Floor Statements

Mr. President, there is a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of almost 50 million people in the U.S., and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the number one issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the number one issue for many Americans. Nevertheless, for too long, Congress has been locked in a stalemate when it comes to health reform, refusing to move forward on this life-threatening problem because of party politics and special interests. That is why, for the past few Congresses, I have introduced with the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

Senator Graham and I are from opposite ends of the political spectrum, we are from different areas of the country, and we have different views on health care. But we agree that something needs to be done about health care in our country. Every day, all over our nation, Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even change the way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical discomfort. These Americans bear the additional burden of wondering where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health care needs. When illness strikes families, the last thing they should have to think about is money, but for many in our country, this is a persistent burden that causes additional stress and hopelessness when they are ill.

It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. The need for health care reform has reached crisis proportions in America, with over 46 million Americans uninsured. As a result of our current economic crisis, that number is climbing by the day. In December of 2008 and January of 2009, it is estimated that 14,000 Americans lost their access to health care each day; in Wisconsin, 230 people each day lost access to care during these 2 months. The cost of providing care to the uninsured weighs heavily on the U.S. economy. According to research done by the journal Health Affairs, the uninsured received approximately $56,000,000,000 in uncompensated care in 2008. Government programs finance about 75 percent of uncompensated care. The cost of the uninsured weighs heavily on our collective conscience, as well. In my home State of Wisconsin alone, it is estimated that 250 Wisconsinites, or 5 people each week, died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance.

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee health care for its citizens. In other countries, if someone is sick, they get proper care regardless of ability to pay. In our country, that is not the case. It is unacceptable for a nation as great as America to not provide good health care for all our citizens. We are failing those in need. We are failing the hard-working family that cannot afford the insurance offered to them. We are failing the uninsured children whose parents do not have any access to insurance. We are failing low-income Americans and middle-income Americans alike. This is not right. We can do better.

Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. More and more, employers are forced to increase employee cost- sharing or to offer sub-par benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation.

I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold townhall meetings. Almost every year, the number one issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These people used to think Government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the Government to step in.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator Graham in introducing the State- Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot project to provide States with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement, it just provides an incentive for action, provided States meet certain minimum coverage and low-income requirements.

Even though Senator Graham and I support different methods of health care reform, we both agree that this legislation presents a viable solution to the logjam preventing reform. It may well be that, with a new President and a new Congress, that logjam is already broken. I hope that is the case, as I have long said that a single-payer health care system is what I prefer for our country. I also recognize that there are strong obstacles to enacting real reform, and that we may need the support of members of Congress with different views on this topic. Senator Graham would like to see health care privatized and see a base, catastrophic coverage offered to everyone. Despite our disagreements about the form that health care reform should take, we agree on this legislation.

With the election of Barack Obama, Americans have a real opportunity to reform our health care system. I look forward to consideration of health care reform this Congress, and I do not intend to push this bill as an alternative to broader efforts. But I do think our proposal may help provide ideas about how to bring together Democrats and Republicans on this issue.

Under our proposal, States can be creative in the State resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State can use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to the approval of the newly created Health Care Coverage Task Force, which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This Task Force will be responsible for choosing viable State projects and ensuring that the projects are effective. The Task Force will also help the States develop projects, and will continue a dialogue with the States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and Federal Governments.

The Task Force is also charged with making sure that the State plans meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act bases affordability on income.

Another provision in this legislation requires that the States contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. States that can

afford to provide more are encouraged to, but the matching requirement will ensure the financial viability of the bill and State buy-in. Other than these requirements, the States largely have flexibility to design a plan that works best for their respective residents. The possibilities for reform are wide open.

One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The bill does not avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be made if we are going to pay for health care reform.

We need a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of health care costs.

It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis.

We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That is an injustice, but it is one we can and must address. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality.

Mr. President, there is a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of almost 50 million people in the U.S., and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the number one issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the number one issue for many Americans. Nevertheless, for too long, Congress has been locked in a stalemate when it comes to health reform, refusing to move forward on this life-threatening problem because of party politics and special interests. That is why, for the past few Congresses, I have introduced with the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

Senator Graham and I are from opposite ends of the political spectrum, we are from different areas of the country, and we have different views on health care. But we agree that something needs to be done about health care in our country. Every day, all over our nation, Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even change the way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical discomfort. These Americans bear the additional burden of wondering where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health care needs. When illness strikes families, the last thing they should have to think about is money, but for many in our country, this is a persistent burden that causes additional stress and hopelessness when they are ill.

It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. The need for health care reform has reached crisis proportions in America, with over 46 million Americans uninsured. As a result of our current economic crisis, that number is climbing by the day. In December of 2008 and January of 2009, it is estimated that 14,000 Americans lost their access to health care each day; in Wisconsin, 230 people each day lost access to care during these 2 months. The cost of providing care to the uninsured weighs heavily on the U.S. economy. According to research done by the journal Health Affairs, the uninsured received approximately $56,000,000,000 in uncompensated care in 2008. Government programs finance about 75 percent of uncompensated care. The cost of the uninsured weighs heavily on our collective conscience, as well. In my home State of Wisconsin alone, it is estimated that 250 Wisconsinites, or 5 people each week, died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance.

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee health care for its citizens. In other countries, if someone is sick, they get proper care regardless of ability to pay. In our country, that is not the case. It is unacceptable for a nation as great as America to not provide good health care for all our citizens. We are failing those in need. We are failing the hard-working family that cannot afford the insurance offered to them. We are failing the uninsured children whose parents do not have any access to insurance. We are failing low-income Americans and middle-income Americans alike. This is not right. We can do better.

Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to keep up. More and more, employers are forced to increase employee cost- sharing or to offer sub-par benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising faster than inflation.

I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold townhall meetings. Almost every year, the number one issue raised at these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These people used to think Government involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the Government to step in.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator Graham in introducing the State- Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot project to provide States with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement, it just provides an incentive for action, provided States meet certain minimum coverage and low-income requirements.

Even though Senator Graham and I support different methods of health care reform, we both agree that this legislation presents a viable solution to the logjam preventing reform. It may well be that, with a new President and a new Congress, that logjam is already broken. I hope that is the case, as I have long said that a single-payer health care system is what I prefer for our country. I also recognize that there are strong obstacles to enacting real reform, and that we may need the support of members of Congress with different views on this topic. Senator Graham would like to see health care privatized and see a base, catastrophic coverage offered to everyone. Despite our disagreements about the form that health care reform should take, we agree on this legislation.

With the election of Barack Obama, Americans have a real opportunity to reform our health care system. I look forward to consideration of health care reform this Congress, and I do not intend to push this bill as an alternative to broader efforts. But I do think our proposal may help provide ideas about how to bring together Democrats and Republicans on this issue.

Under our proposal, States can be creative in the State resources they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State can use personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to the approval of the newly created Health Care Coverage Task Force, which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This Task Force will be responsible for choosing viable State projects and ensuring that the projects are effective. The Task Force will also help the States develop projects, and will continue a dialogue with the States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and Federal Governments.

The Task Force is also charged with making sure that the State plans meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act bases affordability on income.

Another provision in this legislation requires that the States contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. States that can

afford to provide more are encouraged to, but the matching requirement will ensure the financial viability of the bill and State buy-in. Other than these requirements, the States largely have flexibility to design a plan that works best for their respective residents. The possibilities for reform are wide open.

One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The bill does not avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be made if we are going to pay for health care reform.

We need a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of health care costs.

It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to do something about the country's health care crisis.

We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That is an injustice, but it is one we can and must address. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, today, on the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I want to speak about an epidemic facing the Nation's Armed Forces; namely, the alarming rate of suicides in the services. Yesterday, the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee held an excellent hearing on this topic, and I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for taking on this important issue. I would also like to discuss an issue that we have so far paid far too little attention to, and that is the way the strain on the force caused by the rate of deployment is compromising our ability to care for servicemembers struggling with mental health concerns.

We have come a long way in addressing this issue. Only a generation ago, Vietnam veterans struggled to get care for the long-term consequences of the trauma they survived during the war. They were trailblazers, and thanks to them the VA has revolutionized the way it cares for veterans. We now have, among other things, counseling centers where combat veterans can go to speak with experienced counselors who are also combat veterans about their difficulties in readjusting to civilian life. I commend the President for emphasizing the need for additional centers and have been a strong advocate for just that in the State of Wisconsin. But more remains to be done.

It is not sufficient to wait until a servicemember is discharged from the Services and transitioned to the VA to respond to the crisis. Let's be honest. There is a conflict between the responsibility to both maintain the readiness of the Armed Forces and adequately respond to the needs of servicemembers struggling with mental health issues. During this time of tremendous strain on the Armed Forces, our noncommissioned officer corps is under incredible pressure to ensure that the servicemembers under their command are ready to meet the demands of combat. We must create the space for them to identify those soldiers who are in need of extra assistance and provide a means for them to provide that assistance.

We must begin by asking men and women in uniform about their experiences and what we can do to support them. I was disappointed that the hearing yesterday did not include the testimony of servicemembers about their personal experiences, so I would like to take this opportunity to talk about what I have been hearing from servicemembers and their family members from my home State of Wisconsin.

Over 2 years ago, I was approached by a family whose son had taken his own life while serving in Afghanistan. After an investigation of the situation, I learned that the soldier was struggling to meet the grueling demands of his duties and had, perhaps as a result, become isolated from his unit. It was a tragedy for all involved.

Last year, my office was contacted by a soldier who immediately thereafter took his own life. A subsequent investigation revealed that he, too, had become isolated from his own unit. Due

to his ongoing struggle with mental illness, his leadership became understandably frustrated with him and repeatedly disciplined him. His doctors decided he was not fit to deploy with his unit which was headed to Iraq. This was a major blow for him. He desperately wanted to deploy with his unit. He became angry and isolated. He sought to be transferred to a wounded warrior transition unit where he could focus on his recovery. Unfortunately, his leadership failed to get him transferred in a timely manner. If they had, he might still be with us today.

I was recently approached by a Wisconsin veteran who lost three of his peers to suicide during his time in the Army. He has informed me that in all three instances one of the main problems was a breakdown in leadership. He has given me a list of recommendations for the Armed Forces to train our noncommissioned officers in suicide prevention. I will ask to have these recommendations printed in the Record.

Listening to the voices of these men and women serving in uniform, a consistent pattern has emerged. Our Armed Forces, which are under tremendous pressure due to two ongoing major contingency operations, are struggling to meet the needs of their members while completing their mission.

I suspect that the single most important thing our country can due to address this epidemic is to redeploy from Iraq so that we can take the time to care for the psychologically wounded without putting additional strain on those who have already completed multiple tours. Redeploying would also serve our national security needs by allowing us to better focus on the global threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Secondly, we must review the strategy we embraced which has led us to rely so much on the continued sacrifice of so few. We must not make the same mistake again of engaging in a mistaken war of choice. We should not ask those who volunteer to serve their country to bear the burden of a 6-year war absent a compelling need. We, the civilian leadership of this country, owe it to the men and women in uniform to be more responsible stewards of our Armed Forces.

It is far past time to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq. I am pleased that the President has set a course for such a redeployment. Now, we can turn to the task of rebuilding our Armed Forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have recommendations to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2009. This bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate halt to Federal executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been 1,130 executions across the country, including three at the Federal level. During that same time period, 130 people on death row have been exonerated and released from death row. Consider those numbers: 1,130 executions and 130 exonerations in the modern death penalty era. Had those exonerations not taken place, had those 130 people been executed, those executions would have represented an error rate of nearly eleven percent. That is more than an embarrassing statistic; it is a horrifying one, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country. In fact, since 1999 when I first introduced this bill, 54 death row inmates have been exonerated throughout the country.

In the face of these numbers, the national debate on the death penalty has intensified. The country experienced a nationwide moratorium on executions from September 2007 to May 2008 while the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the lethal injection method of execution complied with the Constitution. From 2004 to 2007 the number of executions and the number of death sentences imposed decreased as more and more voices joined to express doubt about the use of capital punishment in America. The voices of those questioning the fairness of the death penalty have been heard from college campuses and courtrooms and podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the United States Supreme Court. The American public understands that the death penalty raises serious and complex issues. In fact, for the first time, a May 2006 Gallup poll reported that more Americans prefer a sentence of life without parole over the death penalty when given a choice. The same poll indicates that 63 percent of Americans think that within the past 5 years an innocent person has been executed. And a 2008 Gallop shows a 5 percent drop in support for the death penalty from October 2007 to October 2008. If anything, the consensus is that it is time for a change. We must not ignore these voices.

The United States Supreme Court also has limited the constitutionally permissible scope of the death penalty in recent years. In 2008 the Court held in Kennedy vs. Louisiana that with respect to ``crimes against individuals the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken.'' This decision is consistent with other recent cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded is unconstitutional.

On the state level, there have been some encouraging developments. Most significantly, just last night, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico signed legislation into law that repeals the death penalty in his state. I commend Governor Richardson for his leadership and courage in signing this bill. Governor Richardson issued a statement after he signed the bill that gets to the heart of this issue. His statement read, in part:

The sad truth is the wrong person can still be convicted in

this day and age, and in cases where that conviction carries

with it the ultimate sanction, we must have ultimate

confidence I would say certitude that the system is without

flaw or prejudice. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably not

the case . . .

Last year New Jersey to legislatively repealed its death penalty statute after a state commission reported that the death penalty ``is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency'' and recommended abolition. In New York, the death penalty was overturned by a court decision in 2004 and has not been reinstated by the legislature. While Kansas and New Hampshire still technically have the death penalty on their books, they have not executed anyone since 1976.

Other States have created commissions that have identified serious problems with their capital punishment systems. In Maryland, a 23- member commission tasked with studying all

aspects of the State's capital punishment system voted on November 12, 2008, to recommend abolition of the State's death penalty. The Commission cited as reasons the possibility that an innocent person could be mistakenly executed, as well as geographical and racial disparities in its application. The chair of the commission, a former United States Attorney General, stated simply, ``It's haphazard in how it's applied, and that's terribly unfair.''

This past June, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice completed its review of the California capital punishment system. It found, unanimously and not surprisingly, that the death penalty system in California is broken and in need of repair. North Carolina and Tennessee are also in the midst of studies of their respective death penalty systems.

Of course the state that started it all was Illinois, where on January 31, 2000, then-Governor George Ryan took the historic step of placing a moratorium on executions and creating an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty system. That commission conducted an extensive study of the death penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for reform. The commission concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the innocent is alarmingly real. Governor Ryan later pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death row inmates to life in prison before he left office in January 2003. Illinois has not executed anyone since.

In addition, in 2007, the American Bar Association issued a series of reports on the fairness and accuracy of capital punishment systems in eight states, and concluded there were serious problems in every state it reviewed.

So while detailed reviews have not been conducted in every state, the studies that have been done have revealed major problems. And these problems whether they be racial disparities, inconsistent application of the death penalty, inadequate indigent defense, or other shortcomings cannot be brushed aside as atypical or as revealing state- specific anomalies in an otherwise perfect system. Years of study have shown that the death penalty does little to deter crime, and that defendants' likelihood of being sentenced to death depends heavily on illegitimate factors such as whether they are rich or poor.

Racial disparities also have been documented again and again. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 80 percent of murder victims in cases where death sentences were handed down were white, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of death row inmates nationwide are African Americans or Hispanic Americans. Since 1976, cases that had a white defendant and a black victim have resulted in 15 executions; in cases involving a black defendant and a white victim, there have been 229 executions.

There is also evidence that seeking capital punishment comes at great monetary cost to taxpayers. The Urban Institute in Maryland examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999. It found that seeking the death penalty in those cases cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not been sought. In California, according to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, ``the additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.'' A report in Washington state indicates that ``at the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.'' Similar reports detailing the extraordinary financial costs of the death penalty have been generated for States across the Nation.

There are also enormous problems with the right to counsel in death penalty cases. I held a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee last year to examine the State of capital defense in this country, and the results were shocking. The witnesses provided sobering testimony about over-worked and under-paid court- appointed lawyers in capital cases, and the lack of investigative and other resources available to them. Just to take a couple of specific examples, Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative testified that in Alabama, 60 percent of people on death row were defended by lawyers appointed by courts who, by statute, could not be paid more than $1,000 for their out of court time to prepare the case for trial. In Texas, hundreds of death row inmates are awaiting execution after being represented by lawyers who could not receive more then $500 for experts or mitigation evidence. Across the country there are hundreds of death row inmates whose lawyers had their compensation capped at levels that make effective assistance impossible.

We also heard more about the American Bar Association State Assessment Project, which found that ineffective defense representation was a serious problem in each of the eight states that the ABA reviewed--and is a major reason why the ABA continues to advocate for a moratorium on capital punishment.

The Federal death penalty, too, has had its share of problems. Capital punishment at the Federal level was reinstated in 1988 in a Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. It was then expanded significantly in 1994, when an omnibus crime bill expanded its use to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. Despite my best efforts to halt the expansion of the Federal death penalty, more and more provisions have been added over the years. Three individuals have now been executed under the Federal system, and there are 55 inmates on Federal death row.

In 2007, I held a hearing on oversight of the Federal death penalty the first such oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in 6 years. Once again, the results were disturbing. The hearing focused on a range of issues, including the lack of information the Justice Department maintains about the application and cost of the death penalty, the lack of transparency in the DOJ decision-making process, concerns about the politicization of the federal death penalty, and the continuing problem of racial disparities in the Federal system.

I was alarmed to learn at the hearing that the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2006 kept virtually no statistics about its implementation of the Federal death penalty. Prior to the hearing, I requested basic statistics for that time period, such as the rate at which the Attorney General overruled U.S. Attorney recommendations not to seek the death penalty, and the race of defendants and victims in Federal capital cases. Before I asked for this information, the Department had not tracked it. Further, the DOJ does not track the monetary costs of the Federal death penalty in any way at all.

We are still lacking basic information about racial disparities in the application of the Federal death penalty. After putting off for years a National Institute of Justice study report ordered by Attorney General Reno at the end of the Clinton Administration to examine this question, DOJ finally released a RAND study in 2006. But the long anticipated report did not address the root question about the application of the Federal death penalty; it did not study the decision-making process for bringing defendants into the Federal system in the first place. Of course, this study only covers 1995-2000. So we still have very little information about racial disparities from 2001 forward.

I was particularly concerned about information the hearing uncovered about the Attorney General overrule rates. In the Federal system, the Attorney General makes the final decision whether to seek the death penalty in federal cases. Between 2001 and 2006, the Attorney General overruled local U.S. Attorney recommendations not to seek the death penalty in one out of every three Federal capital cases. This number is substantially higher than the 16 percent of recommendations not to seek death that were overruled by

Attorney General Reno from 1995 to 2000. Not only was the Bush administration far more willing to overrule local U.S. Attorney recommendations, but when it did so, the Government was less likely to actually obtain a death sentence in the case. The Government secured a death sentence in 33 percent of cases where the Attorney General approved a U.S. Attorney recommendation to seek death, but in only 20 percent of cases where the Attorney General overruled the U.S. Attorney recommendation not to seek death.

And at least one U.S. Attorney who objected when his recommendation not to seek death was overruled by Main Justice learned the hard way that dissent was not acceptable. Former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, who testified at the hearing I chaired, was fired at least in part because he had the audacity to ask to speak with the Attorney General directly after the Attorney General ordered him to pursue the death penalty in a case where he had recommended against seeking the death penalty.

There is every reason to be optimistic that the new administration will take the significant problems in our federal death penalty system much more seriously. But while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system at both the State and Federal level, we cannot help but note that any use of the death penalty in the United States stands in stark contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. There are now 123 countries that have done so. In 2007, only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan executed more people than we did in the United States. These countries, and others on the list of nations that actively use capital punishment, are countries that we often criticize for human rights abuses. The European Union denies membership to nations that use the death penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on all states within the United States to abolish the death penalty. Moreover, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on December 18, 2007, calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.

We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. We should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard.

As a matter of justice, this is an issue that transcends political allegiances. A range of prominent voices in our country is raising serious questions about the death penalty, and these are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of former FBI Director William Sessions, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend Pat Robertson, commentator George Will, former Mississippi warden Donald Cabana, and former Baltimore City police officer Michael May. And notably, the editorial boards of the Chicago Tribune and the Dallas Morning News each finally came out in opposition to the death penalty in 2007. The voices of those questioning our application of the death penalty are growing in number, and they are growing louder.

As we begin a new year and a new Congress, I believe the continued use of the death penalty in the United States is beneath us. The death penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is ineffective. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right'' applies here in the most fundamental way. It is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek to spread peace and justice both here and overseas. And it is not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our criminal justice system as a truly just system that deserves the respect of our own people and the world requires that we take this step. Our Nation's goal to remain the world's leading defender of freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so.

Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.

I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing the death penalty in our great Nation by enacting this legislation to do away with the Federal death penalty. I also call on each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us together reject violence and restore fairness and integrity to our criminal justice system.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2009. This bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate halt to Federal executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been 1,130 executions across the country, including three at the Federal level. During that same time period, 130 people on death row have been exonerated and released from death row. Consider those numbers: 1,130 executions and 130 exonerations in the modern death penalty era. Had those exonerations not taken place, had those 130 people been executed, those executions would have represented an error rate of nearly eleven percent. That is more than an embarrassing statistic; it is a horrifying one, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country. In fact, since 1999 when I first introduced this bill, 54 death row inmates have been exonerated throughout the country.

In the face of these numbers, the national debate on the death penalty has intensified. The country experienced a nationwide moratorium on executions from September 2007 to May 2008 while the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the lethal injection method of execution complied with the Constitution. From 2004 to 2007 the number of executions and the number of death sentences imposed decreased as more and more voices joined to express doubt about the use of capital punishment in America. The voices of those questioning the fairness of the death penalty have been heard from college campuses and courtrooms and podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the United States Supreme Court. The American public understands that the death penalty raises serious and complex issues. In fact, for the first time, a May 2006 Gallup poll reported that more Americans prefer a sentence of life without parole over the death penalty when given a choice. The same poll indicates that 63 percent of Americans think that within the past 5 years an innocent person has been executed. And a 2008 Gallop shows a 5 percent drop in support for the death penalty from October 2007 to October 2008. If anything, the consensus is that it is time for a change. We must not ignore these voices.

The United States Supreme Court also has limited the constitutionally permissible scope of the death penalty in recent years. In 2008 the Court held in Kennedy vs. Louisiana that with respect to ``crimes against individuals the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken.'' This decision is consistent with other recent cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded is unconstitutional.

On the state level, there have been some encouraging developments. Most significantly, just last night, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico signed legislation into law that repeals the death penalty in his state. I commend Governor Richardson for his leadership and courage in signing this bill. Governor Richardson issued a statement after he signed the bill that gets to the heart of this issue. His statement read, in part:

The sad truth is the wrong person can still be convicted in

this day and age, and in cases where that conviction carries

with it the ultimate sanction, we must have ultimate

confidence I would say certitude that the system is without

flaw or prejudice. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably not

the case . . .

Last year New Jersey to legislatively repealed its death penalty statute after a state commission reported that the death penalty ``is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency'' and recommended abolition. In New York, the death penalty was overturned by a court decision in 2004 and has not been reinstated by the legislature. While Kansas and New Hampshire still technically have the death penalty on their books, they have not executed anyone since 1976.

Other States have created commissions that have identified serious problems with their capital punishment systems. In Maryland, a 23- member commission tasked with studying all

aspects of the State's capital punishment system voted on November 12, 2008, to recommend abolition of the State's death penalty. The Commission cited as reasons the possibility that an innocent person could be mistakenly executed, as well as geographical and racial disparities in its application. The chair of the commission, a former United States Attorney General, stated simply, ``It's haphazard in how it's applied, and that's terribly unfair.''

This past June, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice completed its review of the California capital punishment system. It found, unanimously and not surprisingly, that the death penalty system in California is broken and in need of repair. North Carolina and Tennessee are also in the midst of studies of their respective death penalty systems.

Of course the state that started it all was Illinois, where on January 31, 2000, then-Governor George Ryan took the historic step of placing a moratorium on executions and creating an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty system. That commission conducted an extensive study of the death penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for reform. The commission concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the innocent is alarmingly real. Governor Ryan later pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death row inmates to life in prison before he left office in January 2003. Illinois has not executed anyone since.

In addition, in 2007, the American Bar Association issued a series of reports on the fairness and accuracy of capital punishment systems in eight states, and concluded there were serious problems in every state it reviewed.

So while detailed reviews have not been conducted in every state, the studies that have been done have revealed major problems. And these problems whether they be racial disparities, inconsistent application of the death penalty, inadequate indigent defense, or other shortcomings cannot be brushed aside as atypical or as revealing state- specific anomalies in an otherwise perfect system. Years of study have shown that the death penalty does little to deter crime, and that defendants' likelihood of being sentenced to death depends heavily on illegitimate factors such as whether they are rich or poor.

Racial disparities also have been documented again and again. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 80 percent of murder victims in cases where death sentences were handed down were white, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of death row inmates nationwide are African Americans or Hispanic Americans. Since 1976, cases that had a white defendant and a black victim have resulted in 15 executions; in cases involving a black defendant and a white victim, there have been 229 executions.

There is also evidence that seeking capital punishment comes at great monetary cost to taxpayers. The Urban Institute in Maryland examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999. It found that seeking the death penalty in those cases cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not been sought. In California, according to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, ``the additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.'' A report in Washington state indicates that ``at the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.'' Similar reports detailing the extraordinary financial costs of the death penalty have been generated for States across the Nation.

There are also enormous problems with the right to counsel in death penalty cases. I held a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee last year to examine the State of capital defense in this country, and the results were shocking. The witnesses provided sobering testimony about over-worked and under-paid court- appointed lawyers in capital cases, and the lack of investigative and other resources available to them. Just to take a couple of specific examples, Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative testified that in Alabama, 60 percent of people on death row were defended by lawyers appointed by courts who, by statute, could not be paid more than $1,000 for their out of court time to prepare the case for trial. In Texas, hundreds of death row inmates are awaiting execution after being represented by lawyers who could not receive more then $500 for experts or mitigation evidence. Across the country there are hundreds of death row inmates whose lawyers had their compensation capped at levels that make effective assistance impossible.

We also heard more about the American Bar Association State Assessment Project, which found that ineffective defense representation was a serious problem in each of the eight states that the ABA reviewed--and is a major reason why the ABA continues to advocate for a moratorium on capital punishment.

The Federal death penalty, too, has had its share of problems. Capital punishment at the Federal level was reinstated in 1988 in a Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. It was then expanded significantly in 1994, when an omnibus crime bill expanded its use to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. Despite my best efforts to halt the expansion of the Federal death penalty, more and more provisions have been added over the years. Three individuals have now been executed under the Federal system, and there are 55 inmates on Federal death row.

In 2007, I held a hearing on oversight of the Federal death penalty the first such oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in 6 years. Once again, the results were disturbing. The hearing focused on a range of issues, including the lack of information the Justice Department maintains about the application and cost of the death penalty, the lack of transparency in the DOJ decision-making process, concerns about the politicization of the federal death penalty, and the continuing problem of racial disparities in the Federal system.

I was alarmed to learn at the hearing that the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2006 kept virtually no statistics about its implementation of the Federal death penalty. Prior to the hearing, I requested basic statistics for that time period, such as the rate at which the Attorney General overruled U.S. Attorney recommendations not to seek the death penalty, and the race of defendants and victims in Federal capital cases. Before I asked for this information, the Department had not tracked it. Further, the DOJ does not track the monetary costs of the Federal death penalty in any way at all.

We are still lacking basic information about racial disparities in the application of the Federal death penalty. After putting off for years a National Institute of Justice study report ordered by Attorney General Reno at the end of the Clinton Administration to examine this question, DOJ finally released a RAND study in 2006. But the long anticipated report did not address the root question about the application of the Federal death penalty; it did not study the decision-making process for bringing defendants into the Federal system in the first place. Of course, this study only covers 1995-2000. So we still have very little information about racial disparities from 2001 forward.

I was particularly concerned about information the hearing uncovered about the Attorney General overrule rates. In the Federal system, the Attorney General makes the final decision whether to seek the death penalty in federal cases. Between 2001 and 2006, the Attorney General overruled local U.S. Attorney recommendations not to seek the death penalty in one out of every three Federal capital cases. This number is substantially higher than the 16 percent of recommendations not to seek death that were overruled by

Attorney General Reno from 1995 to 2000. Not only was the Bush administration far more willing to overrule local U.S. Attorney recommendations, but when it did so, the Government was less likely to actually obtain a death sentence in the case. The Government secured a death sentence in 33 percent of cases where the Attorney General approved a U.S. Attorney recommendation to seek death, but in only 20 percent of cases where the Attorney General overruled the U.S. Attorney recommendation not to seek death.

And at least one U.S. Attorney who objected when his recommendation not to seek death was overruled by Main Justice learned the hard way that dissent was not acceptable. Former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, who testified at the hearing I chaired, was fired at least in part because he had the audacity to ask to speak with the Attorney General directly after the Attorney General ordered him to pursue the death penalty in a case where he had recommended against seeking the death penalty.

There is every reason to be optimistic that the new administration will take the significant problems in our federal death penalty system much more seriously. But while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system at both the State and Federal level, we cannot help but note that any use of the death penalty in the United States stands in stark contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. There are now 123 countries that have done so. In 2007, only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan executed more people than we did in the United States. These countries, and others on the list of nations that actively use capital punishment, are countries that we often criticize for human rights abuses. The European Union denies membership to nations that use the death penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on all states within the United States to abolish the death penalty. Moreover, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on December 18, 2007, calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.

We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. We should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard.

As a matter of justice, this is an issue that transcends political allegiances. A range of prominent voices in our country is raising serious questions about the death penalty, and these are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of former FBI Director William Sessions, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend Pat Robertson, commentator George Will, former Mississippi warden Donald Cabana, and former Baltimore City police officer Michael May. And notably, the editorial boards of the Chicago Tribune and the Dallas Morning News each finally came out in opposition to the death penalty in 2007. The voices of those questioning our application of the death penalty are growing in number, and they are growing louder.

As we begin a new year and a new Congress, I believe the continued use of the death penalty in the United States is beneath us. The death penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is ineffective. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right'' applies here in the most fundamental way. It is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek to spread peace and justice both here and overseas. And it is not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our criminal justice system as a truly just system that deserves the respect of our own people and the world requires that we take this step. Our Nation's goal to remain the world's leading defender of freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so.

Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.

I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing the death penalty in our great Nation by enacting this legislation to do away with the Federal death penalty. I also call on each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us together reject violence and restore fairness and integrity to our criminal justice system.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 8 minutes as in morning business and that the time not count against debate time on the Kirk nomination.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss taxpayer- funded bonuses. These bonuses are paid every year, often without any public discussion or a recorded vote by those with the authority to approve or stop them. The people giving themselves these bonuses have made sure they get them regardless of their performance.

I am referring to the annual bonuses given to Members of Congress.

There is some good news to report on this issue today. Thanks to the leadership of majority leader Harry Reid, we took an important step yesterday. Senator Reid moved legislation through the Senate that will end these annual stealth bonuses. I have introduced legislation similar to Senator Reid's bill for the past six Congresses, and I am delighted, because of Senator Reid's leadership, this proposal has finally passed the Senate.

Congress has the power to raise its own pay. While some corporate executives apparently have this power as well, it is something most of our constituents cannot do. Because this is such a singular power, I think Congress ought to exercise it openly and subject to regular procedures, including debate, amendment, and, of course, a vote on the record.

But current law allows Congress to avoid that public debate and vote. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that they do nothing, that nothing be done to stop it. The annual bonus takes effect unless Congress acts.

As I noted in a statement yesterday, that stealth bonus mechanism began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. In section 704 of that act, Members of Congress voted to make themselves entitled--entitled--to an annual raise equal to half a percentage point less than the employment cost index, which is one measure of inflation.

On occasion, Congress has actually voted to deny itself a bonus, and the traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote is the Treasury appropriations bill. But that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. As I have noted in the past, getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise is a haphazard affair, at best, and it should not be that way. The burden should not be on those who seek a public debate and a recorded vote on the Member pay raise. On the contrary,

Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of congressional bonuses without accountability must end.

I joined with the junior Senator from Louisiana in offering an amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill recently. That amendment received strong support--support which was all the more remarkable because many of the amendment's potential supporters felt constrained to oppose it in order to keep the underlying legislation free of amendments. Now, thanks to our majority leader, we have a real chance to end this system in fact.

This issue is not a new question. It was something our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. On September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States.

Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was pleased to help add Wisconsin to the States ratifying the amendment. Then its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three- fourths of the States.

So the 27th amendment to the Constitution now states:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the

senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an

election of representatives shall have intervened.

I honor that limitation. Throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. I return to the Treasury any cost-of-living adjustments or bonuses during my term. I do not take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th amendment, and, at the very least, the stealth pay raises permitted under the current system certainly violate that spirit.

This practice must end. I am so delighted to express my thanks to Majority Leader Reid. Because of him, we have a real chance of ending it.

Today I am sending a letter to Speaker Pelosi asking that the other body take up and pass the Reid legislation to end the automatic congressional bonuses. Doing so would assure the American people that we are not only serious about going after the abusive bonuses paid to the executives of firms bailed out with taxpayer dollars, but we are also serious about ending a system that was devised to provide Members of Congress with bonuses without any accountability.

Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I have remaining.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of Ron Kirk to be our trade representative, despite my concerns with his position on trade policy. The tax matters that came to light during Mr. Kirk's vetting are not disqualifying, and because I am inclined to defer to any President on the choice of his closest advisers, I decided to support this nomination.

Having said that, I very much hope the President and his new trade representative will carefully review our current trade policies, and the impact

they have had on the lives of millions of Americans. The trade policies handed over to this administration are as fundamentally flawed and damaging to our economy as the fiscal disaster and financial market crisis they inherited.

The trade policies of the last two decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and supported by both Republican and Democratic controlled Congresses, have undermined environmental protections, food safety and public health protections, subverted our democratic institutions, and helped ship millions of family-supporting decent paying jobs overseas. They have greatly disadvantaged thousands of small businesses in my home State of Wisconsin, exposed consumers to health risks, and decimated communities. They have accelerated the very worst aspects of globalization, and have not done nearly enough to advance its potential benefits.

Mr. President, I wish Mr. Kirk all the best in his new position, and hope he and the President will take a fresh look at our trade policy. As I noted earlier, the mess they have inherited is as big a problem as any presented to the new administration, and it deserves our full attention.

Mr. President, two human rights defenders, Oscar Kamau Kingara and John Paul Oulu, were murdered in the streets of Nairobi, Kenya 2 weeks ago. I was deeply saddened to learn of these murders and join the call of U.S. Ambassador Ranneberger for an immediate, comprehensive and transparent investigation of this crime. At the same time, we cannot view these murders simply in isolation; these murders are part of a continuing pattern of extrajudicial killings with impunity in Kenya. The slain activists were outspoken on the participation of Kenya's police in such killings and the continuing problem of corruption throughout Kenya's security sector. If these and other underlying rule of law problems are not addressed, there is a very real potential for political instability and armed conflict to return to Kenya.

In December 2007, Kenya made international news headlines as violence erupted after its general elections. Over 1,000 people were killed, and the international community, under the leadership of Kofi Annan, rallied to broker a power-sharing agreement and stabilize the government. In the immediate term, this initiative stopped the violence from worsening and has since been hailed as an example of successful conflict resolution. But as too often happens, once the agreement was signed and the immediate threats receded, diplomatic engagement was scaled down. Now over a year later, while the power-sharing agreement remains intact, the fundamental problems that led to the violence in December 2007 remain unchanged. In some cases, they have even become worse.

Last October, the independent Commission of Inquiry on Post-Election Violence, known as the Waki Commission, issued its final report. The Commission called for the Kenyan government to establish a special tribunal to seek accountability for persons bearing the greatest responsibility for the violence after the elections. It also recommended immediate and comprehensive reform of Kenya's police service. Philip Alston, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, echoed that recommendation in his report, which was released last month. Alston found the police had been widely involved in the post-election violence and continue to carry out carefully planned extrajudicial killings. The Special Rapporteur also identified systematic shortcomings and the need for reform in the judiciary and Office of the Attorney General.

Despite these official reports, there has been very little action toward implementing these recommendations. The Kenyan government has not taken steps to establish the special tribunal. The police commissioner and attorney general, both heavily implicated in these problems, remain in their respective posts. Meanwhile, reported scandals involving maize and oil imports suggest that public corruption in Kenya remains pervasive and may be getting worse. This is generating increased public resentment that can easily be exploited by armed militias and turn violent. I am especially worried about these heightened hostilities given the tensions expected to surround Kenya's census, which is scheduled for later this year and the potential for them to flow over into next year's constitutional referendum, and ultimately the 2012 general elections.

There is a lot of talk these days about conflict prevention. I see no greater opportunity for conflict prevention in Africa right now than in Kenya. The international community needs to coordinate its efforts to ensure the Kenyan government addresses these fundamental problems of governance and rule of law. The United States has a key role to play in this regard, especially given our longstanding and historic partnership with Kenya. To that end, I was pleased that FBI Director Robert Mueller visited Kenya 2 weeks ago and delivered a very clear message: ``Public corruption should be a priority for all investigation and prosecution agencies in the country.'' We need to consistently reiterate that message and we need to back it up with concrete actions that both support reform and sanction individuals found guilty of kleptocracy.

In the months ahead, Kenya must get more attention from our senior government officials. I hope the Obama administration's nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs will be ready to give it that attention and develop an effective strategy for preventing conflict there. Allowing the status quo to persist will be far more costly in the long run. Kenya is an extremely important country for the stability of the Horn of Africa and East Africa; it is a country of great talent and entrepreneurship, rich history and diversity. With all those strengths, a promising and peaceful future is possible for Kenya and we must help its people to attain it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 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 Wednesday, march 18, 2009 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, march 18, 2009. The Committee will meet in room 334 of the Cannon House Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

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 a hearing entitled ``The Need to Stringthen Forensic Science in the United States: The National Academy of Science's Report on a Path Forward'' on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``A New Way Home: Findings from the Disaster Recovery Subcommittee Special Report and Working with the New Administration on a Way Forward.''

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 March 18, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a Securities, Insurance and Investment Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Lessons Learned in Risk Management Oversight at Federal Financial Regulators.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Health Care of the Committee on Finance will meet on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. President, I commend our majority leader for moving this legislation through the Senate. I have introduced legislation like this for the past six Congresses, and am delighted that, because of Senator Reid's leadership, this proposal has finally passed the Senate.

Congress has the power to raise its own pay, something that most of our constituents cannot do. Because this is such a singular power, Congress ought to exercise it openly, and subject to regular procedures including debate, amendment, and a vote.

But current law allows Congress to avoid that public debate and vote. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that nothing be done to stop it. The annual pay raise takes effect unless Congress acts.

That stealth pay raise mechanism began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. In section 704 of that act, Members of Congress voted to make themselves entitled to an annual raise equal to half a percentage point less than the employment cost index, one measure of inflation.

On occasion Congress has voted to deny itself the raise, and the traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote is the Treasury appropriations bill. But that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. As I have noted in the past, getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise is a haphazard affair at best, and it should not be that way. The burden should not be on those who seek a public debate and recorded vote on the Member pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end.

I was pleased to join with the junior Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, in offering an amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill recently. That amendment received strong support, support which was all the more remarkable because many of the amendment's potential supporters felt constrained to oppose it in order to keep the underlying legislation free of amendments. I commend Senator Vitter for his efforts to end this system. Now, thanks to our majority leader, we have a real chance to do so.

This issue is not a new question. It was something that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. On September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States.

Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan Legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three-fourths of the States.

The 27th amendment to the Constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.''

I honor that limitation. Throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any cost-of-living adjustments or pay raises during my term. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th amendment, and at the very least the stealth pay raises permitted under the current system certainly violate that spirit.

This practice must end, and I am delighted to say that thanks to Majority Leader Reid, we have a real chance at ending it. I urge the House of Representatives to take this bill up and pass it right away, so we can assure the American people that we are serious about ending a system that was devised to provide us with regular pay increases without any accountability.

Mr. President, I wish to express my grave concern at the continuing massacres, kidnappings, and terror orchestrated by the Lord's Resistance Army, the LRA, in northeastern Congo and southern Sudan. As many of my colleagues know, I have long been engaged in efforts to bring an end to this--one of Africa's longest running and most gruesome rebel wars. In 2004, I authored and Congress passed the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act, which committed the United States to work vigorously for a lasting resolution to this conflict. In 2007, I visited displacement camps in northern Uganda and saw first-hand the impact the violence orchestrated by the LRA has had throughout the region. I have been frustrated as the LRA has been able to move in recent years across porous regional borders to gain new footholds in northeastern Congo, southern Sudan, and even the Central African Republic, with little consequence.

Just over 2 months ago, the Ugandan, Congolese, and South Sudanese militaries launched a joint offensive against the LRA's primary bases in northeastern Congo. Serious concerns have been raised about the planning and implementation of this operation. Since the military strike began, the LRA has been able to carry out a series of new massacres in Congo and Sudan, leaving over 900 people dead. That is a killing rate that, according to the Genocide Intervention Network, exceeds that in Darfur or even in Somalia. Hundreds of new children have been abducted and new communities have been devastated and displaced. It is tragically clear that insufficient attention and resources were devoted to ensuring the protection of civilians during the operation. Meanwhile, the LRA's leader, Joseph Kony, and his commanders escaped the initial aerial assault and have continued to evade the militaries. Thus far, this operation has resulted in the worst-case scenario: it has failed to stop the LRA, while spurring the rebels to intensify their attacks against civilians.

I am not ruling out that this offensive--still ongoing--may yet succeed. Indeed, I strongly hope it does. On several occasions last year, Kony refused to sign a comprehensive peace agreement with the Government of Uganda, an agreement that even included provisions to shield him from an International Criminal Court indictment. At the same time, as negotiations were still underway, his forces launched new attacks in Congo, Sudan, and, for the first time, Central African Republic. They abducted hundreds of youths to rebuild their ranks. It was apparent that Kony was not interested in a negotiated settlement, despite the good efforts of mediators and northern Ugandan civil society leaders. I supported those peace negotiations, but it became increasingly clear that the LRA's leaders would only be stopped when forced to do so.

For many years I have pressed for a political solution to the crisis in northern Uganda. I pressed for the international community to work collectively to support efforts to bring peace and stability to this war-torn area. And against all odds, the most recent peace talks in Juba, South Sudan, did see a collective effort but to no avail. These negotiations were not perfect but for some time offered a path forward and provided a framework to address the underlying grievances of communities in northern Uganda. But then, it became increasing clear that Joseph Kony had no intention of ever signing the final agreement and had instead been conducting new abductions to replenish his rebel group. It became increasingly clear that Kony and his top commanders would stand in the way of any comprehensive political solution.

These failed talks justify military action against the LRA's top command, but that action must be carefully considered. As we have seen too many times, offensive operations that are poorly designed and poorly carried out risk doing more harm than good, inflaming a situation rather than resolving it. 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. Furthermore, to be sustainable, military action needs to be placed within a larger counterinsurgency strategy that integrates outreach to local populations, active programs for basic service provision and reconstruction in affected areas, and mechanisms for ex- combatant disarmament, demobilization and reintegration. Those mechanisms are especially important in the case of the LRA because of the large number of child abductees who make up the rebel ranks.

As this operation continues, I hope the regional militaries are identifying their earlier mistakes and adjusting their strategy in response. Meanwhile, the international community cannot continue to stay on the sidelines as these massacres continue. The United Nations Security Council should take up this matter immediately and, in coordination with the Secretary-General and his Special Representative for LRA-affected areas, develop a plan and new resources to enhance civilian protection. I urge the Obama administration to use its voice and vote at the Security Council to see that this happens. At the same time, I urge the administration to develop an interagency strategy for how the United States can contribute to longer term efforts to disarm and demobilize the LRA, restore the rule of law in affected areas of Congo and Sudan, and address political and economic marginalization in northern Uganda that initially gave rise to this rebel group.

This is not to suggest the United States has not already been involved with the ongoing operation. AFRICOM officials have acknowledged that they provided assistance and support for this operation at the request of the regional governments.

As a 17-year member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs and someone who has been involved with AFRICOM since its conception, I would like to offer some thoughts on this matter. While I supported AFRICOM's creation, I have been concerned about its potential to eclipse our civilian agencies and thereby perpetuate perceptions on the continent of a militarized U.S. policy. It is essential that we get this balance right and protect chief of mission authority. By doing so, we can help ensure AFRICOM contributes to broader efforts to bring lasting peace and stability across Africa. When I visited AFRICOM's headquarters last December and talked with senior officials, we discussed the important roles that it can play. They include helping to develop effective, well-disciplined militaries that adhere to civilian rule, strengthening regional peacekeeping missions, and supporting postconflict demobilization and disarmament processes. In my view, assisting a multilateral operation to disarm an armed group that preys on civilians and wreaks regional havoc fits this job description, theoretically, at least.

To put it bluntly, I believe supporting viable and legitimate efforts to disarm and demobilize the LRA is exactly the kind of thing in which AFRICOM should be engaged. Of course, the key words there are viable and legitimate. We should not be supporting operations that we believe are substantially flawed and do not have a high probability of success. Furthermore, we should ensure that operations we assist do not exacerbate inter-state tensions or violate international humanitarian law. If we get involved, even in an advisory capacity, we have to be willing to take responsibility for outcomes, whether anticipated or not. To that end, it is critical that the State Department is not only involved but plays a leading role in ensuring that any military activities are coordinated with long-term political strategies and our overarching foreign policy objectives.

In the case of this current operation against the LRA, as I have already outlined, I do not believe these conditions were met or the necessary due diligence undertaken before its launch. But we cannot just give up on the goal of ending the massacres and threat to regional stability posed by this small rebel group. That is precisely why I am urging the development of an interagency strategy to drive U.S. policy going forward. By putting in place such a proactive strategy, we can better help the region's leaders to get this mission right and protect their people from the LRA's continuing atrocities. This could finally pave the way for a new future for this region and its people and help shape an AFRICOM that works effectively for both Africa and America's security interests.

Mr. President, I am proud to help celebrate Women's History Month today. This is a time to celebrate the contributions of women throughout our history and to recognize the work of so many to secure women's rights and fulfill our Nation's promise of equal justice under the law.

My own State can be proud that so many Wisconsin women have made critical contributions to the movement for women's suffrage, to education, and to countless other areas of American life. Wisconsin achieved extraordinary things to pave the way for suffrage and social progress for generations to come. According to the Wisconsin Historical Society, in 1919 Wisconsin was the first State to ratify the 19th amendment to grant women the right to vote. Sixty years before that historic moment, one of the great leaders of the suffrage movement, Carrie Chapman Catt, was born in Ripon, WI. Catt's lifelong effort to pass the 19th amendment, especially her leadership of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, was vital to the Amendment's ultimate success. And Catt didn't stop there. Once the amendment was ratified, she founded the League of Women Voters to continue and build on the momentum for change that the women's suffrage movement created. Catt's lifetime of persistence and dedication--as a leader for change and, earlier in her life, as the only woman in her graduating class at Iowa Agricultural College and Model Farm--reminds us how hard women throughout our history have worked to secure our rights and freedoms.

We also remember the amazing Wisconsin women who have enriched their local communities, including Margaret Schurz. Schurz started the first kindergarten in the Nation in Watertown, WI, in 1856. Her efforts led to the implementation of kindergarten and early-education programs throughout the United States. Her legacy is a great example of the impact Wisconsin women have had in bringing about progressive change in education and many other areas.

This month we also know that we must continue to advocate for fundamental fairness and equality for women. The enactment of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 to help ensure protection from pay discrimination represents another step forward, but there remains a long road ahead of us. In addition to passing the Fair Pay Act, Congress needs to do more to ensure all of America's citizens receive equal pay for equal work. Wage discrimination costs families thousands of dollars each year. This is hard-earned money that working women simply cannot afford to lose. I am a proud cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act introduced earlier this year. This legislation strengthens penalties for employers who violate the Equal Pay Act and requires the Department of Labor to provide training to employers to help eliminate pay disparities.

I applaud President Obama's announcement that he will convene a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that the Federal Government is coordinated in its response to the challenges facing women and girls in our country. As we commemorate Women's History Month, we must continue to honor the tremendous contributions women have made, and renew our commitment to advancing the rights of women everywhere.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Service Fellowship Act with Senators Voinovich, Whitehouse, Cochran and Cardin. This important bill would provide more Americans the opportunity to volunteer overseas and strengthen our commitment to international volunteerism. This bill also authorizes Volunteers for Prosperity, VFP, an office created by President Bush under Executive Order 13317. As the new administration seeks to rebuild and restore our image abroad, increasing the number of Americans volunteering abroad is a critical component of that work. The federal government should facilitate such international volunteering experiences for U.S. citizens by promoting both short and long-term opportunities.

My bill would not only provide more opportunities for people-to- people engagement, it would also reduce barriers that the average citizen faces when trying to volunteer internationally. First of all, my bill would reduce financial barriers by awarding fellowships designed to defray some of the costs associated with volunteering. The fellowship can be applied toward many of the costs associated with such travel including airfare, housing, or program costs. By providing financial assistance, the Global Service Fellowship program opens the door for more Americans to participate--not just those with the resources to pay for it.

Secondly, my bill reduces volunteering barriers by offering flexibility in the length of the volunteer opportunity. I hear frequently from constituents who are unable to participate in volunteer programs because they cannot leave their jobs or family for years or months at a time, but are interested in creating cross cultural connections and contributing meaningfully to positive global change. A survey released by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in December 2008 indicates that between 2002 and 2008, opinions of the U.S. declined steeply in 14 out of the 19 countries polled. The Global Service Fellowship Program offers U.S. citizens an immediate opportunity to help reverse this negative trend on a schedule that works for them-- from a month up to a year. My bill provides a commonsense approach to the time limitations of the average American while also recognizing the important role people-to-people engagement can play in countering negative views of our country around the world.

Not only does this bill make it easier for all Americans to apply for fellowships, it also engages Congress by giving Members of Congress the opportunity to notify their constituents who are awarded the fellowship--and calls on the recipient to report back to USAID and to their congressional representatives once they have returned from their time abroad. Through this process, Congress will see firsthand the benefit international volunteering brings to their communities and the Nation.

This program would cost $15 million, which is more than offset by a provision in my bill that would require the IRS to deposit all of its fee receipts in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. This program would be a valuable addition to our public diplomacy, development, and humanitarian efforts overseas and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.