil death became a tool of Jim Crow.

Across the country, thirteen percent of African-American men are disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. In 14 States, civil death provisions have stripped more than ten percent of the entire African-American voting-age population of the right to vote. In 4 States, civil death provisions disenfranchise more than 20 percent of eligible African-American voters.

The architects of Jim Crow would be proud of their handiwork, and how it has lasted long after the rest of their evil system was dismantled. The rest of us should be ashamed, and yes, outraged. If we believe in redemption, we should be outraged. Because civil death has denied 4 million Americans a chance at redemption. If we believe in progress, we should be outraged. Because civil death keeps this country chained to the worst moments of our past. If we believe in democracy, we should be outraged. Because civil death strikes at the heart of our democracy.

There is a growing movement across the country to expand the franchise and restore voting rights to people coming out of prison and reentering the community. In the last decade, 16 states have reformed their laws to expand the franchise or ease voting rights restoration procedures. This bill continues that movement. It provides

that the right to vote for candidates for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because a person has been convicted of a crime unless that person is actually in prison serving a felony sentence. It gives the Attorney General of the U.S. the power to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce that right. It gives a person whose rights are being violated a right to go to court to get relief.

The bill also requires federal and state officials to notify individuals of their right to vote once their sentences have been served. This is an important part of the bill, given the long history of these civil death provisions. Even after this bill passes, many ex- offenders may not know their rights, and we should take affirmative steps to make sure that they do.

Upon signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said:

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by

man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible

walls which imprison men because they are different from

other men.

When prisoners return to their communities after serving their sentences, we expect and hope that they will reintegrate themselves into society as productive citizens. Yet, without the right to vote, rehabilitated felons are already a step behind in regaining a sense of civic responsibility and commitment to their communities. If our country wants ex-offenders to succeed at becoming better citizens, who both abide by the law and act as responsible individuals, then we need to restore this most fundamental right. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I voted against Senator Lieberman's amendment to immediately authorize a significant increase in the size of the Army because I did not believe it was in the best interest of our troops or our national security. There is an incredible strain on the force right now, including multiple deployments and insufficient dwell time, due to our failure to promptly and fully redeploy from Iraq. Rather than spending billions of dollars to increase the size of the Army, we should promptly redeploy from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threat posed by al-Qaida and so that we can reduce the strain on our troops. Indeed, the Iraqi Government has asked us to remove our troops from Iraqi cities, and as a result many U.S. servicemembers, including Wisconsin soldiers, are sitting on their bases with no mission.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am pleased to credit the Bush administration for originally proposing this fee, which is again proposed in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget. This fee carries proposed savings of an estimated $24 million per year, and could save as much as $115 million over 5 years.

We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and safety standards. Businesses that do not meet Federal standards should bear the burden of the reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's expense.

One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. I have worked throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Kohl to introduce the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part of my continued efforts to improve student achievement in our Nation's schools. One part of student performance that is often overlooked is nutrition, which can have a significant impact on student achievement. I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide more nutritious food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack program.

I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I was lucky never to have to worry about going hungry, and my parents did not have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast. The fact is, that is a choice many parents do have to make today, even if they get the help of reduced price meals. The current economic difficulties and rising unemployment have only increased the burdens facing low income families in Wisconsin and around the country as they struggle to provide nutritious meals for their children.

The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and

on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to the class. I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, in my home State of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Public Schools have been working with the Hunger Task Force for the past few years to implement universal school breakfast programs, which they have in place now in more than 80 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents.

This bill would target the most in-need schools--those with 65 percent or more of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program--with the funds necessary to implement a universal free breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways, aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers faced in trying to create a school breakfast program.

Our Nation faces a series of pressing education challenges in its schools, including most significantly a large achievement gap and graduation rate gap among minority and low income students. After decades of civil rights struggles, public education should provide all our students with access to equal opportunities, but the quality of public education provided to students of color and low-income students in urban and rural Wisconsin and around the country still does not come close to affording many of these students an equal chance for success. Too often these students learn in crumbling and outdated buildings, they do not have the same access to high quality technology in their classrooms, they are taught by the least experienced teachers, and they often do not have adequate access to important resources like school counselors and nurses.

These and a number of other factors contribute to the achievement gap in our Nation's schools and the Federal Government can help to address this gap by promoting smarter and more flexible accountability structures and increased supports for schools during the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congress should also help to address some of the many other issues facing our nation's students living in poverty issues that may not seem directly related to education, but impact the academic growth of students including hunger, affordable housing, and crime. This bill takes an important step to address hunger and also seeks to improve nutrition education by providing funds to expand school breakfast programs, boost collaboration between local farmers and schools, expand service- learning opportunities in our classrooms, and improve nutrition education programming for students.

In this economy, more and more parents are forced to make these kinds of decisions, and the school meal programs can provide a tremendous relief. As we look forward to reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act, it is vital that we take stock of the successes and limitations of existing programs. School breakfast faces a number of hurdles that, quite simply, other school feeding programs do not. Chief of those is time. For some students, getting to school early is impossible; for some, the lure of breakfast is not a strong enough draw to get up earlier. These are problems that schools across the country are facing and solving with creativity and dedication. This legislation will help support the innovative work going on in some of our nation's schools and will help to scale up successful nutrition programs in other schools so that hopefully one day, none of America's students will start the school day hungry.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am pleased to credit the Bush administration for originally proposing this fee, which is again proposed in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget. This fee carries proposed savings of an estimated $24 million per year, and could save as much as $115 million over 5 years.

We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and safety standards. Businesses that do not meet Federal standards should bear the burden of the reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's expense.

One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. I have worked throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Kohl to introduce the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part of my continued efforts to improve student achievement in our Nation's schools. One part of student performance that is often overlooked is nutrition, which can have a significant impact on student achievement. I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide more nutritious food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack program.

I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I was lucky never to have to worry about going hungry, and my parents did not have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast. The fact is, that is a choice many parents do have to make today, even if they get the help of reduced price meals. The current economic difficulties and rising unemployment have only increased the burdens facing low income families in Wisconsin and around the country as they struggle to provide nutritious meals for their children.

The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and

on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to the class. I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, in my home State of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Public Schools have been working with the Hunger Task Force for the past few years to implement universal school breakfast programs, which they have in place now in more than 80 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents.

This bill would target the most in-need schools--those with 65 percent or more of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program--with the funds necessary to implement a universal free breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways, aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers faced in trying to create a school breakfast program.

Our Nation faces a series of pressing education challenges in its schools, including most significantly a large achievement gap and graduation rate gap among minority and low income students. After decades of civil rights struggles, public education should provide all our students with access to equal opportunities, but the quality of public education provided to students of color and low-income students in urban and rural Wisconsin and around the country still does not come close to affording many of these students an equal chance for success. Too often these students learn in crumbling and outdated buildings, they do not have the same access to high quality technology in their classrooms, they are taught by the least experienced teachers, and they often do not have adequate access to important resources like school counselors and nurses.

These and a number of other factors contribute to the achievement gap in our Nation's schools and the Federal Government can help to address this gap by promoting smarter and more flexible accountability structures and increased supports for schools during the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congress should also help to address some of the many other issues facing our nation's students living in poverty issues that may not seem directly related to education, but impact the academic growth of students including hunger, affordable housing, and crime. This bill takes an important step to address hunger and also seeks to improve nutrition education by providing funds to expand school breakfast programs, boost collaboration between local farmers and schools, expand service- learning opportunities in our classrooms, and improve nutrition education programming for students.

In this economy, more and more parents are forced to make these kinds of decisions, and the school meal programs can provide a tremendous relief. As we look forward to reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act, it is vital that we take stock of the successes and limitations of existing programs. School breakfast faces a number of hurdles that, quite simply, other school feeding programs do not. Chief of those is time. For some students, getting to school early is impossible; for some, the lure of breakfast is not a strong enough draw to get up earlier. These are problems that schools across the country are facing and solving with creativity and dedication. This legislation will help support the innovative work going on in some of our nation's schools and will help to scale up successful nutrition programs in other schools so that hopefully one day, none of America's students will start the school day hungry.

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

Madam President, I recently spoke to my colleagues about the urgent need to pass health care reform, and in particular about the importance of ensuring that reform includes a strong public option. Today, I want to discuss another one of my priorities for health care reform, and that is long-term care.

I have been working to reform long-term care since I began my career in public service. In 1982, during my first term as a Wisconsin State Senator, I became Chair of the State Senate Aging Committee. I was not yet 30 years old, so you can imagine that I was not the obvious candidate to chair a committee on aging. It was through my work on this committee that I was first exposed to the fractured system of supports and services available to those needing long-term care, and learned about the efforts to reform

that system which were just beginning in Wisconsin. Over the next 10 years, made long-term care reform a priority, authoring the State's Alzheimer's program and drawing attention and resources to the management of this devastating disease. I helped expand Wisconsin's Community Options Program, known as COP, which provided flexible, consumer-oriented and consumer-directed long-term care services in community-based settings, enabling thousands of people needing long- term care to remain in their own homes rather than going to a nursing home.

I have continued to fight for long-term care reform in the U.S. Senate. I served as Chair of the Long-Term Care Working Group at the request of then-Majority Leader George Mitchell during the 1994 attempt at health reform. The recommendations of our working group proved to be one of the least controversial aspects of health reform legislation. Our recommendations drew from the lessons and experiences of states on the cutting edge of long-term care, such as Wisconsin. But when overall reform efforts failed, our recommendations went nowhere.

Now, 15 years later, Congress is debating health reform legislation once again. And reform is even more necessary than it was in 1994. More and more families are struggling to provide care for loved ones who are disabled, ill, and aged. More and more families face the difficult decision of moving a loved one into a nursing facility because no other options exist. These families are stuck in an impossible situation-- limited by financial resources and community programs, but dedicated to securing the best care for their family member. We can and must do better.

Long-term care reform is not a luxury, or a minor part of health care reform--it is needed in order to help achieve the goals of health care reform. Federal, State, local, and individual expenditures on health care, including long-term care, are unsustainable. In 2007, the Federal and State governments spent $311 billion on long-term care, or just under 3 percent of the United States' gross domestic product.

Approximately three-quarters of this amount represents government spending on Medicaid and Medicare. Long-term care reform could be one of the most effective tools to ensure solvency for our entitlement programs, reducing the Medicaid burden on State budgets, and getting health care spending under control.

I have worked on these issues for the better part of three decades. And after devoting so much time to long-term care, a number of things are clear. First, we must have a cohesive strategy to care for those needing long- term supports and services. Modern medicine has turned fatal diseases into chronic diseases, and enabled individuals to live much longer. These are tremendous accomplishments. But the reality is that these individuals need even more assistance because of medical advancements from their families, communities, and government.

Long-term care assistance is not something that most people can plan for or save for. This is a very important point. Of the 10 million Americans needing long-term care, 40 percent were working-age adults or children who have become disabled, or too ill, to live independently. This is something that the Trifunovich family in Cudahy, WI, knows all too well. At 33, Aleksandar Trifunovich suddenly suffered a deadly brain stem stroke, cruelly leaving him ``locked in.'' His brain function, eyesight, and hearing remained normal, but his entire body was paralyzed. Against all odds, Aleksandar survived surgery and has made miraculous development through rehabilitation. Today, Aleksandar is no longer ``locked in,'' but fights every day to preserve the progress he has made and regain even more of his mobility. Along the way, his sisters Vera and Andjelija have stepped in, as so many family members do, to support and care for their brother. The family is acutely aware of the current fractured long-term care system. Calling it ``unnavigable,'' they say that it is a daily battle to ensure Aleksandar has access to the care, supports, and services he needs to continue regaining his mobility and independence.

As for the 60 percent of older Americans and senior citizens needing long-term care, who theoretically might have had time to save for these medical needs, financing long-term care on their own is simply too expensive. Not only is the cost of long-term care growing at twice the rate of inflation, seniors are using long-term care supports and services earlier and more often. And families are feeling the strain. Studies estimate that over 85 percent of long-term care is provided by family and friends, but the cost of providing care and forgoing earnings elsewhere is not included in projections on long-term care spending. Long-term care reform is not an issue of making people be more responsible, save earlier, or save more. It is needed because the system, on a fundamental level, is strained to the breaking point.

Second, we do not necessarily need to spend more, but we must spend more wisely. This means establishing consumer-oriented and consumer- directed flexible benefits as well as making fundamental reforms to the linkages between the long-term care and acute care systems. For too long, long-term care has been synonymous with institutional care. Congress has a rare opportunity to redefine long-term care, and put real weight and spending power behind home- and community-based long- term care options.

Central to this effort is creating a system of home- and community- based flexible services that respond to individual consumer choice and preference from the initial assessment right on through to ongoing services, with case managers and others regularly consulting with the consumer and family members to be sure their needs are met in a satisfying manner. I have been working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for months now, to draw attention to the excellent programs we have in my home State of Wisconsin as we begin to fill the gaps in long-term care supports and services. Wisconsin's progress in long-term care should be used as a template for national reform, and I was pleased that Chairman Baucus included new incentives for home and community-based care programs like those Wisconsin uses today in the policy proposals he put forward earlier this year.

Wisconsin's progressive tradition is the driving force behind Family Care, our State entitlement program for low-income and disabled adults to receive necessary care, supports, and services in their homes and communities. Family Care currently operates in almost every county in the State, and provides a flexible benefit for beneficiaries to receive long-term care supports and services in the comfort of their own homes. Family Care has demonstrated two important things: First, it showed that you can establish a long-term care program that is flexible and able to respond to the needs of individual consumers; second, it showed that kind of flexible program could be a cost-effective alternative to nursing homes.

Family Care coordinates consumers with social workers, registered nurses, and local Aging and Disability Resource Centers to identify what each consumer needs to remain a productive and independent citizen. Entitlement benefits can be used for such purposes as hiring help with basic daily tasks like bathing, dressing, or shopping, or with challenges like shoveling snow, which in Wisconsin is not a trivial task.

Because of this benefit, long-term care consumers in the State are choosing to stay in their own homes and saving the State money in the process. One independent assessment of Family Care estimates that the program saves the State $1.2 million each month by allowing long-term care consumers to arrange for the care they need to remain independent, and out of the nursing home. If overwhelming popularity and savings were not enough, counties with Family Care have seen decreases in nursing home admissions, emergency room use, and hospital readmittance. Instead, long-term care consumers are seeing their primary care physicians more to maintain and manage their health.

How we care for those who need it most--seniors, people with disabilities and other who need long term care--is a key part of any effort to change our health care system. I have thought often of my work as Chair of the long-term care working group over the last

15 years. If just those recommendations we put together back then had been enacted, we might not be spending the trillions on health care that we are today. We can not continue to make the mistake of overlooking long-term care in the broader debate. Congress must place this critical issue front and center in the health care debate. It is time to put long-term care in the spotlight and use Family Care, Wisconsin's outstanding example of flexible and cost-effective care, as a model for broader reform.

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

Madam President, we are going to vote, I understand, shortly. It is an important discussion. I am glad we had a little exchange about it.

I first want to respond about what the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, had to say about this. He expressed concern that because of my amendment there would be no funding for emergency operations centers if this amendment passes. That is absolutely incorrect. It is the opposite.

To the contrary, there will be $20 million for emergency operations centers that will be awarded competitively to those most in need. Senator Lautenberg cited the 9/11 Commission endorsement for these centers. Yes, they did. What he failed to note is that those at the Commission recommended that the Homeland Security grants be awarded on the basis of risk, not earmarks such as the one requested by Senator Lautenberg.

Of course, there may well be a need in New Jersey, and I respect that. I am not saying that program would not qualify under a merit- based analysis. But it is not based on actual risk analysis and that is the problem. If there are worthy projects the Senator has requested, then I hope he would be confident that these communities in New Jersey will be able to compete successfully for the grants.

I am sure it was not intentional but it is misleading to make the Senate believe that these centers are being taken away by my amendment. It is the opposite. In fact, if you look at the way this currently operates, if we do not change this, currently the Senate bill directs that half of all these emergency operations center funds will go to only 10 States. The House earmarks all of these funds, and a fourth of the predisaster mitigation funds. Last year, FEMA only funded a tiny fraction of the emergency operations center applications it received because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks.

On this program the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Arkansas were talking about, 10 States get 50 percent of it and 40 States have to share the other 50 percent. What are the odds that that comports with any kind of rational analysis of real risk? Very small. I guarantee, because they are earmarks, that analysis was not done. It is not possible, because they were not put in the context of the comparative risk that is involved.

To respond to some of the remarks of my good friend from Arkansas, I understand the Senate has not earmarked any of the predisaster mitigation funds. However, if my amendment is not agreed to, FEMA will have to deal with the earmarks in the House report. I do not question that some of these earmarked requests may be legitimate. But if they are legitimate, then they should have no trouble in a fair competition for the funds based on merit and risk.

I think this is the key, even for those who support earmarks in another context. The problem here is that these are highly technical projects. We are talking about communications equipment, flood prevention projects that require engineering studies and the like. We do not have the expertise in Congress to make an objective determination of which projects are the most worthwhile. So who gets the funding? Those who are somehow able to get an earmark without any real analysis, without any real consideration of the merit as to who is at the greatest risk, where in the country we need to think about these disasters more than others.

That is no way to think about potential earmarks. Earmarks are sent to small communities to set up operations centers that do not need them while State centers remain unfunded. During recent flooding in Wisconsin----

I am happy to.

Madam President, I can tell you one thing they don't have in common is any analysis of the need or requirement they be done in their communities. What they have in common is somebody stuck an earmark in this bill.

It would be different, I say to my friend from Arizona, if these 10 States had shown on the merits they have the risk in their communities and they need to get ahead of these disaster situations. That would be great. In that case I could support that only 10 States get half the money. But when there is absolutely no analysis and where this actually undercuts the very integrity of the programs they are trying to protect, the lives of the American people, and leaves the other States to fend for themselves with regard to 40 States fighting for the other 50 percent--this is a terrible way to protect the American people from disaster.

As an answer to the Senator, I would say there is only one explanation. You and I know what it is. Somebody got an earmark and that is all.

The entire program?

They want the program merit based. They want the program to be based on actual need for these emergency operating sectors.

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

That is absolutely right, Madam President, I say to the

Senator from Arizona. The President of the United States has pressed to ensure these funds are awarded competitively and on the basis of risk. That failing, which is what will happen if we do not agree to this amendment, the recommendation is to not go forward.

I accept the premise that so many Members have identified here, that this is a worthwhile program, as long as it is based on merit and need. So the Senator from Arizona is correct in that. The President of the United States is clear on that. We have a chance here to fix this program, get away from the earmarks, and make sure it can continue; otherwise, there will be continuing efforts to say this is not what was intended.

Obviously, it was not what was intended. Yes, it is one thing to get an earmark for a museum somewhere in your State and that does take away from the general funds--and the Senator from Arizona and I have strong feelings about that--but it is another thing to use this in a situation where a program has specifically been set up to figure out where in the United States is the most important that people have money to be able to do what they need to do to protect the lives of the people in their communities because of a particular vulnerability to disaster.

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

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his questions.

I yield the floor.

Let's be clear. We just heard two good examples by the Senators from New York and Montana. These are not separate programs they have fought for. They are not even separate earmarks. These are earmarks carved out of a program for emergency operations centers that were supposed to be based on the merits, a comparative analysis that can be highly technical of where it is most needed and where it is less needed, so there is some kind of opportunity for all of us to compete openly for these dollars for our States to make sure the American people are protected to the maximum extent.

We have the Senator from New York talking about Mount Vernon being near New York City, where, of course, the 9/11 attacks were. That is understandable. But if it is that strong of a case, why can't it be made on the merits? Then we have a completely different kind of place-- Montana. I will not say for a minute that the Senator from Montana doesn't have a case. He talks about the greater Flathead Valley. Yes, he would know more about that place than anybody else in the Senate, but does that mean his case for that particular location is so overwhelming that it should not be reviewed in comparison to those of us who have similar concerns?

A majority of my State was covered with flooding waters last June. We did not have an adequate emergency operations center. We would like to be able to compete for these dollars in an open and fair manner through a program that has been designated for that purpose on the merits, not because somebody happened to sit on a particular committee or was able to get an earmark. Whether it is a threat to human lives in New York or Montana, if these Senators are confident they can make the case, they should make the case on the merits.

I say to the Senator from New York, whom I am thrilled to have in this body, Senators should be able to exercise their judgment. The Senators of this body exercised their judgment to help create the Emergency Operations Center Program. That program, which Senators help create, is supposed to be based on merit. That was the judgment of the Senators, not that some individual Senator would say: Hey, I heard from somebody in my area that this is important, and that should override the will of the Senate and the government that this be done in this way.

I remind everybody, the President has suggested that this program should not even continue unless we can get to merit-based consideration because that is the whole idea behind it. When the lives of American people are threatened by disasters and terrorist threats, our decisions should have something to do with the comparative needs and risks to the American people, not whether somebody is able to get an earmark.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Washington. I want to be clear because it is very easy for people listening to this debate to think we are trying to eliminate the Emergency Operations Center Program. That is the opposite of the case. This cleans it up and makes sure every State can fairly compete for it. So the truth is, this earmarking is the opposite of the accountability the Senator from Washington refers to. It creates the absence of accountability. There is no real scientific or needs-based analysis. It is just which Senator can get an earmark. It not only harms the program, it is gutting the program when 10 States, without serious analysis, get 50 percent of the money, and 40 States have to compete for all the rest.

The Feingold-McCain amendment would prevent earmarking of FEMA predisaster mitigation and emergency operations center grants. It does not eliminate them. While we may not all agree on the appropriateness of earmarking in general, I hope we can agree that grants that are supposed to protect Americans from terrorist attacks and natural disasters should be awarded on the basis of merits, not politics.

Currently, the Senate bill directs half of the emergency operations center funds to only 10 States. The House earmarks all of these funds and a fourth of the predisaster mitigation funds. Last year, FEMA only funded a tiny fraction of the emergency operations center applications it received because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks. That is not accountability. That is ruining a perfectly legitimate program the people set up to help people face the possibility of disaster.

Many past earmarks would not have even qualified for the grants under the established guidelines. Again, President Obama has pressed to ensure that these funds are awarded competitively and on the basis of risk; and he has said, if not, the program should be canceled. We can make sure this does not happen by adopting this amendment.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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