Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am today introducing the Teachers at the Table Act of 2009. This bill is the Senate companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York and Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska and would create a Volunteer Teacher Advisory Committee to advise Congress and the Department of Education on the impact of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, also known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB, on students, their families, and the classroom learning environment. The teachers serving on this committee would be chosen from past or present State or national Teachers of the Year and would be competitively selected by the Secretary of Education and the majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Every year I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties to hold a listening session to listen to Wisconsinites' concerns and answer their questions. Since NCLB was enacted in early 2002, education has rated as one of the top issues brought up at these listening sessions. I have received feedback from constituents about the noble intentions of NCLB, but I have also heard about the multitude of implementation problems with the law's provisions. The feedback from teachers, parents, school administrators, and school board members has been invaluable over the past 7 years and has guided many of my education policymaking decisions.

As Congress seeks to undertake the reauthorization of ESEA this year, it is my hope that this legislation can be part of the reauthorization. Feedback

from good teachers is absolutely vital to understanding how federal education policy is impacting classroom instruction around the country. This legislation seeks to help ensure that continuous feedback is provided to Congress about how the reauthorized ESEA is impacting student achievement and closing the persistent achievement gap that exists in our Nation.

The Teachers at the Table bill I am introducing today seeks to help ensure that Congress and the Department of Education receive high- quality yearly feedback on how ESEA/NCLB is impacting classroom learning around the country. The teachers who will serve on this committee represent some of the best that teaching has to offer. The bill would create a committee of 20 teachers, with 4 selected by the Secretary of Education and 4 selected by each of the majority and minority leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives. These teachers would serve 2-year terms on the advisory committee and would work to prepare annual reports to Congress as well as quarterly updates on the law's implementation.

Every State and every school district is different and this legislation ensures that the teacher advisory committee will represent a wide range of viewpoints. The bill specifies that the volunteer teacher advisory committee should include teachers from diverse geographic areas, teachers who teach different grade levels, and teachers from a variety of specialty areas. Creating a diverse committee will help ensure that the committee presents a broad range of viewpoints on ESEA/NCLB to Congress and the Department of Education.

Much work needs to be done this year to reform many of the mandates of ESEA/NCLB and I look forward to working with my colleagues during the reauthorization to make those necessary changes. One thing is certain whatever form the reauthorized ESEA takes, there will be a need for consistent feedback from a diverse range of viewpoints.

We need to ensure that the voices of students, educators, parents, and administrators, who are on the frontlines of education reform in our country, are heard during the reauthorization of ESEA and going forward during the reauthorized law's implementation in years to come. This bill seeks to help address that need by enlisting the service of some of America's best teachers in providing information to Federal education policymakers. The advisory committee created by this legislation will provide nationwide feedback and will allow Congress to hear about ESEA/NCLB directly from those who deal with the law and its consequences on a daily basis.

Madam President, I voted in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Inouye, No. 1133, because I believe it makes sense for Congress to review the administration's plan to close Guantanamo before providing funding. I continue to believe that President Obama made the right decision to close Guantanamo, and I look forward to reviewing his plan to do so. While closing Guantanamo may not be easy, it is vital to our national security that we close this prison, which is a recruiting tool for our enemies.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, and I am pleased to do so with a great champion on this issue: Senator Sam Brownback. For many years, we have both sought to bring attention to the terror orchestrated by the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA, and the suffering of the people of northern Uganda. We have come a long way in just a few years, thanks especially to young Americans who have become increasingly aware of and outspoken about this horrific situation. As a result, the U.S. has made increased efforts to help end this horror. Those efforts have yielded some success, but if we are now to finally see this conflict to its end, we need to commit to a proactive strategy to help end the threat posed by the LRA and support reconstruction, justice, and reconciliation in northern Uganda. This bill seeks to do just that.

For over two decades, northern Uganda was caught in a war between the Ugandan military and rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army, leading at its height to the displacement of 1.8 million people, nearly 90 percent of the region's population. Just a few years ago, northern Uganda was called the world's worst neglected humanitarian crisis. In 2007, I visited displacement camps in northern Uganda and saw firsthand the terrible conditions and the desperation of people forced to endure such conditions year after year. Meanwhile, the LRA survived throughout this conflict by kidnapping an estimated 66,000 children, indoctrinating them, and forcing them to become child soldiers.

In recent years, the LRA have come under increasing pressure. In 2005 and 2006, they largely withdrew from northern Uganda and moved into the border region between northeastern Congo, southern Sudan and even the Central African Republic. Then for almost two years, there was a lull in the violence as representatives from the Ugandan government and LRA engaged in sporadic peace negotiations in southern Sudan. The parties brokered a comprehensive agreement, but then hopes were dashed as the LRA's megalomaniac leader Joseph Kony refused to sign the agreement and reports surfaced that the LRA had been conducting new abductions to replenish his rebel group.

In December 2008, the Ugandan, Congolese and South Sudanese militaries launched a joint offensive against the LRA's primary bases in northeastern Congo. The operation failed to apprehend Kony and over the following two months, his forces retaliated against civilians in the region, leaving over 900 people dead. It's tragically clear that insufficient attention and resources were devoted to ensuring the protection of civilians during the operation. Before launching any operation against the rebels, the regional militaries should have ensured that their plan had a high probability of success, anticipated contingencies, and made precautions to minimize dangers to civilians. It is widely known that when facing military offensive in the past, the LRA have quickly dispersed and committed retaliatory attacks against civilians.

However, this botched operation does not mean that we should just give up on the goal of ending the massacres and the threat to regional stability posed by this small rebel group. Moreover, given that the U.S. provided assistance and support for this operation at the request of the regional governments, we have a responsibility to help see this rebel war to its end. In order to do that, I strongly believe we need a regional strategy to guide U.S. support--which includes political economic, intelligence and military support--for a multilateral effort to protect civilians and permanently end the threat posed by the LRA. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 requires of the administration to develop such a strategy. It leaves it up to the discretion of the administration to determine the most effective way forward, but it ensures this issue will not get put on the back burner and that we will not continue to rely on a piecemeal approach.

In addition to removing the threat posed by the LRA, we cannot lose sight of the importance that the Ugandan government address the conditions out of which the LRA emerged and which could give rise to future conflict if unchanged. Rebuilding northern Uganda's institutions and addressing political and economic grievances is the surest safeguard against future violence and instability. The government of Uganda committed last year to move forward with that reconstruction and reconciliation process under the framework of its Peace, Recovery and Development, the PRDP plan. International donors, including the United States, have already put forth substantial funds for that process. However, thus far it has been hampered by a lack of strategic coordination, weak leadership and the government's limited capacity. In particular, there has been very little progress toward establishing the mechanisms envisaged by the peace agreement to address the original causes of the war and promote reconciliation and justice.

Our legislation recognizes the importance of helping the Ugandan government to reinvigorate the PRDP process. The second part of the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 encourages the U.S. to increase assistance in the upcoming fiscal years for recovery with the condition that the Ugandan government demonstrates a commitment to genuine, transparent and accountable reconstruction. We should better leverage our contributions to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Finally, this legislation authorizes a small amount of additional assistance to see that mechanisms are finally established to promote accountability and reconciliation in Uganda on both local and national levels. A failure to address the underlying political grievances in northern Uganda could lead to new conflicts in the future.

As my colleagues know, I make it a practice to pay for all bills that I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by reducing funds appropriated for excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force. A report by the Government Accountability Office in 2007 found that more than half of the Air Force's secondary inventory or spare parts, worth roughly $31.4 billion, were not needed to support required on-hand and on-order inventory levels for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. The GAO report concluded that this is not only wasteful, but could also negatively impact readiness. The Air Force has acknowledged that it currently has over $100 million of spare parts on order for which it has no need.

Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but last year's Office of Management and Budget's projections confirm that we have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country. We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. I believe reducing the excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force by $40 million, a small amount, to pay for this bill is a responsible move that we can all support.

Americans from all states and all walks of life have been touched by the stories of children from northern Uganda abducted and forced to commit unspeakable acts. Congress, too, has a long history of being involved with efforts to help end this rebel war, dating back to the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act that we passed in 2004, which committed the United States to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to the conflict. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 reaffirms and refocuses that commitment to help see this--one of Africa's longest running and most gruesome rebel wars--to its finish. I believe that, with the necessary leadership and strategic vision envisioned by this legislation, we can contribute to that end. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, and I am pleased to do so with a great champion on this issue: Senator Sam Brownback. For many years, we have both sought to bring attention to the terror orchestrated by the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA, and the suffering of the people of northern Uganda. We have come a long way in just a few years, thanks especially to young Americans who have become increasingly aware of and outspoken about this horrific situation. As a result, the U.S. has made increased efforts to help end this horror. Those efforts have yielded some success, but if we are now to finally see this conflict to its end, we need to commit to a proactive strategy to help end the threat posed by the LRA and support reconstruction, justice, and reconciliation in northern Uganda. This bill seeks to do just that.

For over two decades, northern Uganda was caught in a war between the Ugandan military and rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army, leading at its height to the displacement of 1.8 million people, nearly 90 percent of the region's population. Just a few years ago, northern Uganda was called the world's worst neglected humanitarian crisis. In 2007, I visited displacement camps in northern Uganda and saw firsthand the terrible conditions and the desperation of people forced to endure such conditions year after year. Meanwhile, the LRA survived throughout this conflict by kidnapping an estimated 66,000 children, indoctrinating them, and forcing them to become child soldiers.

In recent years, the LRA have come under increasing pressure. In 2005 and 2006, they largely withdrew from northern Uganda and moved into the border region between northeastern Congo, southern Sudan and even the Central African Republic. Then for almost two years, there was a lull in the violence as representatives from the Ugandan government and LRA engaged in sporadic peace negotiations in southern Sudan. The parties brokered a comprehensive agreement, but then hopes were dashed as the LRA's megalomaniac leader Joseph Kony refused to sign the agreement and reports surfaced that the LRA had been conducting new abductions to replenish his rebel group.

In December 2008, the Ugandan, Congolese and South Sudanese militaries launched a joint offensive against the LRA's primary bases in northeastern Congo. The operation failed to apprehend Kony and over the following two months, his forces retaliated against civilians in the region, leaving over 900 people dead. It's tragically clear that insufficient attention and resources were devoted to ensuring the protection of civilians during the operation. Before launching any operation against the rebels, the regional militaries should have ensured that their plan had a high probability of success, anticipated contingencies, and made precautions to minimize dangers to civilians. It is widely known that when facing military offensive in the past, the LRA have quickly dispersed and committed retaliatory attacks against civilians.

However, this botched operation does not mean that we should just give up on the goal of ending the massacres and the threat to regional stability posed by this small rebel group. Moreover, given that the U.S. provided assistance and support for this operation at the request of the regional governments, we have a responsibility to help see this rebel war to its end. In order to do that, I strongly believe we need a regional strategy to guide U.S. support--which includes political economic, intelligence and military support--for a multilateral effort to protect civilians and permanently end the threat posed by the LRA. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 requires of the administration to develop such a strategy. It leaves it up to the discretion of the administration to determine the most effective way forward, but it ensures this issue will not get put on the back burner and that we will not continue to rely on a piecemeal approach.

In addition to removing the threat posed by the LRA, we cannot lose sight of the importance that the Ugandan government address the conditions out of which the LRA emerged and which could give rise to future conflict if unchanged. Rebuilding northern Uganda's institutions and addressing political and economic grievances is the surest safeguard against future violence and instability. The government of Uganda committed last year to move forward with that reconstruction and reconciliation process under the framework of its Peace, Recovery and Development, the PRDP plan. International donors, including the United States, have already put forth substantial funds for that process. However, thus far it has been hampered by a lack of strategic coordination, weak leadership and the government's limited capacity. In particular, there has been very little progress toward establishing the mechanisms envisaged by the peace agreement to address the original causes of the war and promote reconciliation and justice.

Our legislation recognizes the importance of helping the Ugandan government to reinvigorate the PRDP process. The second part of the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 encourages the U.S. to increase assistance in the upcoming fiscal years for recovery with the condition that the Ugandan government demonstrates a commitment to genuine, transparent and accountable reconstruction. We should better leverage our contributions to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Finally, this legislation authorizes a small amount of additional assistance to see that mechanisms are finally established to promote accountability and reconciliation in Uganda on both local and national levels. A failure to address the underlying political grievances in northern Uganda could lead to new conflicts in the future.

As my colleagues know, I make it a practice to pay for all bills that I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by reducing funds appropriated for excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force. A report by the Government Accountability Office in 2007 found that more than half of the Air Force's secondary inventory or spare parts, worth roughly $31.4 billion, were not needed to support required on-hand and on-order inventory levels for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. The GAO report concluded that this is not only wasteful, but could also negatively impact readiness. The Air Force has acknowledged that it currently has over $100 million of spare parts on order for which it has no need.

Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but last year's Office of Management and Budget's projections confirm that we have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country. We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. I believe reducing the excess secondary inventory for the Department of the Air Force by $40 million, a small amount, to pay for this bill is a responsible move that we can all support.

Americans from all states and all walks of life have been touched by the stories of children from northern Uganda abducted and forced to commit unspeakable acts. Congress, too, has a long history of being involved with efforts to help end this rebel war, dating back to the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act that we passed in 2004, which committed the United States to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to the conflict. The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 reaffirms and refocuses that commitment to help see this--one of Africa's longest running and most gruesome rebel wars--to its finish. I believe that, with the necessary leadership and strategic vision envisioned by this legislation, we can contribute to that end. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life of Rev. Robert Cornell, a great Wisconsin public servant and teacher. For most of his life, Reverend Cornell called northeast Wisconsin his home--as a student at St. Norbert Abbey, a Congressman, and a professor of history and government at St. Norbert College.

Reverend Cornell was only the second Catholic priest to be elected to Congress when he represented Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District from 1975 to 1979. Just as he did all his life, Reverend Cornell came to Washington to fight for education and social justice for the Wisconsinites he represented.

But his greatest accomplishments may have come in the halls of St. Norbert College as he used history to help guide young Wisconsinites to new levels of academic achievement. During his decades in the classroom, Reverend Cornell would bring history to life like no other. He brought out the best in his students with captivating lectures that displayed his tremendous knowledge, experience, and wit. His impact will certainly be felt for years to come through the countless students he taught and mentored.

Reverend Cornell stands out as a towering figure in the history of northeast Wisconsin. His influence on education and public service has left a lasting mark on our State.

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

Mr. President, it is critically important to the country and to my State of Wisconsin that we do everything we can to preserve an American auto manufacturing industry. The domestic auto industry has been vital to the economic development of Wisconsin for much of the last century, but that industry is undergoing a rapid restructuring right now, and I am very concerned about how this restructuring will affect communities in Wisconsin.

We need an American auto industry, but it can't be American in name only. American jobs must be protected. Unfortunately, the auto restructuring plans that have been put forward contain proposals that ship jobs overseas. That is not acceptable to me or to my constituents. The taxpayer dollars that are propping up the industry should be used to preserve family-supporting jobs in Wisconsin and around the country.

My State of Wisconsin has been hard hit by the troubles in the auto industry over the past year. There are two major auto plants located in my State--a General Motors plant in my hometown of Janesville, and a Chrysler engine plant in Kenosha. In addition, there are a dozen companies in Wisconsin that support these two plants, including supply companies and car dealers.

Both the Janesville and Kenosha plants have received grim news from GM and Chrysler over the past year, including last year's announcement that production would cease at the GM Janesville plant and this week's statement that the Kenosha engine plant would close at the end of 2010.

The Wisconsin community, including workers, economic development officials, technical colleges, workforce development groups, Governor Doyle, the Federal congressional delegation, and others have mobilized to assist these communities in the larger region in responding to this troubling news from both GM and Chrysler.

I supported carving out some of the Wall Street bailout funds to help U.S. automakers because unlike the money heading to Wall Street firms, the money provided to the automakers actually had a chance of preserving essential jobs in the United States. But that doesn't mean we should give auto companies a blank check, which is why I said that any Federal assistance provided to the automakers should come with requirements that the industry reform itself, including producing more fuel efficient cars that Americans are now demanding. When Congress failed to pass legislation to provide Federal loans to the auto industry, I applauded then-President Bush for stepping in and using some of the Wall Street bailout money to help the auto industry while also requiring that the companies submit restructuring plans.

Frankly, I am appalled that the automakers that received taxpayer assistance are not prioritizing the retention of American jobs, including jobs in Wisconsin. Over the past several months, I have heard concerns from the workers at the Chrysler Kenosha Engine Plant that work that Chrysler had promised to assign to the Kenosha plant might no longer actually be assigned to the Kenosha plant. At the same time, Kenosha's workforce told me that the same work would likely continue as scheduled at a plant in Mexico.

In response to these concerns, I led a letter in early April, cosigned by Senator Kohl, Representative Ryan, and Representative Moore, to Secretary Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers. The letter urged the administration to consider including a priority for saving auto manufacturing jobs in the United States as the administration worked with the auto companies to craft restructuring plans. I received a response from Secretary Geithner that said it was the administration's hope that any Chrysler restructuring deal ``will help ensure that we retain as many Chrysler jobs as possible in Wisconsin . . . .''

Despite this assurance, the Kenosha community found out through media last week that in fact no Chrysler jobs would be retained at the Kenosha Engine Plant. Instead the Kenosha community was informed that the Kenosha plant would close by the end of 2010 while a Mexican plant slated to build the same product that has been promised to the Kenosha facility would remain open.

This news, which was not heard directly from the company itself, outraged the Kenosha community and other Wisconsinites who believe that their tax dollars should not be used to save jobs overseas, but should instead be used to save jobs in the United States and in Wisconsin--and rightly so. The Federal delegation, State and local officials, and the Kenosha workforce are united in working together to try to persuade the administration and Chrysler to reconsider this terrible decision.

I understand tough decisions need to be made as these companies restructure themselves. But both Chrysler and GM have received billions of American taxpayer dollars since December and the companies as well as the administration need to take steps to help ensure that those taxpayer dollars are being utilized for the purpose they were intended--to save American jobs. If Chrysler is going to close the Kenosha plant as well as other domestic plants while keeping its overseas facilities open, then we need to think seriously about whether it is in the interest of the American taxpayers to provide continued financial assistance to the company.

There may still be some hope for the Chrysler Engine Plant in Kenosha and the GM Assembly Plant in Janesville, and other American plants--if the administration steps up. The Janesville community is waiting to hear whether or not the incentive package it presented to GM will be accepted and the Kenosha community is waiting to hear whether Chrysler's decision to close the Kenosha plant will be reconsidered. Over the years, both the Kenosha and Janesville workers have been commended for their productivity, their creativity, and their willingness to negotiate fairly with the management at each plant and both communities are great locations for retooled auto companies to thrive in the future.

The first priority of any company receiving Federal taxpayer assistance should be to preserve jobs within the United States and I call upon the administration, Chrysler, and GM to reexamine their restructuring plans to make the preservation of U.S. jobs the top priority of these plans. I will continue to do all I can to support Wisconsin's workers and local communities in their efforts both to respond to these decisions and to ensure these auto companies prioritize saving auto manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin as the restructuring process moves forward in the coming days and weeks.

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

Madam President, I voted in favor of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 but I am disappointed that it does not include key reforms of our defense procurement system. While President Obama and leaders in Congress deserve credit for beginning to address the longstanding problem of wasteful and abusive defense contracting, we need to go further.

Secretary Gates has stated that we ``must consistently demonstrate the commitment and leadership to stop programs that significantly exceed their budget or which spend limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs.'' Unfortunately, this bill falls short in this regard. It permits programs to continue even if they have experienced cost growth of over 25 percent. GAO has found that 42 percent of our programs have experienced cost growth and that, due in part to such cost overruns, we have scaled back the number of weapons we are buying in 10 major programs by 30 percent. Congress's failure to make tough choices and restructure troubled programs is therefore having a direct impact on our ability to deliver sufficient quantities to our fighting forces.

Secretary Gates has also stated that ``we must ensure that requirements are reasonable and technology is adequately mature to allow the department to successfully execute the programs.'' This bill encourages such reforms, but unfortunately does not require them. For example, it requires additional reporting on the Department's reliance on immature, risky technologies but does not prohibit the Department from purchasing such equipment. GAO reported this year that of 40 programs that it has reviewed, the Department will decide to move to the production of nearly a fourth of them without requiring realistic testing of their critical technologies.

No company would buy a plane before they have flown it. I don't know why it should be any different for the U.S. Armed Forces. Indeed, given that our brave men and women in uniform are relying on these weapons systems, stricter standards should be enforced.

Unfortunately, these are not new issues. I first objected to inadequate testing of weapons systems in 1998 when the Navy sought to rush the F-18 through its tests, notwithstanding the fact that preliminary tests had discovered serious problems in the aircraft. I am disappointed that a decade has passed and we are still seeing the same problems over and over again.

I suggested that we should require higher level review of alternative acquisition strategies before purchasing systems that have not been tested in a realistic environment but was informed that this would be too strict of a requirement. While I am pleased that the committee at least accepted an amendment I cosponsored that will ensure that annual reports to the Congress identify programs moving into production without undergoing adequate testing, this is just a start.

Secretary Gates demonstrated his commitment to fixing these problems when he recommended the cancellation of several programs that were over budget, were behind schedule, relied on immature technologies and were designed to combat a military-peer that does not exist. GAO had been reporting that these systems were in trouble for several years. If these systems had been restructured when it first became obvious that they were unnecessary and unrealistic, it would have saved the government tens of billions of dollars and sped up our efforts to replace our aging weapons systems.

It is my hope that Congress will eventually forgo the parochial interests that have prevented it from making the tough choices that need to be made and stop repeating the same mistakes of the past. I will continue to work with my colleagues until we have achieved this goal.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

THe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on armed services

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2009 at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening the S.E.C.'s Vital Enforcement Responsibilities.''

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, to conduct a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Auctioning under Cap and Trade: Design, Participation and Distribution of Revenues''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2009, to conduct a hearing. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2009. The hearing will commence at 2 p.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 2:15 p.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Uncle Sam Wants You!: Recruitment in the Federal Government.''

Mr. President, the Treasury Department has committed to provide almost $250 billion in financial assistance to banks and financial institutions as part of TARP, which has become more commonly known as the bank bailout. Based on 2007 figures, 40 percent of all small farm loans come from banks and financial institutions that received more than $1 billion each under TARP. Those loans represent a third of the monetary value of commercial farm credit in these types of loans. So it is clear that a sizable portion of farm loans have been provided by entities that received significant TARP funding.

The Treasury Department's Making Home Affordable program that was detailed on March 4 requires TARP recipients that provide home loans to take steps to avoid unnecessary foreclosures. The idea behind the program is that institutions that benefit from taxpayer funds should, in turn, be required to help home owners as much as possible, by making foreclosure the last resort when loan modification is not a viable alternative. This plan does not apply to farm loans, even though most family farmers and ranchers reside on their farms, and their homes are commonly listed as security on their farm loans. So a foreclosure on a farm loan is also commonly a foreclosure on a home.

Like many other businesses, farmers and ranchers are struggling due to the ongoing economic troubles. The prices they receive have dropped by as much as 50 percent since last year. At the same time, input prices for many farmers remain relatively high. This squeeze from both sides has impacted dairy farmers in Wisconsin and across the country especially hard but is a growing concern in other segments of agriculture as well. Even when national prices have held up, in some localized areas the closure of animal processing facilities has virtually eliminated the market for some farmers' production. These factors beyond their control have meant it is increasingly difficult for many farmers to keep up with their payments, including farm loans.

Given that TARP has injected almost $250 billion to support the financial stability of lenders, it seems reasonable to expect them to offer restructuring as an alternative to foreclosure for farm loans-- just as they are required to do already for home loans and similar to the existing requirements for the farm credit system and direct Federal farm loans.

While Senator Gillibrand and I believe our amendment to extend requirements to provide loan restructuring as an alternative to foreclosure for farm loans is a sensible approach, we are willing to review the issue further and work with Chairman Dodd on the issue. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to accept an alternative amendment we crafted to require a special report by the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel on farm loan restructuring. This report will analyze the current loan modification policies used by TARP recipients and examine the alternatives that could be used for a farm loan. Additionally, Chairman Dodd has agreed to work with Senator Gillibrand and me to pull together a meeting of USDA and Treasury officials to hear from farm groups and farmer advocates to explain the growing need and how the existing restructuring program works currently under USDA direct loans and the farm credit system.

I appreciate the chairman's support and assistance. I just want to note that this is an issue where instead of running from crisis to crisis, we have a chance to be a little proactive and get ahead of what could become a serious crisis in farm country if conditions do not improve. That is why there was such extensive support for my initial amendment from across the spectrum of agriculture- related organizations including the American

Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America, Midwest Dairy Coalition, National Farmers Union, National Family Farm Coalition, National Milk Producers Federation, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Rural Advancement Foundation International--RAFI-USA--and almost 60 others. I will continue working to ensure that their concerns about farm loans are addressed.

Amendment No. 1032, as Modified

Mr. President, the Armed Forces have come a long way in addressing the bureaucratic hurdles that have long plagued wounded service members transitioning out of the Services. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that wounded service members do not go without income, due to injuries sustained in the line of duty. Currently, many are going without compensation of any kind because they are never told about the patchwork of programs designed to care for them as they transition back to civilian life and into the VA. This has been an issue of particular concern for members of the Reserve Components. Therefore, Sen. Murkowski and I are introducing the Wounded Warrior Transition Assistance Act to help ensure that wounded reservists and members of the Guard are informed of the various programs to compensate them for their injuries before they separate

from the military and to guarantee that there is no gap in income as they transition into the VA.

This bill was inspired by a young soldier from Wisconsin who came to me for assistance when he returned from Iraq with serious wounds. He had been separated from the Army without going through the medical discharge process even though he had sustained a serious injury that impaired his ability to work. No one had informed him that he may have been entitled to medical retirement, temporary disability retirement, combat-related special compensation or incapacitation pay due to the extent of his injuries. After his separation, it took several months for the VA to review all of his claims and begin compensating him for his injuries during which time his family struggled to get by. Now, nearly a year since he first contacted me, the Army has recognized its mistake and plans to evaluate him for medical retirement or placement on the temporary disability retirement list.

Unfortunately, this is a systemic issue. The Wisconsin National Guard has estimated that, in Wisconsin alone, there have been a dozen cases of wounded service members who were eligible for military compensation for their injuries who never received it and were instead sent home with nothing only to have to wait for the VA to process their claims. This has compromised their ability to focus on their recovery.

Members of my staff have been told by several officials within the Defense Department that they continue to see members of the Reserve Components given disparate and unequal treatment with regard to the medical discharge process. This legislation is urgently needed to ensure that wounded service members receive counseling about these issues before discharge so that they can make an educated decision about their treatment. Congress must act to convey the importance of this issue and to set a floor for how the Department will handle wounded members of the Reserve Components.

This bill would prohibit the discharge of wounded members of the Reserve Components until they have been evaluated for their eligibility for the various programs to assist wounded service members. The service member may elect to separate from the Armed Services after consulting with a JAG attorney. For those undergoing evaluation, the bill would ensure that they are returned to their home, if medically feasible, during the process. The Services currently have community-based wounded transition units established for this purpose.

If someone was prematurely discharged and cannot work due to his or her injury, the bill would require the relevant Service to return him or her to active duty, if the service member chooses to do so. It would also ensure that the Reserve Components have access to Defense Health Program funds. These measures will help ensure that future service members will not face the gap in income that created such a hardship for my constituent and his family. It is the least we can do.

In addition, this bill would ensure that wounded service members have trained advocates to help them navigate the entire medical discharge process. The fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act required the Defense Department to, among other things, provide service members with legal counsel during the physical disability evaluation process. In September 2008, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that only 5 of 35 Army treatment facilities had legal personnel dedicated to providing assistance during the disability evaluations process.

In addition, GAO has reported that there are still insufficient JAG attorneys to provide comprehensive legal support early in the evaluation process. According to Army staff, if attorneys counseled service members earlier in the discharge process, starting with the medical evaluation board process, service members could have a better understanding of what steps to take to ensure that they receive any compensation to which they may be entitled. Early outreach could also help to make the disability evaluation process proceed faster and more efficiently. This bill would require the Armed Services to hire sufficient personnel to provide comprehensive legal support early in the evaluation process.

At the same time, we should do everything possible to take advantage of veteran service officers who offer this counseling free of charge and at no cost to the federal government. Federal law requires commanders to make space available on base for chartered veteran service organizations that provide counseling to wounded service members. Therefore, I was extremely troubled to learn last year that several veteran service organizations that provide assistance to wounded service members, free of charge, including the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the National Veterans Legal Services Project, were all having trouble accessing U.S. bases for the purpose of providing counseling to wounded service members.

This bill would reiterate that the Armed Services are required by law to provide the space needed for wounded service members to receive counseling from trained advocates, especially during this time of war when so many are returning with serious wounds. Furthermore, it requires the Services to broadly disseminate information on the existence of the Wounded Warrior Resource Center, which, among other things, provides legal referrals.

This bill should not be costly. The Army has requested about 20 additional attorneys. The vast majority of the wounded service members will be medically discharged with retirement pay or other compensation and will not be in need of the assistance provided by this bill. Furthermore, the requirement that the Services retain wounded service members until they have been evaluated will sunset after five years, at which time it is my hope that the rate of deployments and subsequent injuries will be vastly lower.

Nonetheless, I have provided an ample offset to cover the costs of the bill. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Defense Department recovered over $600 million in overpayments to contractors over the last 4 years. The Department identified but did not recover an additional $273 million. The funds needed to provide for these wounded service members during the evaluation process would come from the recoupment of these overpayments.

The National Guard Bureau has informed me that this legislation would go a long way to closing one of the remaining gaps in care for those transitioning from the Armed Forces to the VA. I am pleased that the legislation has been endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the U.S. and the enlisted National Guard Association of the U.S.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert M. La Follette Sr. This weekend, people around my home State of Wisconsin, the U.S. and the world will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Progressive Magazine, which was founded by Bob La Follette and his wife Belle Case La Follette. The Progressive has been a powerful force for change and a leading advocate for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, clean Government, and many other priorities since its inception 100 years ago.

Throughout his life, La Follette was known for his diligent service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the U.S. His dogged, full-steam-ahead approach to his life's work earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.''

Robert Marion La Follette, Sr., was born on June 14, 1855, in Primrose, a small town southwest of Madison in Dane County. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1879 and, after being admitted to the State bar, began his long career in public service as Dane County district attorney.

La Follette was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1884, and he served three terms as a member of that body, where he was a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

After losing his campaign for reelection in 1890, La Follette returned to Wisconsin and continued to serve the people of my State as a judge. Upon his exit from Washington DC, a reporter wrote, La Follette ``is popular at home, popular with his colleagues, and popular in the House. He is so good a fellow that even his enemies like him.''

He was elected the 20th Governor of Wisconsin in 1900. He served in that office until 1906, when he stepped down in order to serve the people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate, where he remained until his death in 1925.

A founder of the national progressive movement, La Follette championed progressive causes as governor of Wisconsin and in the U.S. Congress. As governor, he advanced an agenda that included the country's first workers compensation system, direct election of U.S. Senators, and railroad rate and tax reforms. Collectively, these reforms would become known as the ``Wisconsin Idea.'' As governor, La Follette also supported cooperation between the State and the University of Wisconsin.

His terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate were spent fighting for women's rights, working to limit the power of monopolies, and opposing pork barrel legislation. La Follette also advocated electoral reforms, and he brought his support for the direct election of U.S. Senators to this body. His efforts were brought to fruition with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Fighting Bob also worked tirelessly to hold the Government accountable, and was a key figure in exposing the Teapot Dome Scandal.

La Follette earned the respect of such notable Americans as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Harriet Tubman Upton for making civil rights one of his trademark issues. At a speech before the 1886 graduating class of Howard University, La Follette said, ``We are one people, one by truth, one almost by blood. Our lives run side by side, our ashes rest in the same soil. [Seize] the waiting world of opportunity. Separatism is snobbish stupidity, it is supreme folly, to talk of non-contact, or exclusion!''

La Follette ran for President three times, twice as a Republican and once on the Progressive ticket. In 1924, as the Progressive candidate for president, La Follette garnered approximately 17 percent of the popular vote and carried the State of Wisconsin.

La Follette's years of public service were not without controversy. In 1917, he filibustered a bill to allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships in response to a series of German submarine attacks. His filibuster was successful in blocking passage of this bill in the closing hours of the 64th Congress. Soon after, La Follette was one of only 6 Senators who voted against U.S. entry into World War I.

Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 6, 1917. If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing through this chamber as he said: ``Mr. President, our government, above all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters pertaining to their government, in war not less than in peace, for in this government, the people are the rulers in war no less than in peace.''

Of the expulsion petition filed against him, La Follette said:

I am aware, Mr. President, that in pursuance of this

general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation,

requests from various individuals and certain organizations

have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this

body, and that such requests have been referred to and

considered by one of the Committees of the Senate.

If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I

should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their

consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have

been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold the

same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of the

mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the breadth

of a hair from the course I mark out for myself, guided by

such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and directed by

a solemn conviction of right and duty.

This powerful speech led to a Senate investigation of whether La Follette's conduct constituted treason. In 1919, following the end of World War I, the Senate dropped its investigation and reimbursed La Follette for the legal fees he incurred as a result of the expulsion petition and corresponding investigation. This incident is indicative of Fighting Bob's commitment to his ideals and of his tenacious spirit.

La Follette died on June 18, 1925, in Washington, DC, while serving Wisconsin in this body. His daughter noted, ``His passing was mysteriously peaceful for one who had stood so long on the battle line.'' Mourners visited the Wisconsin Capitol to view his body, and paid respects in a crowd nearing 50,000 people. La Follette's son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate after his father's death and served in this body for more than 20 years, following the progressive path blazed by his father.

La Follette has been honored a number of times for his unwavering commitment to his ideals and for his service to the people of Wisconsin and of the United States.

During the 109th Congress, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that named the post office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La Follette's honor. I commend Congresswomen Baldwin for her efforts to pass that bill and I am pleased she is introducing House companion measures of the legislation I am introducing today in the Senate.

The Library of Congress recognized La Follette in 1985 by naming the Congressional Research Service reading room in the Madison Building in honor of both Fighting Bob and his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., for their shared commitment to the development of a legislative research service to support the U.S. Congress. In his autobiography, Fighting Bob noted that, as governor of Wisconsin, he ``made it a . . . policy to bring all the reserves of knowledge and inspiration of the university more fully to the service of the people. . . . Many of the university staff are now in state service, and a bureau of investigation and research established as a legislative reference library . . . has proved of the greatest assistance to the legislature in furnishing the latest and best thought of the advanced students of government in this and other countries.'' He went on to call this service ``a model which the federal government and ultimately every state in the union will follow.'' Thus, the legislative reference service that La Follette created in Madison served as the basis for his work to create the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress.

The La Follette Reading Room was dedicated on March 5, 1985, the 100th anniversary of Fighting Bob being sworn in for his first term as a Member of Congress.

Across the magnificent Capitol in National Statuary Hall, Fighting Bob is forever immortalized in white marble, still proudly representing the state of Wisconsin. His statue resides in the Old House Chamber, now known as National Statuary Hall, among those of other notable figures who have made their marks in American history. One of the few seated statues is that of Fighting Bob. Though he is sitting, he is shown with one foot forward, and one hand on the arm of his chair, as if he is about to leap to his feet and begin a robust speech.

When then-Senator John F. Kennedy's 5-member Special Committee on the Senate Reception Room chose La Follette as one of the ``Five Outstanding Senators'' whose portraits would hang outside of this chamber in the Senate reception room, he was described as being a ``ceaseless battler for the underprivileged'' and a ``courageous independent.'' Today, his painting still hangs just outside this chamber, where it bears witness to the proceedings of this body--and, perhaps, challenges his successors here to continue fighting for the social and government reforms he championed.

To honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., during the week of the anniversary of

the Progressive Magazine, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.

I am introducing a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to commemorate Fighting Bob's life and legacy. The second bill that I am introducing today would authorize the President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The minting of a commemorative coin and the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal would be fitting tributes to the memory of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and to his deeply held beliefs and long record of service to his State and to his country. I hope that my colleagues will support these proposals.

Let us never forget Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s character, his integrity, his deep commitment to Progressive causes, and his unwillingness to waver from doing what he thought was right. The Senate has known no greater champion of the common man and woman, no greater enemy of corruption and cronyism, than ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, and it is an honor to speak in the same chamber, and serve the same great State, as he did.

Mr. President, the Armed Forces have come a long way in addressing the bureaucratic hurdles that have long plagued wounded service members transitioning out of the Services. However, much more remains to be done to ensure that wounded service members do not go without income, due to injuries sustained in the line of duty. Currently, many are going without compensation of any kind because they are never told about the patchwork of programs designed to care for them as they transition back to civilian life and into the VA. This has been an issue of particular concern for members of the Reserve Components. Therefore, Sen. Murkowski and I are introducing the Wounded Warrior Transition Assistance Act to help ensure that wounded reservists and members of the Guard are informed of the various programs to compensate them for their injuries before they separate

from the military and to guarantee that there is no gap in income as they transition into the VA.

This bill was inspired by a young soldier from Wisconsin who came to me for assistance when he returned from Iraq with serious wounds. He had been separated from the Army without going through the medical discharge process even though he had sustained a serious injury that impaired his ability to work. No one had informed him that he may have been entitled to medical retirement, temporary disability retirement, combat-related special compensation or incapacitation pay due to the extent of his injuries. After his separation, it took several months for the VA to review all of his claims and begin compensating him for his injuries during which time his family struggled to get by. Now, nearly a year since he first contacted me, the Army has recognized its mistake and plans to evaluate him for medical retirement or placement on the temporary disability retirement list.

Unfortunately, this is a systemic issue. The Wisconsin National Guard has estimated that, in Wisconsin alone, there have been a dozen cases of wounded service members who were eligible for military compensation for their injuries who never received it and were instead sent home with nothing only to have to wait for the VA to process their claims. This has compromised their ability to focus on their recovery.

Members of my staff have been told by several officials within the Defense Department that they continue to see members of the Reserve Components given disparate and unequal treatment with regard to the medical discharge process. This legislation is urgently needed to ensure that wounded service members receive counseling about these issues before discharge so that they can make an educated decision about their treatment. Congress must act to convey the importance of this issue and to set a floor for how the Department will handle wounded members of the Reserve Components.

This bill would prohibit the discharge of wounded members of the Reserve Components until they have been evaluated for their eligibility for the various programs to assist wounded service members. The service member may elect to separate from the Armed Services after consulting with a JAG attorney. For those undergoing evaluation, the bill would ensure that they are returned to their home, if medically feasible, during the process. The Services currently have community-based wounded transition units established for this purpose.

If someone was prematurely discharged and cannot work due to his or her injury, the bill would require the relevant Service to return him or her to active duty, if the service member chooses to do so. It would also ensure that the Reserve Components have access to Defense Health Program funds. These measures will help ensure that future service members will not face the gap in income that created such a hardship for my constituent and his family. It is the least we can do.

In addition, this bill would ensure that wounded service members have trained advocates to help them navigate the entire medical discharge process. The fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act required the Defense Department to, among other things, provide service members with legal counsel during the physical disability evaluation process. In September 2008, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that only 5 of 35 Army treatment facilities had legal personnel dedicated to providing assistance during the disability evaluations process.

In addition, GAO has reported that there are still insufficient JAG attorneys to provide comprehensive legal support early in the evaluation process. According to Army staff, if attorneys counseled service members earlier in the discharge process, starting with the medical evaluation board process, service members could have a better understanding of what steps to take to ensure that they receive any compensation to which they may be entitled. Early outreach could also help to make the disability evaluation process proceed faster and more efficiently. This bill would require the Armed Services to hire sufficient personnel to provide comprehensive legal support early in the evaluation process.

At the same time, we should do everything possible to take advantage of veteran service officers who offer this counseling free of charge and at no cost to the federal government. Federal law requires commanders to make space available on base for chartered veteran service organizations that provide counseling to wounded service members. Therefore, I was extremely troubled to learn last year that several veteran service organizations that provide assistance to wounded service members, free of charge, including the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the National Veterans Legal Services Project, were all having trouble accessing U.S. bases for the purpose of providing counseling to wounded service members.

This bill would reiterate that the Armed Services are required by law to provide the space needed for wounded service members to receive counseling from trained advocates, especially during this time of war when so many are returning with serious wounds. Furthermore, it requires the Services to broadly disseminate information on the existence of the Wounded Warrior Resource Center, which, among other things, provides legal referrals.

This bill should not be costly. The Army has requested about 20 additional attorneys. The vast majority of the wounded service members will be medically discharged with retirement pay or other compensation and will not be in need of the assistance provided by this bill. Furthermore, the requirement that the Services retain wounded service members until they have been evaluated will sunset after five years, at which time it is my hope that the rate of deployments and subsequent injuries will be vastly lower.

Nonetheless, I have provided an ample offset to cover the costs of the bill. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Defense Department recovered over $600 million in overpayments to contractors over the last 4 years. The Department identified but did not recover an additional $273 million. The funds needed to provide for these wounded service members during the evaluation process would come from the recoupment of these overpayments.

The National Guard Bureau has informed me that this legislation would go a long way to closing one of the remaining gaps in care for those transitioning from the Armed Forces to the VA. I am pleased that the legislation has been endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the U.S. and the enlisted National Guard Association of the U.S.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert M. La Follette Sr. This weekend, people around my home State of Wisconsin, the U.S. and the world will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Progressive Magazine, which was founded by Bob La Follette and his wife Belle Case La Follette. The Progressive has been a powerful force for change and a leading advocate for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, clean Government, and many other priorities since its inception 100 years ago.

Throughout his life, La Follette was known for his diligent service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the U.S. His dogged, full-steam-ahead approach to his life's work earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.''

Robert Marion La Follette, Sr., was born on June 14, 1855, in Primrose, a small town southwest of Madison in Dane County. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1879 and, after being admitted to the State bar, began his long career in public service as Dane County district attorney.

La Follette was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1884, and he served three terms as a member of that body, where he was a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

After losing his campaign for reelection in 1890, La Follette returned to Wisconsin and continued to serve the people of my State as a judge. Upon his exit from Washington DC, a reporter wrote, La Follette ``is popular at home, popular with his colleagues, and popular in the House. He is so good a fellow that even his enemies like him.''

He was elected the 20th Governor of Wisconsin in 1900. He served in that office until 1906, when he stepped down in order to serve the people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate, where he remained until his death in 1925.

A founder of the national progressive movement, La Follette championed progressive causes as governor of Wisconsin and in the U.S. Congress. As governor, he advanced an agenda that included the country's first workers compensation system, direct election of U.S. Senators, and railroad rate and tax reforms. Collectively, these reforms would become known as the ``Wisconsin Idea.'' As governor, La Follette also supported cooperation between the State and the University of Wisconsin.

His terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate were spent fighting for women's rights, working to limit the power of monopolies, and opposing pork barrel legislation. La Follette also advocated electoral reforms, and he brought his support for the direct election of U.S. Senators to this body. His efforts were brought to fruition with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Fighting Bob also worked tirelessly to hold the Government accountable, and was a key figure in exposing the Teapot Dome Scandal.

La Follette earned the respect of such notable Americans as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Harriet Tubman Upton for making civil rights one of his trademark issues. At a speech before the 1886 graduating class of Howard University, La Follette said, ``We are one people, one by truth, one almost by blood. Our lives run side by side, our ashes rest in the same soil. [Seize] the waiting world of opportunity. Separatism is snobbish stupidity, it is supreme folly, to talk of non-contact, or exclusion!''

La Follette ran for President three times, twice as a Republican and once on the Progressive ticket. In 1924, as the Progressive candidate for president, La Follette garnered approximately 17 percent of the popular vote and carried the State of Wisconsin.

La Follette's years of public service were not without controversy. In 1917, he filibustered a bill to allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships in response to a series of German submarine attacks. His filibuster was successful in blocking passage of this bill in the closing hours of the 64th Congress. Soon after, La Follette was one of only 6 Senators who voted against U.S. entry into World War I.

Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 6, 1917. If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing through this chamber as he said: ``Mr. President, our government, above all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters pertaining to their government, in war not less than in peace, for in this government, the people are the rulers in war no less than in peace.''

Of the expulsion petition filed against him, La Follette said:

I am aware, Mr. President, that in pursuance of this

general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation,

requests from various individuals and certain organizations

have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this

body, and that such requests have been referred to and

considered by one of the Committees of the Senate.

If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I

should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their

consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have

been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold the

same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of the

mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the breadth

of a hair from the course I mark out for myself, guided by

such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and directed by

a solemn conviction of right and duty.

This powerful speech led to a Senate investigation of whether La Follette's conduct constituted treason. In 1919, following the end of World War I, the Senate dropped its investigation and reimbursed La Follette for the legal fees he incurred as a result of the expulsion petition and corresponding investigation. This incident is indicative of Fighting Bob's commitment to his ideals and of his tenacious spirit.

La Follette died on June 18, 1925, in Washington, DC, while serving Wisconsin in this body. His daughter noted, ``His passing was mysteriously peaceful for one who had stood so long on the battle line.'' Mourners visited the Wisconsin Capitol to view his body, and paid respects in a crowd nearing 50,000 people. La Follette's son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate after his father's death and served in this body for more than 20 years, following the progressive path blazed by his father.

La Follette has been honored a number of times for his unwavering commitment to his ideals and for his service to the people of Wisconsin and of the United States.

During the 109th Congress, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that named the post office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La Follette's honor. I commend Congresswomen Baldwin for her efforts to pass that bill and I am pleased she is introducing House companion measures of the legislation I am introducing today in the Senate.

The Library of Congress recognized La Follette in 1985 by naming the Congressional Research Service reading room in the Madison Building in honor of both Fighting Bob and his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., for their shared commitment to the development of a legislative research service to support the U.S. Congress. In his autobiography, Fighting Bob noted that, as governor of Wisconsin, he ``made it a . . . policy to bring all the reserves of knowledge and inspiration of the university more fully to the service of the people. . . . Many of the university staff are now in state service, and a bureau of investigation and research established as a legislative reference library . . . has proved of the greatest assistance to the legislature in furnishing the latest and best thought of the advanced students of government in this and other countries.'' He went on to call this service ``a model which the federal government and ultimately every state in the union will follow.'' Thus, the legislative reference service that La Follette created in Madison served as the basis for his work to create the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress.

The La Follette Reading Room was dedicated on March 5, 1985, the 100th anniversary of Fighting Bob being sworn in for his first term as a Member of Congress.

Across the magnificent Capitol in National Statuary Hall, Fighting Bob is forever immortalized in white marble, still proudly representing the state of Wisconsin. His statue resides in the Old House Chamber, now known as National Statuary Hall, among those of other notable figures who have made their marks in American history. One of the few seated statues is that of Fighting Bob. Though he is sitting, he is shown with one foot forward, and one hand on the arm of his chair, as if he is about to leap to his feet and begin a robust speech.

When then-Senator John F. Kennedy's 5-member Special Committee on the Senate Reception Room chose La Follette as one of the ``Five Outstanding Senators'' whose portraits would hang outside of this chamber in the Senate reception room, he was described as being a ``ceaseless battler for the underprivileged'' and a ``courageous independent.'' Today, his painting still hangs just outside this chamber, where it bears witness to the proceedings of this body--and, perhaps, challenges his successors here to continue fighting for the social and government reforms he championed.

To honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., during the week of the anniversary of

the Progressive Magazine, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.

I am introducing a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to commemorate Fighting Bob's life and legacy. The second bill that I am introducing today would authorize the President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The minting of a commemorative coin and the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal would be fitting tributes to the memory of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and to his deeply held beliefs and long record of service to his State and to his country. I hope that my colleagues will support these proposals.

Let us never forget Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s character, his integrity, his deep commitment to Progressive causes, and his unwillingness to waver from doing what he thought was right. The Senate has known no greater champion of the common man and woman, no greater enemy of corruption and cronyism, than ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, and it is an honor to speak in the same chamber, and serve the same great State, as he did.

Mr. President, I will support this conference report, but I do so with great reluctance. Given the irresponsible and even reckless budget policies of the previous administration, our highest budget priority must be to get back onto a fiscally responsible budget path. This budget resolution does that. It may not go as far as I would like with respect to reducing annual budget deficits, but it is a significant improvement over what we have experienced during the past 8 years.

Moreover, the budget resolution sets this path under the most challenging of conditions. The Bush administration's legacy is one not only of fiscal recklessness, but also of economic recession, crisis in the financial markets, and a housing market in collapse. Even without the cost of cleaning up a set of international security policies that undermined our national security and cost trillions of dollars, this budget has been the most demanding a President has had to write since the Great Depression. And by and large it addresses our national priorities in a responsible manner.

However, there are some features of this resolution with which I take exception, most notably the use of reconciliation as a tool to expedite health care reform. The arguments over the use of reconciliation are familiar to this body. Sadly, a tool intended to streamline the painful process of deficit reduction has been used to clear a path for major policy changes that have, at best, only a passing relationship to reducing the budget deficit. This is not the first budget resolution to abuse the special budget procedures to ease the enactment of significant and potentially controversial policy changes. Perhaps the grossest misuse of reconciliation was to pass sweeping changes to the Tax Code in 2001 and 2003 that far from reducing the deficit actually exploded annual budget deficits and government debt. Indeed, we are still living with the downstream effects of those fiscally reckless measures that have left us less able to meet either the current economic crisis or our long-term fiscal challenges.

I had hoped that with a new President in the White House and Democrats in control of both Chambers we could restore a respect for the proper use of budget procedures. But while the budget we pass today is a huge improvement over those submitted by the previous administration, both with respect to honest budgeting and the fiscal path it embraces, its misuse of reconciliation to advance policy priorities is regrettable.

I opposed using reconciliation when it was abused by the other party to enact fiscally reckless tax cuts and when it was attempted to be used to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. I opposed it earlier in this debate as a way to expedite climate change legislation, and I oppose it now as a vehicle to fast-track health care reform.

Congressional leadership indicate they may not need to use reconciliation to enact health care reform, that it will be used only as a last option to ensure Congress acts on that vitally important issue. That may be, and I certainly hope this body will pass a health care reform measure under regular procedures. Health care reform is long overdue, and I look forward to the Senate finally acting on an issue that is so important to my constituents. But let's not kid ourselves. It is no more appropriate to use reconciliation as a hammer to push through health care reform under regular procedures than it is to use it directly to enact those reforms. Both are abuses. Both undermine its original intent. Both invite even greater abuses in the future.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. Just as its name suggests, the Arbitration Fairness Act is designed to return fairness to the arbitration system. This bill is not an anti-arbitration bill. If anything, it is pro- arbitration. I firmly believe that this bill will strengthen the arbitration system by returning arbitration to a more equitable design that reflects the intent of the original arbitration legislation, the Federal Arbitration Act.

President Calvin Coolidge signed the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, into law on February 12, 1925. Congress passed the FAA to make arbitration an enforceable alternative to the civil courts. Even as early as the 1920's,

there were concerns about the efficiency of the civil court system and a desire to allow a speedier alternative. The intent of the FAA, as expressed in a 1923 hearing before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was ``to enable business men to settle their disputes expeditiously and economically.'' In a later hearing on the FAA, it was clarified that the legislation was not intended to apply to the employment contracts of those businesses. This distinction is important because it illustrates that, while arbitration was something that the FAA's original sponsors wanted to promote, they were also careful to make clear that they didn't intend for arbitration to become a weapon to be wielded by the powerful against those with less financial and negotiating power.

Since the FAA's enactment, the use of arbitration has grown exponentially. Arbitration certainly has advantages. It can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I strongly support voluntary, alternative dispute resolution methods, and I believe we ought to encourage their use. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise arbitration can be used as a weapon by the stronger party against the weaker party.

One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in civil cases in Federal court is contained in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Many States provide a similar right to a jury trial in civil matters filed in state court.

I have been concerned for many years that mandatory arbitration clauses are slowly eroding the legal protections that should be available to all Americans. A large and growing number of corporations now require millions of consumers and employees to sign contracts that include mandatory arbitration clauses. Most of these individuals have little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of their contracts and so find themselves having to choose either to accept a mandatory arbitration clause or to forgo securing employment or needed goods and services. Incredibly, mandatory arbitration clauses have been used to prevent individuals from trying to vindicate their civil rights under statutes specifically passed by Congress to protect them.

There is a range of ways in which mandatory arbitration can be particularly hostile to individuals attempting to assert their rights. For example, the administrative fees--both to gain access to the arbitration forum and to pay for the ongoing services of the arbitrator or arbitrators--can be so high as to act as a de facto bar for many individuals who have a claim that requires resolution. In addition, arbitration generally lacks discovery proceedings and other civil due process protections.

Furthermore, there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators' decisions. Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is fairly narrow: if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud, or was biased, corrupt, or guilty of misconduct, or exceeded his or her powers. Because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it is a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it.

Unfortunately, in a variety of contexts--employment agreements, credit card agreements, HMO contracts, securities broker contracts, and other consumer and franchise agreements--mandatory arbitration is fast becoming the rule, rather than the exception. The practice of forcing employees to use arbitration has been on the rise since the Supreme Court's Circuit City decision in 2001. Unless Congress acts, the protections it has provided through law for American workers, investors, and consumers, will slowly become irrelevant.

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009, which I am happy to say has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Hank Johnson, reinstates the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes be made after the dispute has arisen. The bill does not prohibit arbitration. What it does do is prevent a party with greater bargaining power from forcing individuals into arbitration through a contractual provision. It will ensure that citizens once again have a true choice between arbitration and the traditional civil court system.

I should note that the bill includes two notable changes from versions that have been introduced in previous Congresses. First, the bill creates a new Chapter 4 of Title 9, separating the new provisions concerning arbitration of consumer, employment, franchise, and civil rights disputes from the Federal Arbitration Act. This should give some comfort to those who are concerned that the bill might have an unintended effect on business to business arbitration.

Second, the bill reverses the Supreme Court's April 2009 decision in 14 Park Plaza v. Pyett. In that case, the Court held that arbitration provisions included in collective bargaining agreements can have the effect of preventing employees from pursuing employment discrimination claims in court. Unions have never believed this was the case. The decision once again expands the reach of arbitration, making less effective statutes specifically intended by Congress to protect workers. Therefore, the bill provides that it generally does not apply to arbitration provisions contained in collective bargaining agreements, except that such provisions may not waive employees' rights to take constitutional or statutory claims to court.

In our system of Government, Congress and state legislatures pass laws and the courts are available to citizens to make sure those laws are enforced. But the rule of law means little if the only forum available to those who believe they have been wronged is an alternative, unaccountable system where the law passed by the legislature does not necessarily apply. This legislation both protects Americans from exploitation and strengthens a valuable alternative method of dispute resolution. These are both worthy ends, and I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in working to pass this important bill.

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