Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I was glad earlier this week to join Senator Leahy in passing a resolution commending Captain Richard Phillips for his brave conduct, and those members of our armed services, particularly members of the Navy and Navy SEAL teams, who rescued Captain Phillips. I also commend the leadership of the President and the efforts of many U.S. Government departments and agencies in their response to this crisis. These many acts of bravery and leadership are deeply inspiring, and we should recognize them.

However, while the episode involving the Maersk Alabama was resolved, we are likely to see more such episodes if we do not take comprehensive measures to address not only piracy on the waters but also conditions on land that enable it. We cannot ignore the fact that piracy off the coast of Somalia is an outgrowth of the state collapse, lawlessness, and humanitarian crisis that have plagued the country for over a decade. In recent congressional testimony, both Director of National Intelligence Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army LTG Michael Maples cited lawlessness and economic problems on land as the cause of the rise in piracy at sea. Until we address those conditions, we will be relying on stopgap measures, at best, to deter this piracy problem and we are unlikely to succeed in reversing the growing violent extremism in Somalia.

For years I have been calling for the development of a comprehensive, interagency strategy to help establish stability, the rule of law, and functional, inclusive governance in Somalia. This is the only sure and sustainable solution to address the problem of piracy--and the instability in Somalia--over the long term. Moreover, I am convinced that we have a unique window of opportunity for progress as a result of the Ethiopian troop withdrawal earlier this year and the establishment of a new unity Government relocated back to Mogadishu. This Government has the potential to unite Somalia if it demonstrates a genuine commitment to inclusion and begins to make a real difference in people's lives--in terms of security and basic services, such as protection, trash collection and job creation. Helping the Government to find tangible solutions to expand effective and inclusive governance must be a central part of our overall strategy to stabilize Somalia and address the threats of piracy and terrorism.

To that end, I continue to urge the Obama administration, as it develops its response to piracy, to make it a priority to engage at a high level with the new Somali Government. I have written to President Obama, asking him to personally call Somali President Sheik Sharif and indicate a clear commitment to work with his Government not just on maritime insecurity but also on establishing security and governance within the country. We have been engaging with President Sharif at the ambassadorial level for quite some time now, and I met the President in Djibouti in December. In addition, there needs to be a stronger and more sustained diplomatic push to engage with a wide range of actors within Somalia and stakeholders in the wider region--both in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East--if we are going to address the underlying problems that have contributed to piracy and rising extremism.

The events with the Maersk Alabama earlier this month have finally brought increased attention to the problem of piracy in Somalia's waters. But it will be insufficient if our response only deals with the symptoms and not Somalia's central problems. I urge my colleagues and the different committees who will examine this issue over the coming weeks and months to take this seriously. For if we do not finally deal with Somalia's lawlessness and instability, we will continue to see them manifest themselves in activities--be they acts of piracy or terrorism--that threaten U.S. and international security.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I remember a good friend, a great Wisconsin progressive, Midge Miller, who recently passed away at age 86.

Midge was famous for many things, including her vital work on Eugene McCarthy's Presidential campaign, her efforts to help found the National Women's Political Caucus and the Madison Institute, and her service on the Democratic National Committee, in addition to her many years of service representing the west side of Madison in the Wisconsin State Assembly. Above all, though, Midge was known for who she was rather than the many things she accomplished. She was, very simply, a force of nature. Midge was a dynamo who was always striving to do more and to get those around her to do the same. That was why she was loved by so many and why she will be so greatly missed.

I was proud to serve with Midge in the State legislature, where she was a legendary figure. She was a true reformer, a role model, and a treasured colleague. When I arrived in the State Senate as a young legislator, Midge was always complimentary and supportive, which meant a great deal to me. At the same time, in true Midge fashion, she never failed to give me either additional work or a reading assignment. It was that determination to keep working for change, and to make sure that the rest of us were working for change alongside her, that truly made Midge one of a kind.

Midge was an outstanding representative for the people she served. In the State assembly, she used the skills she had honed from her work on the McCarthy campaign, advancing women's rights, and as a leader in the Democratic Party, to great effect. She was a terrific ally, a formidable opponent, and an unfailing advocate for the people she represented. And, in the end, she didn't just represent the west side of Madison, she represented all who care about economic and social justice, and the countless other causes she championed.

As I make this tribute to Midge, I am particularly proud of the way she represented what is best about our State's progressive tradition. She was absolutely committed to making democracy work for everyday people, people who deserve a decent wage, safe working conditions and good health care, and who deserve to be treated equally, no matter their gender, their religion, or the color of their skin. Her values were the progressive values that have helped to strengthen our State, and the Nation, for more than a century.

Like so many Wisconsinites, my thoughts are with Midge's wonderful family, as people across the State and across the country mourn her loss. We are so fortunate that Midge devoted her tremendous energy, devotion and skill to bettering all of our lives. I am grateful to have known Midge Miller, and I am honored to pay tribute to her today.

Mr. President, I will vote for the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, S. 386. This bill improves enforcement and recovery mechanisms for mortgage, securities, financial institution and other frauds. In the context of today's global financial crisis, it is a very important piece of legislation, and I commend its authors.

The current economic downturn has many causes. But certainly fraud-- in mortgage lending and in the mortgage-backed securities and derivatives markets--played a significant role. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 does a number of things to help deter and uncover fraud, and compensate its victims. First, it authorizes significant new resources for the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other agencies to investigate and prosecute these kinds of cases.

In addition, the bill extends Federal fraud laws to the mortgage lending business, just as they apply to federally insured banks. Similarly, it makes sure that Federal prohibitions against false statements apply to statements made to influence mortgage lending decisions. Very importantly, because the taxpayers have now put extraordinary sums of money into propping up the financial sector, the bill makes clear that fraudulent activities in connection with the TARP program and the economic stimulus package can be prosecuted. The bill also reverses an erroneous Supreme Court interpretation of the Federal money laundering statute that was making it impossible to prosecute so- called Ponzi schemes. These simple and effective clarifications and expansions of current law will help protect the American people from these very damaging frauds.

I also strongly support Section 4 of the bill, which amends the False Claims Act--FCA. The FCA provisions clarify liability for making false or fraudulent claims to the federal government. A few concerns have been raised about this part of the legislation, which I would like to briefly address here.

One criticism is aimed at the bill's rejection of an ``intent'' requirement under the FCA. The Supreme Court recently held in the Allison Engine case that such a requirement exists. The bill simply returns the law to its original intent. The judicially manufactured requirement that the person making a false claim intend that the government itself pay the claim was giving subcontractors a way to avoid liability for fraud, which is inconsistent with the purpose of the act.

Another criticism alleges that the addition of a ``materiality'' requirement to the FCA is potentially broad and unclear. But ``material'' is defined in the bill in a way that is consistent with Supreme Court and other judicial precedents, so this claim is unconvincing.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 is an important accomplishment. Those who perpetrate financial fraud, which is so harmful not only to the victims of the fraud but to the economy as a whole, must be discovered and prosecuted. This bill makes it easier to do that, so I am pleased to support it.

vote explanation

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators Brownback and Durbin as an original cosponsor of the Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009. The purpose of this bill is to bring greater attention and transparency to the way in which the trade in three minerals--columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, or wolframite--is intertwined with the ongoing violence, displacement and human rights abuses in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The metals derived from these three minerals are used widely in the electronic products that we use daily, from cell phones to laptops to digital cameras. By working to ensure the raw materials used in those products are not benefiting armed groups, we can have a positive impact on ending armed conflict and human rights abuses in the Congo.

Specifically, this bill charges the State Department to support the work of the United Nations Group of Experts to further investigate and provide companies with guidance on the links between natural resources and the financing of armed groups. It also charges the State Department with developing a strategy to help break these linkages, while helping governments in the region to establish the necessary frameworks and institutions to monitor and regulate the cross-border trade of these minerals. Then, this bill requires U.S.-registered companies selling products containing those three minerals to disclose the country of origin of those minerals and, if they come from Congo or neighboring countries, to give further information, including the mine of origin. This requirement will compel companies to take responsibility for their suppliers and thus bring greater transparency to the trade in these minerals, which may enable more targeted actions down the road. Finally, this bill encourages USAID to expand programs seeking to improve the conditions and livelihood prospects for communities affected by this violence in Congo. We must not forget that the long- term goal is not to shut this trade down, but to support a conflict- free mining economy that benefits the Congolese people.

The United Nations Group of Experts has reported over the years that various illegal armed groups in eastern Congo profit greatly from the region's vast natural resources. In February 2008, the Group of Experts stated, ``individuals and entities buying mineral output from areas of the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo with a strong rebel presence are violating the sanctions regime when they do not exercise due diligence to ensure their mineral purchases do not provide assistance to illegal armed groups.'' They defined due diligence as determining the precise identify of the deposits from which the minerals have been mined, establishing whether or not these deposits are controlled and/or taxed by illegal armed groups, and refusing to buy minerals known to originate--or suspected to originate--from deposits controlled/taxed by these armed groups. In December 2008, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1857, broadening existing sanctions relating to Congo to include individuals or entities supporting the illegal armed groups through the illicit trade of natural resources. The resolution also encouraged member countries to ensure that companies handling minerals from Congo exercise due diligence with their suppliers.

The U.S. has invested financial resources and diplomacy over recent years in trying to bring peace and stability to eastern Congo, and there have been some successes. However, our efforts have ultimately been hindered by a failure to directly address the underlying causes of conflict. A study by the Government Accountability Office released in 2007 found that U.S. efforts in Congo are undermined by weak governance and mismanagement of natural resources. The plunder and unregulated trade of eastern Congo's rich mineral base continues to make war a profitable enterprise. This legislation attempts to finally confront and address that problem. It commits the United States government and those companies under our jurisdiction to shed light on the dynamics of eastern Congo's mineral economy and to take actions to reduce its exploitation by armed groups. This can be an important step--perhaps even a transitional one--as we work with our regional partners to help them establish and implement better frameworks for regulation and oversight.

Some may say the bill goes too far, while others may argue that this bill does not go far enough; that it has loopholes and lacks sufficient ``teeth.'' This bill is not perfect. However, we must realize the conflict mineral problem is a complex one. This legislation is just a first step to bring greater transparency to that problem, which will then enable more comprehensive, robust and targeted measures down the road. At the same time, we must tread carefully because there are many communities in eastern Congo whose livelihoods are intertwined with the mining economy. All-out prohibitions or blanket sanctions could be counterproductive and negatively affect the very people we seek to help. I am confident that this bill is sensitive to that complex reality. It tasks the Government Accountability Office, within two years, with assessing any problems resulting from the implementation of this Act, determining any adverse impacts on local Congolese communities, and making recommendations for improving its effectiveness. It also urges USAID to expand its programs to work with these communities and improve their livelihood prospects.

I also realize that some others may argue that this bill goes too far; that it imposes impractical or onerous requirements on companies who end-use these minerals. Similar arguments were made in the early days of the Kimberley Process. I appreciate that these three minerals often pass through extensive supply chains and processing stages before the relevant metals are used in technological products. Bringing transparency to those supply chains may not be easy, but it is something we can and should expect of industry when certain commodities are known to be fueling human rights violations. Industry itself has acknowledged this. In February 2009, the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition, which includes several major U.S. electronic companies, put out a statement saying that companies can and should uphold responsible practices in their operations and work with suppliers to meet social and environmental standards with respect to the raw materials used in the manufacture of their products. That was a bold statement and I want to work with companies to make it a reality with respect to Congo.

I traveled in 2007 to eastern Congo and saw firsthand the grave suffering of people who have lived through a decade of conflict and humanitarian crisis. The numbers are staggering: an estimated 5.4 million deaths over the last decade--making it the deadliest conflict since the Second World War. In addition, millions of people are still displaced from their homes, living in squalid camps where children are subject to forced recruitment and women suffer unspeakable levels of sexual violence. In my travels to many parts of Africa over the years, the suffering of women and girls in eastern Congo particularly stands out. I met with women and girls there who had been gang raped, often leaving them with horrific physical and psychological damage. I met with women who had lost their husbands, their homes, and their livelihoods and yet against all odds they refused to give up--if only for the sake of their children. I believe this bill will make attaining peace for these women and their families a little easier and that is one of the reasons why I am supporting it.

In 2006, under the leadership of then-Senator Obama and Senator

Brownback, the U.S. Congress passed the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act. That bill committed the United States to work comprehensively toward peace, prosperity and good governance in the Congo. The Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009 seeks to move us a step closer toward those goals. I urge my colleagues to support it, and thank Senators Brownback and Durbin for their leadership on this important issue.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senators Brownback and Durbin as an original cosponsor of the Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009. The purpose of this bill is to bring greater attention and transparency to the way in which the trade in three minerals--columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, or wolframite--is intertwined with the ongoing violence, displacement and human rights abuses in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The metals derived from these three minerals are used widely in the electronic products that we use daily, from cell phones to laptops to digital cameras. By working to ensure the raw materials used in those products are not benefiting armed groups, we can have a positive impact on ending armed conflict and human rights abuses in the Congo.

Specifically, this bill charges the State Department to support the work of the United Nations Group of Experts to further investigate and provide companies with guidance on the links between natural resources and the financing of armed groups. It also charges the State Department with developing a strategy to help break these linkages, while helping governments in the region to establish the necessary frameworks and institutions to monitor and regulate the cross-border trade of these minerals. Then, this bill requires U.S.-registered companies selling products containing those three minerals to disclose the country of origin of those minerals and, if they come from Congo or neighboring countries, to give further information, including the mine of origin. This requirement will compel companies to take responsibility for their suppliers and thus bring greater transparency to the trade in these minerals, which may enable more targeted actions down the road. Finally, this bill encourages USAID to expand programs seeking to improve the conditions and livelihood prospects for communities affected by this violence in Congo. We must not forget that the long- term goal is not to shut this trade down, but to support a conflict- free mining economy that benefits the Congolese people.

The United Nations Group of Experts has reported over the years that various illegal armed groups in eastern Congo profit greatly from the region's vast natural resources. In February 2008, the Group of Experts stated, ``individuals and entities buying mineral output from areas of the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo with a strong rebel presence are violating the sanctions regime when they do not exercise due diligence to ensure their mineral purchases do not provide assistance to illegal armed groups.'' They defined due diligence as determining the precise identify of the deposits from which the minerals have been mined, establishing whether or not these deposits are controlled and/or taxed by illegal armed groups, and refusing to buy minerals known to originate--or suspected to originate--from deposits controlled/taxed by these armed groups. In December 2008, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1857, broadening existing sanctions relating to Congo to include individuals or entities supporting the illegal armed groups through the illicit trade of natural resources. The resolution also encouraged member countries to ensure that companies handling minerals from Congo exercise due diligence with their suppliers.

The U.S. has invested financial resources and diplomacy over recent years in trying to bring peace and stability to eastern Congo, and there have been some successes. However, our efforts have ultimately been hindered by a failure to directly address the underlying causes of conflict. A study by the Government Accountability Office released in 2007 found that U.S. efforts in Congo are undermined by weak governance and mismanagement of natural resources. The plunder and unregulated trade of eastern Congo's rich mineral base continues to make war a profitable enterprise. This legislation attempts to finally confront and address that problem. It commits the United States government and those companies under our jurisdiction to shed light on the dynamics of eastern Congo's mineral economy and to take actions to reduce its exploitation by armed groups. This can be an important step--perhaps even a transitional one--as we work with our regional partners to help them establish and implement better frameworks for regulation and oversight.

Some may say the bill goes too far, while others may argue that this bill does not go far enough; that it has loopholes and lacks sufficient ``teeth.'' This bill is not perfect. However, we must realize the conflict mineral problem is a complex one. This legislation is just a first step to bring greater transparency to that problem, which will then enable more comprehensive, robust and targeted measures down the road. At the same time, we must tread carefully because there are many communities in eastern Congo whose livelihoods are intertwined with the mining economy. All-out prohibitions or blanket sanctions could be counterproductive and negatively affect the very people we seek to help. I am confident that this bill is sensitive to that complex reality. It tasks the Government Accountability Office, within two years, with assessing any problems resulting from the implementation of this Act, determining any adverse impacts on local Congolese communities, and making recommendations for improving its effectiveness. It also urges USAID to expand its programs to work with these communities and improve their livelihood prospects.

I also realize that some others may argue that this bill goes too far; that it imposes impractical or onerous requirements on companies who end-use these minerals. Similar arguments were made in the early days of the Kimberley Process. I appreciate that these three minerals often pass through extensive supply chains and processing stages before the relevant metals are used in technological products. Bringing transparency to those supply chains may not be easy, but it is something we can and should expect of industry when certain commodities are known to be fueling human rights violations. Industry itself has acknowledged this. In February 2009, the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition, which includes several major U.S. electronic companies, put out a statement saying that companies can and should uphold responsible practices in their operations and work with suppliers to meet social and environmental standards with respect to the raw materials used in the manufacture of their products. That was a bold statement and I want to work with companies to make it a reality with respect to Congo.

I traveled in 2007 to eastern Congo and saw firsthand the grave suffering of people who have lived through a decade of conflict and humanitarian crisis. The numbers are staggering: an estimated 5.4 million deaths over the last decade--making it the deadliest conflict since the Second World War. In addition, millions of people are still displaced from their homes, living in squalid camps where children are subject to forced recruitment and women suffer unspeakable levels of sexual violence. In my travels to many parts of Africa over the years, the suffering of women and girls in eastern Congo particularly stands out. I met with women and girls there who had been gang raped, often leaving them with horrific physical and psychological damage. I met with women who had lost their husbands, their homes, and their livelihoods and yet against all odds they refused to give up--if only for the sake of their children. I believe this bill will make attaining peace for these women and their families a little easier and that is one of the reasons why I am supporting it.

In 2006, under the leadership of then-Senator Obama and Senator

Brownback, the U.S. Congress passed the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act. That bill committed the United States to work comprehensively toward peace, prosperity and good governance in the Congo. The Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009 seeks to move us a step closer toward those goals. I urge my colleagues to support it, and thank Senators Brownback and Durbin for their leadership on this important issue.

Mr. President, this Saturday, I will join individuals and organizations around the world in marking World Malaria Day. This day is an opportunity to celebrate the progress that has been made by the international community in raising awareness of an invisible killer and the need to significantly reduce malaria deaths. Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable scaling up of efforts to prevent and treat this disease. In some places, such as the island of Zanzibar or the country of Rwanda, malaria prevalence has dropped significantly in just a few years. These success stories are a testament to the kind of positive difference we can make with robust and targeted health assistance.

I am especially proud of the leadership of the United States in this regard, particularly through the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI). Since its launch in 2005, PMI has purchased almost 13 million artemisinin-based combination therapies, protected over 17 million people through spraying campaigns, and distributed over 6 million insecticide-treated bed nets. In addition, the United States has worked multilaterally with international partners to fight this disease, through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Global Fund has provided roughly 74 million malaria patients with artemisinin-based combination therapies and distributed almost 70 million bed nets.

In addition to commemorating how far we have come, World Malaria Day is also an opportunity to recognize how far we still need to go. This disease is completely preventable and treatable, and yet more than 40 percent of the world's population is still at risk of contracting malaria and nearly 1 million people, the majority of them children, die from malaria each year. According to the World Health Organization, a child still dies every 30 seconds from malaria. Nearly 90 percent of those deaths occur in Africa. Moreover, malaria often coexists with HIV and neglected tropical diseases, and it causes great risks to efforts to promote child and maternal health.

In light of those realities, we must recommit to sustained international, national, and local leadership to end malaria deaths. I am pleased that Congress last year committed over the next 5 years to combat malaria in the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria Act. We must now deliver on that commitment, including maintaining our support for multilateral efforts of the Global Fund. At the same time, we cannot afford to address malaria in isolation; our efforts must be part of a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable approach to global health. In particular, I believe we need to invest more in strengthening local health systems that can deliver effective, safe, high-quality interventions when and where they are needed and ensure access to reliable health information and effective disease surveillance.

I commend the thousands of Americans and the many organizations that have taken up this cause and continue to work to fight malaria and save lives.

On Saturday, we should join them in committing to work toward a malaria-free future. To that end and in support of the World Malaria Day, I have introduced a resolution with Senators Isakson, Bingaman, Durbin, Cardin, Wicker, Brownback, and Cantwell reaffirming U.S. leadership for efforts to combat malaria. I hope our colleagues will support this resolution and, more importantly, join us over the coming months and years in working toward this year's theme: ``counting malaria out.''

Mr. President, while Congress was in recess, Rwanda commemorated the 15-year anniversary of the genocide. Fifteen years ago, a deliberate, centrally planned, and organized campaign of mass murder and rape was set in motion, which displaced millions and eventually took the lives of over 800,000 people. People were killed simply because of their ethnicity or political beliefs or an unwillingness to participate in the violence. The unspeakable acts of terror that ensued over those months in 1994 shocked the world, and yet the international community, including the United States, failed to act. The promises of ``never again'' rang hollow.

Fifteen years later, Rwandans have come a long way to repair their lives and rebuild their institutions. I am pleased that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Gacaca Courts continue to work to bring to justice those guilty of the most egregious crimes. Accountability is an essential step to promote healing for the survivors and to prevent a return to conflict in Rwanda. At the same time, I have been deeply moved that many survivors of this terror have been willing to forgive and live side by side with many of those who participated in it. Continuing to foster tolerance and openness, and ensure there is sufficient political space for dissent and discussion is critical to maintain future stability in Rwanda.

As a Washington Post editorial recently noted, while the current Rwanda government has made impressive ``accomplishments in righting its country and improving basic services it continues to be intolerant of criticism.'' According to the State Department's reports and those of non-governmental organizations, there is a worrying pattern of repression in Rwanda against political opponents and civil society. Over the long run, suppression and intimidation can undermine security rather than protect it, forcing healthy debates into illicit channels, and casting doubt on the legitimacy of the prevailing order. If this pattern continues, it could intensify Rwanda's ethnic and social tensions, and ultimately lead to future conflicts.

Rwanda has become a good friend and partner of the United States over the years, and our countries have worked together on many important joint initiatives. Most notably, they have become a leader on the African continent in responding to mass atrocities and contributing to peacekeeping operations. This is deeply inspiring given all that they have gone through, and we should continue to work with them to prevent future genocide and mass atrocity. However, we fail to be true friends to the people of Rwanda when we turn a blind eye to patterns of repression in their country, or fail to raise our voices in support of civil and political rights. As we remember those tragic events 15 years ago and commemorate those who perished, we should resolve to pay close attention to the present. The people of Rwanda deserve more than our regret; they deserve our support for their efforts to build a more just, more free and more secure future.

Mr. President, I strongly believe that the Senate needs to address the serious and pressing problem of climate change, and I look forward to that debate this Congress. I do not, however, believe it would be appropriate to use the fast-track procedure known as reconciliation to consider climate change legislation. Reconciliation is intended for legislation that reduces the deficit. I have strongly opposed past efforts to use reconciliation to address policy matters, such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It wasn't appropriate then; it isn't appropriate now.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to restore Clean Water Act protections for the same waters that were covered by the Act prior to two recent divisive U.S. Supreme Court decisions. I want to thank Senators Boxer, Cardin, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Reed, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply and agricultural and industrial uses, and available for wildlife and fish habitat has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of Government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment.

We must remain committed to the Clean Water Act of 1972, and to that end, Congress must enact legislation. Every day that Congress fails to act, more and more rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters that have long

been protected by the Clean Water Act are being stripped of their Clean Water Act protections and being polluted or destroyed altogether. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 20,000 determinations have been made since the court decisions on whether specific water bodies are covered by the act. Congress should not delay action until protections are stripped from more water bodies throughout the country. The EPA estimates that the court decisions could ultimately impact over half the stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands in the lower 48 States. Lost protections for these waters means the drinking water sources for over 110 million Americans are in jeopardy of pollution.

The Clean Water Restoration Act must be enacted to restore historical protections, using a surgical fix that reaffirms protections for the same categories of waters identified in the over three-decade-old EPA regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.''

This is a serious problem, demanding serious debate and action. If we do not act, we will be allowing the Clean Water Act to be rolled back. That would mean increased uncertainty, confusion, litigation, and permitting delays resulting from the court decisions and subsequent agency guidelines. It also would pose a very real threat to Clean Water Act protections for public water supplies, industrial and agriculture uses, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

I am pleased to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the Senate, and to have support from a range of interested parties, including former EPA Administrators from both Republican and Democratic administrations; governors; attorneys general; State agencies; professional societies and associations; labor and business professionals and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting, fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations.

In response to suggestions I received last Congress, I made several revisions to the bill to make Congressional intent very clear.

My bill, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would continue to protect only those waters historically protected by the Clean Water Act prior to the Supreme Court decisions. This is the crux of my bill, Section 4. In 1972, Congress granted Clean Water Act protections to ``navigable waters'' and broadly defined those as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas'', in stark contrast to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, which had only provided protections for the commercially navigable waters. Since the 1970s, EPA and Corps regulations, 40 CFR 122.2 and 33 CFR 328.3, have properly established the scope of ``waters of the United States'' to be protected, including all intrastate and interstate rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My bill simply takes the longstanding, existing regulatory definition for ``waters of the United States'' and puts it into law, in lieu of defining ``navigable waters'' as ``waters of the United States,'' as the Act does now. This surgical fix is necessary because the Supreme Court used the word ``navigable'' to create a more narrow definition for ``waters of the United States'' than the definition used for over 30 years. The Court did not, however, limit protections more drastically to only ``navigable-in-fact'' and continuously flowing waters as some interests have called for. This might have been the law in 1899 when the Rivers and Harbors Act focused on commercial navigation, but it would be entirely inappropriate for the modern day clean water protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972.

My bill also asserts appropriate constitutional authority to protect the Nation's waters. Despite claims to the contrary, Congress has broad constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws protecting our nation's water quality. To prevent future courts from narrowly applying Congress's constitutional authority, my bill includes the phrase ``activities affecting those waters.''

My bill also maintains existing exemptions for farming, silviculture, ranching, and other activities, and leaves unchanged the activities that require a permit. The bill only ensures that the same types of waters covered before the Supreme Court decisions continue to be protected and does not affect the activities that require permits. In short, if you have not needed a permit for the last thirty-five years for an activity, you will not need one when this bill is enacted.

Importantly, in 1977, when the Act was modified, a significant compromise was reached to exempt farming, silviculture, and forestry activities from the Act. I stand by this understanding, and just to be sure, the Clean Water Restoration Act explicitly states that the Act's existing exemptions are maintained. As stated in the Act and left unchanged by my bill, agricultural activities are largely exempt from the Clean Water Act [the main permitting programs affecting agriculture address point-source discharge, Section 402, not non-point, and the dredging and filling of waters, Section 404. The following agricultural activities are exempt: normal farming activities (which casts a wide net for plowing, cultivating, harvesting, conservation practices, etc.), agriculture run-off/stormwater discharges, return flows from irrigation, maintenance and construction of farm roads, farm and stock ponds, and irrigation ditches, and maintenance of drainage ditches. There are additional EPA regulatory exemptions for prior converted cropland, and wastewater treatment systems, including treatment lagoons and ponds. Again, my bill does not affect these exemptions and the findings make Congressional intent very clear in this regard.

In short, my bill will allow those waters always protected by the Clean Water Act to continue to receive basic protections. I appreciate the depth and breadth of support for reaffirming the Clean Water Act of 1972 and importantly, rejecting efforts to roll back the law.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness.

I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of Southern Utah.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah and view firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the appropriate benchmark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah.

Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. Last Congress, a provision was air-dropped into a bill considered by the Senate--without having been considered by the House or the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that designated less than 45 percent of the wilderness quality lands included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act for Washington County, Utah. Furthermore, the public lands package omitted a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing omnibus parks legislation that contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.''

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hiking and sightseeing to hunting.

Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the U.S. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to restore Clean Water Act protections for the same waters that were covered by the Act prior to two recent divisive U.S. Supreme Court decisions. I want to thank Senators Boxer, Cardin, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Merkley, Reed, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply and agricultural and industrial uses, and available for wildlife and fish habitat has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of Government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment.

We must remain committed to the Clean Water Act of 1972, and to that end, Congress must enact legislation. Every day that Congress fails to act, more and more rivers, streams, wetlands and other waters that have long

been protected by the Clean Water Act are being stripped of their Clean Water Act protections and being polluted or destroyed altogether. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, over 20,000 determinations have been made since the court decisions on whether specific water bodies are covered by the act. Congress should not delay action until protections are stripped from more water bodies throughout the country. The EPA estimates that the court decisions could ultimately impact over half the stream miles and 20 percent of wetlands in the lower 48 States. Lost protections for these waters means the drinking water sources for over 110 million Americans are in jeopardy of pollution.

The Clean Water Restoration Act must be enacted to restore historical protections, using a surgical fix that reaffirms protections for the same categories of waters identified in the over three-decade-old EPA regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States.''

This is a serious problem, demanding serious debate and action. If we do not act, we will be allowing the Clean Water Act to be rolled back. That would mean increased uncertainty, confusion, litigation, and permitting delays resulting from the court decisions and subsequent agency guidelines. It also would pose a very real threat to Clean Water Act protections for public water supplies, industrial and agriculture uses, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

I am pleased to lead the effort to protect the Clean Water Act in the Senate, and to have support from a range of interested parties, including former EPA Administrators from both Republican and Democratic administrations; governors; attorneys general; State agencies; professional societies and associations; labor and business professionals and unions; farming organizations; and over 400 hunting, fishing, recreational, and conservation organizations.

In response to suggestions I received last Congress, I made several revisions to the bill to make Congressional intent very clear.

My bill, the Clean Water Restoration Act, would continue to protect only those waters historically protected by the Clean Water Act prior to the Supreme Court decisions. This is the crux of my bill, Section 4. In 1972, Congress granted Clean Water Act protections to ``navigable waters'' and broadly defined those as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas'', in stark contrast to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, which had only provided protections for the commercially navigable waters. Since the 1970s, EPA and Corps regulations, 40 CFR 122.2 and 33 CFR 328.3, have properly established the scope of ``waters of the United States'' to be protected, including all intrastate and interstate rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. My bill simply takes the longstanding, existing regulatory definition for ``waters of the United States'' and puts it into law, in lieu of defining ``navigable waters'' as ``waters of the United States,'' as the Act does now. This surgical fix is necessary because the Supreme Court used the word ``navigable'' to create a more narrow definition for ``waters of the United States'' than the definition used for over 30 years. The Court did not, however, limit protections more drastically to only ``navigable-in-fact'' and continuously flowing waters as some interests have called for. This might have been the law in 1899 when the Rivers and Harbors Act focused on commercial navigation, but it would be entirely inappropriate for the modern day clean water protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972.

My bill also asserts appropriate constitutional authority to protect the Nation's waters. Despite claims to the contrary, Congress has broad constitutional authority, including under the Commerce Clause, Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws protecting our nation's water quality. To prevent future courts from narrowly applying Congress's constitutional authority, my bill includes the phrase ``activities affecting those waters.''

My bill also maintains existing exemptions for farming, silviculture, ranching, and other activities, and leaves unchanged the activities that require a permit. The bill only ensures that the same types of waters covered before the Supreme Court decisions continue to be protected and does not affect the activities that require permits. In short, if you have not needed a permit for the last thirty-five years for an activity, you will not need one when this bill is enacted.

Importantly, in 1977, when the Act was modified, a significant compromise was reached to exempt farming, silviculture, and forestry activities from the Act. I stand by this understanding, and just to be sure, the Clean Water Restoration Act explicitly states that the Act's existing exemptions are maintained. As stated in the Act and left unchanged by my bill, agricultural activities are largely exempt from the Clean Water Act [the main permitting programs affecting agriculture address point-source discharge, Section 402, not non-point, and the dredging and filling of waters, Section 404. The following agricultural activities are exempt: normal farming activities (which casts a wide net for plowing, cultivating, harvesting, conservation practices, etc.), agriculture run-off/stormwater discharges, return flows from irrigation, maintenance and construction of farm roads, farm and stock ponds, and irrigation ditches, and maintenance of drainage ditches. There are additional EPA regulatory exemptions for prior converted cropland, and wastewater treatment systems, including treatment lagoons and ponds. Again, my bill does not affect these exemptions and the findings make Congressional intent very clear in this regard.

In short, my bill will allow those waters always protected by the Clean Water Act to continue to receive basic protections. I appreciate the depth and breadth of support for reaffirming the Clean Water Act of 1972 and importantly, rejecting efforts to roll back the law.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of legislation to designate areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness.

I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of Southern Utah.

I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah and view firsthand some of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the Emery County government.

Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the appropriate benchmark for the lands that should be protected in Southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah.

Unfortunately, the Senate has not always had the benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving lands in Southern Utah. Last Congress, a provision was air-dropped into a bill considered by the Senate--without having been considered by the House or the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--that designated less than 45 percent of the wilderness quality lands included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act for Washington County, Utah. Furthermore, the public lands package omitted a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. During the 104th Congress, I joined with the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing omnibus parks legislation that contained provisions, which were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

The lands of Southern Utah are very special to the people of Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents have described these lands as places of solitude, special family moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote: ``Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.''

I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done justice by any description. In my trip I found widely varied and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hiking and sightseeing to hunting.

Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a sign of where the nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of natural resources. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will publicly codify that expectation and promise.

Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the Federal Government for the people of the U.S. Thus, while they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans. I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to address the needs of the nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural America. These beneficiaries are systematically disadvantaged in the Medicare program. The beauty of Medicare is its equity, its universality, and its accessibility. But we have compromised these values by stratifying payments, by under-representing rural voices on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and by continuing to use obsolete payment data that hurts rural America.

First, we must stop indexing physician payments for work based on geographic differences. Rural areas already have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining the Nation's top talent. Currently, even though 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries live in rural areas, only 10 percent of the nation's physicians serve them. Lower payments to doctors in these areas only perpetuate this dangerous shortage of medical expertise. We should not be discouraging medical school graduates from moving to underserved rural areas by continuing to offer sub-par pay--in fact, we should be providing incentives to encourage them to work in underserved areas. My legislation proposes a project to help rural facilities to host educators and clinical practitioners in clinical rotations.

Lack of dollars to rural health facilities has also prevented communities from investing in vital information technology. The Institute of Medicine published a report in 2005 detailing the ways in which health IT could assist isolated communities. For example, since rural physicians tend to be generalists rather than specialists, virtual libraries within physician offices would provide both doctors and patients with a wider and deeper source of information at their fingertips. Rural residents can also be quite far from health facilities, so technology that allows emergency room physicians to communicate with EMS workers in an ambulance can help patients receive life-saving treatment before they physically reach the hospital. These kinds of technologies will improve both the quality and efficiency of care given in rural areas. My legislation offers funding for quality improvement demonstration projects, to allow isolated communities to invest in this otherwise out of reach technology.

Lastly, this legislation will end the disproportionately low representation of rural interests on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. This lack of representation has resulted in policies that hurt rural communities. Those policies have hurt--and continue to hurt--the people of my State of Wisconsin, and they hurt my colleague Senator Collins' constituents as well. For every dollar that Medicare spends on the average beneficiary in the average state in this country, Medicare spends only 82 cents on a beneficiary in Wisconsin. In Maine, Medicare spends only 80 cents per dollar it spends on the average beneficiary.

How is this the case, if beneficiaries in Wisconsin and in Maine pay the same payroll taxes as beneficiaries in other states? Because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and to much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are lower than those received in many other States.

With the guidance and support of people across my State who are fighting for Medicare fairness, I am introducing this legislation to address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors and health care providers. My bill will decrease some of the inequitable payments that harm rural areas. It will provide rural areas the help they need to grow crucial health information technology infrastructure. It will offer the necessary incentives to help attract the Nation's top medical talent to underserved rural areas. It will mandate rural representation on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Rural seniors are already underserved in their communities; they should not be underrepresented in Washington as well.

Rural Americans have worked hard and paid into the Medicare program all their lives. In return, they deserve full access to the same benefits as seniors throughout the country: their choice of highly skilled physicians, use of the latest technologies, and a strong voice representing their needs in Medicare policy.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to address the needs of the nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural America. These beneficiaries are systematically disadvantaged in the Medicare program. The beauty of Medicare is its equity, its universality, and its accessibility. But we have compromised these values by stratifying payments, by under-representing rural voices on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and by continuing to use obsolete payment data that hurts rural America.

First, we must stop indexing physician payments for work based on geographic differences. Rural areas already have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining the Nation's top talent. Currently, even though 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries live in rural areas, only 10 percent of the nation's physicians serve them. Lower payments to doctors in these areas only perpetuate this dangerous shortage of medical expertise. We should not be discouraging medical school graduates from moving to underserved rural areas by continuing to offer sub-par pay--in fact, we should be providing incentives to encourage them to work in underserved areas. My legislation proposes a project to help rural facilities to host educators and clinical practitioners in clinical rotations.

Lack of dollars to rural health facilities has also prevented communities from investing in vital information technology. The Institute of Medicine published a report in 2005 detailing the ways in which health IT could assist isolated communities. For example, since rural physicians tend to be generalists rather than specialists, virtual libraries within physician offices would provide both doctors and patients with a wider and deeper source of information at their fingertips. Rural residents can also be quite far from health facilities, so technology that allows emergency room physicians to communicate with EMS workers in an ambulance can help patients receive life-saving treatment before they physically reach the hospital. These kinds of technologies will improve both the quality and efficiency of care given in rural areas. My legislation offers funding for quality improvement demonstration projects, to allow isolated communities to invest in this otherwise out of reach technology.

Lastly, this legislation will end the disproportionately low representation of rural interests on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. This lack of representation has resulted in policies that hurt rural communities. Those policies have hurt--and continue to hurt--the people of my State of Wisconsin, and they hurt my colleague Senator Collins' constituents as well. For every dollar that Medicare spends on the average beneficiary in the average state in this country, Medicare spends only 82 cents on a beneficiary in Wisconsin. In Maine, Medicare spends only 80 cents per dollar it spends on the average beneficiary.

How is this the case, if beneficiaries in Wisconsin and in Maine pay the same payroll taxes as beneficiaries in other states? Because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and to much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are lower than those received in many other States.

With the guidance and support of people across my State who are fighting for Medicare fairness, I am introducing this legislation to address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors and health care providers. My bill will decrease some of the inequitable payments that harm rural areas. It will provide rural areas the help they need to grow crucial health information technology infrastructure. It will offer the necessary incentives to help attract the Nation's top medical talent to underserved rural areas. It will mandate rural representation on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Rural seniors are already underserved in their communities; they should not be underrepresented in Washington as well.

Rural Americans have worked hard and paid into the Medicare program all their lives. In return, they deserve full access to the same benefits as seniors throughout the country: their choice of highly skilled physicians, use of the latest technologies, and a strong voice representing their needs in Medicare policy.

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

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Serve America Act, which expands opportunities for Americans to serve their country at a time of critical need. I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch for their willingness to work with my staff to include language that ensures the volunteers funded by this bill can also work on service projects that expand access to affordable housing in our communities. Providing more affordable housing is one of Wisconsin's most pressing needs and language that Senator Reed and I worked to insert will help ensure that volunteers can build, improve, and preserve affordable housing throughout the country.

Just as voluntarism plays a crucial role in strengthening our communities and building a stronger America, that same energy, compassion, and knowledge must also be harnessed to help rebuild our image abroad as it has been severely damaged over the past 8 years.

The amendment I am offering today with Senator Voinovich encourages

those efforts by strengthening and expanding the Volunteers for Prosperity program authorized in title V of the bill. This program provides a valuable tool to assist international volunteer service, and with my improvements I believe we can make it even more effective.

A recent survey released by the Pew Global Attitudes Project indicates that between 2002 and 2008, opinions of the United States declined steeply in 14 out of the 19 countries polled. And a similar 2007 survey of over 45,000 people in 47 countries found that ``[o]verall, the image of American people has declined since 2002,'' even among those who used to count us as friends and allies.

The Obama administration has already taken some important steps to rebuild our image abroad, such as the President's decision to close Guantanamo and redeploy troops from Iraq, and his recent address to the people of Iran. But individual Americans can contribute, too, and we can support those efforts by increasing the opportunities for Americans from all backgrounds and experiences to volunteer abroad.

While the surveys I mentioned showed worsening attitudes toward Americans and the declining popularity of the United States, studies have shown that in places where U.S. citizens have volunteered their time, money, and services, opinions of the United States have improved.

To put it simply, some of our best diplomats are our private citizens who spend time overseas working closely with small communities and spending time with the citizens of other countries. Their volunteer work is enhanced by their ability to share stories and create individual connections. Collectively the two are a force for positive global change and greater cultural understanding.

One example is a story from a constituent, Kathy Anderson from Marathon, Wisconsin, who shared with me her thoughts on the exchange opportunities she and her husband Mike have experienced, including a recent trip to Ukraine to discuss farming methods with folks under the Community Connections program:

We have lots and lots of stories, but the headline may be

that people interact with people at a very different level

than countries interact with countries. I may not like what

your country is doing, but if I get to know you as an

individual, I can still build a connection. Programs like

these put a face on the country, making it less abstract and

impersonal. Once the guests get to know a farmer from

Wisconsin, I'm sure they also have a better understanding

that our country is more than the image they see presented by

the politicians, or the sports figures, or the media folks.

It's real folks with the same kind of dreams, hopes, and

wishes for the future that they have. And perhaps we get a

bit closer, one relationship at a time.

Our Federal Government should continue to recognize the important role that people-to-people engagement can play in countering negative views of America around the world and help facilitate such opportunities by promoting both short- and long-term international volunteer options for U.S. citizens. Existing programs such as the Peace Corps, Volunteers for Prosperity, and the exchange programs administered through the Department of State's Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs already do tremendous work in this area. But even with these existing programs, we need greater, more varied and more flexible citizen diplomacy initiatives. Mr. President, we can and should be doing more.

In 2007, I introduced the Global Service Fellowship bill to offer U.S. citizens the flexibility and support they need to pursue international volunteering opportunities. This bill reduced barriers to volunteering by offering financial assistance and flexibility in the time period Americans could spend abroad--opening the door for more Americans to participate. This bipartisan bill was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Congress.

Now, in title V of the Serve America Act, we have the opportunity to see a very similar program become a reality. This section authorizes the Volunteers for Prosperity Office created by Executive Order 13317 under President Bush. This program promotes short- and long-term international volunteering opportunities with specific development objectives, and establishes the Volunteers for Prosperity Service Incentive Program or VfPServe program which provides eligible skilled professionals with grants to offset the cost of volunteering abroad. This is a modest program costing only $10 million per year and yet it will significantly expand the numbers of Americans who can participate.

I support Volunteers for Prosperity and, in fact, my global service fellowship bill would have authorized that program. The amendment I am offering, which is based on my legislation, makes a few changes to the current language in title V. This is a modest amendment but reflects suggested improvements I have received from constituents, experts and organizations active in the field of international voluntarism. As we authorize the Volunteers for Prosperity office, we should make sure the office has the utmost ability to reach as many interested Americans as possible, particularly those who face financial barriers or time constraints.

In the current bill, VfPServe would help offset the cost of international volunteering expenses for prospective volunteers, provided that they match dollar-for-dollar any grant awarded through the program. VfPServe will enable many dedicated volunteers to raise the additional funds needed to pursue international projects--but by requiring the dollar-for-dollar match grants, participants in VfPServe would still be required to cover a substantial amount of their expenses.

Financial limitations are a common obstacle to international volunteering by Americans, and I have heard from many constituents who are interested in volunteering internationally but are unable to do so due to the cost. My amendment goes an extra step to ensure that even more Americans from a range of backgrounds can volunteer abroad--not just those with the resources or time to pay for half of their expenses.

My amendment complements VfPServe by establishing the VfP Leader Program to award fixed grants that would offset up to 80 percent of the costs of volunteering abroad, including any sponsoring organization fees. In return for this higher Federal contribution, VfP Leaders must commit to sharing their experiences with their communities when they return. By continuing to serve as ambassadors once they return home, VfP leaders will be ensuring that more Americans learn about the benefits of international volunteering, and about people and places beyond our borders. In addition, my amendment would give VfPserve participants the option of raising or providing private funds to meet their matching requirements. I have heard from many organizations that the inability to raise adequate funds has stymied a number of individuals from fully participating in the program. This small tweak will open the door wider to those interested to participate in either VFP program, who may be willing and able to spend some of their own money to do so.

The VIP Leader Program would be administered by the VfP office, along with the VfPserve program in the bill. The USAID Administrator would be in charge of awarding VfP leader grants and would develop the guidelines for selecting recipients, based on the objectives laid out in the underlying bill, which include a commitment to helping reduce world hunger and combating the spread of communicable diseases. My amendment adds a few mote objectives: providing disaster response, preparedness and reconstruction, providing general medical and dental care and promoting crosscultural exchange. These are all important priorities, and opportunities for Americans to bolster our global image while providing essential services.

Other than these additions, my amendment does not change the underlying authorization of VfP, nor does it change the total cost of title V. Authorization for title V will remain at $10 million annually for the fiscal years 2010 through 2014, with half of the money appropriated for grants going to the VIP Leader Program.

I would like to thank Senator Voinovich, who cosponsored the Global Services Fellowship Acts of 2007, 2008, and 2009 and who is a cosponsor of this amendment. This amendment is supported by 82 international volunteer organizations such as American Jewish World Service, Cross- Cultural Solutions, and the National Peace Corps Association as well as 91 university

international programs including the University of Maryland's Office of International Programs, its School of Public Policy and its Study Abroad office, and the Fletcher School at Tufts University in Massachusetts. I would like to submit the lists with all the supporting organizations and university international programs in their entirety for the Record.

As we debate the Serve America Act and highlight the important role of volunteer service in our communities, we must not overlook the opportunities for volunteers to help restore our image and standing abroad. Wisconsinites have a strong tradition of public service, particularly among young people in my state and it is because of their consistent interest in such opportunities that I offer this amendment today.

International volunteering opportunities are an effective method of addressing critical human needs, building bridges across cultures, and promoting mutual understanding. In turn, this can bolster our national and global security. Though they may be working overseas, Americans who volunteer abroad are truly serving the interests of America.

The VfPServe and VfPLeaders Programs would be a valuable addition to our public diplomacy, to our development and humanitarian efforts overseas. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment I will offer at a future time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.