Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am proud to join the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in cosponsoring the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. This bill is a much- needed solution to the daunting problem of ensuring the privacy and the security of our personal data, which has become such a precious commodity.

As we enter the 21st century, several forces are converging to make our personal information more valuable--and vulnerable--than ever. The world is going digital, and so is our personal data. In this day and age, almost everything we do results in a third party creating a digital record about us--digital records that we may not even realize exist. We seek the convenience of opening bank accounts and making major purchases over the Internet, often without ever speaking to another person face to face or even over the telephone, making identity theft easier and more lucrative. Businesses, nonprofits and even political parties are personalizing their messages, products and services to a degree we've never seen before, and they are willing to invest significant amounts of money in collecting personal information about potential customers or donors. And we are living in an age where identity-based screening and security programs can be vitally important, resulting in more information being collected about individuals in an attempt to identify them accurately.

As a result, personal information has become a hot commodity that is bought, sold, and--as so often happens when something becomes valuable--stolen.

We are at a crossroads. We all know about the security breaches that have been on the front pages of newspapers all over the country for the past 6 months. They have placed the identities of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk.

But this is about much more than just information security. Until California law required ChoicePoint to notify individuals that their information was compromised and they might be vulnerable to identity theft, many Americans had never heard of this company. As news stories focused on the data broker business, many Americans were surprised to discover that companies are creating digital dossiers about them that contain massive amounts of information, and that these companies sell that information to commercial and government entities. The revelations about these security breaches highlighted the fact that Americans need a better understanding of what happens to their information in a digital world--and what kind of consequences they can face as a result.

When I am back home in Wisconsin, I hear from people who do not understand why companies have the right to sell their sensitive personal information. I hear from people who are shocked to discover that personal information about them is available for free on the Internet.

There is no question that data aggregators facilitate societal benefits, allowing consumers to obtain instant credit and personalized services, and police officers to locate suspects. But these companies also gather a great deal of potentially sensitive information about individuals, and in many instances they go largely unregulated.

Too many of my constituents feel they have lost control over their own information. Congress must return some power to individual Americans so that we can all better understand and manage what happens to our own personal data.

The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act takes a comprehensive approach to the privacy and security problems we face. It gives consumers back some control over their own information. The bill requires data brokers to allow consumers to access their own information, and to investigate when consumers tell them that corrections are necessary. And it requires companies to give notice to affected consumers and to law enforcement if there is a serious security breach, so that individuals know their identity may be at risk and can take steps to protect themselves.

In addition, the bill increases penalties for those who steal our identities. It provides grants to State and local law enforcement to help them combat data fraud and related crimes. It requires companies that buy and sell information to have appropriate data security systems in place. It provides protection to Social Security numbers by prohibiting the sale, purchase or display of Social Security numbers, with certain exceptions, and preventing companies from requiring customers to provide their Social Security numbers in order to purchase goods or services. These protections will help safeguard against future privacy violations and security breaches in the commercial data industry. But that is not all this bill accomplishes.

The bill also contains some critically important privacy and security provisions to govern the Government's use of commercial data. This is an aspect of the data broker business that has not yet gotten as much attention in the wake of the recent security breaches. The information gathered by these companies is not just sold to individuals and businesses; Government agencies of all stripes also buy or subscribe to information from commercial sources. The most recent example was the discovery that the Pentagon has a contract with a marketing firm to analyze commercial and other data about high school and college students.

While I believe the Government should be able to access commercial databases in appropriate circumstances, there are few existing rules or guidelines to ensure this information is used responsibly. Nor are there restrictions on the use of commercial data for powerful, intrusive data mining programs, an issue I have been particularly concerned about. The Privacy Act, which governs when Government agencies themselves are collecting data, does not apply because the information is held outside the Government and is not gathered solely at Government direction.

As a result, there is a great deal we do not know about Government use of commercial data, even in clearly appropriate circumstances such as when the agency's goal is simply to locate an individual already suspected of a crime.

We don't know under what circumstances Government employees can obtain access to these databases or for what purposes. We don't know how Government agencies evaluate the accuracy of the databases to which they subscribe, or how the accuracy level affects government use of the data. We don't know how employees are monitored to ensure they do not abuse their access to these databases, or how those who misuse the information are punished. And we don't know how Government agencies, particularly those engaged in sensitive national security investigations, ensure that the data brokers cannot keep records of who the Government is investigating, records which themselves could create a huge security risk in light of the vulnerabilities that have come to the forefront in recent months.

That is why I am so pleased that this bill includes provisions to address the Government's use of commercial data. A comprehensive approach to data privacy and security would be incomplete without taking on this piece of the puzzle. The bill recognizes there are many legitimate reasons for Government agencies to obtain commercially available data, but that they need to be subject to privacy and security protections. It takes a commonsense approach, pushing Government agencies to take basic steps to ensure that individuals' personal information is secure and only used for legitimate purposes, and that the commercial information the Government is paying for and relying on is accurate and complete.

Specifically, the bill would require that Federal agencies that subscribe to commercial data adopt standards governing its use. These standards would reflect long-standing basic privacy principles. The bill would ensure that Government agencies consider and determine which personnel will be permitted to access the information and under what circumstances; develop retention policies for this personal data and get rid of data they no longer need, minimizing the opportunity for abuse or theft; rely only on accurate and complete data, and penalize vendors who knowingly provide inaccurate information to the Federal Government; provide individuals who suffer adverse consequences as a result of the agency's reliance on commercial data with a redress mechanism; and establish enforcement mechanisms for those privacy policies.

The bill also extends to other screening programs the existing protections that already are in place to govern the Transportation Security Administration's possible use of commercial data for its identity-based airline passenger screening program, Secure Flight. If the Federal Government is going to rely on commercial data to screen Americans and decide whether to permit them to travel by air or engage in other common activities, it should do so only subject to explicit congressional authorization, as this bill provides. In addition, agencies should have to provide a redress process for those wrongly affected, and should have to operate under rules that govern the access, use, disclosure, accuracy and retention of that data.

The bill also directs the General Services Administration to review Government contracts for commercial data to make sure that vendors have appropriate security programs in place, and that they do not provide information to the Government that they know to be inaccurate. And it requires agencies to audit the information security practices of their vendors.

These are basic good Government measures. They guarantee that the Federal Government is not wasting money on inaccurate data, and that vendors are undertaking the security programs that they have promised and for which the Government is paying.

We live in a new digital world. The law may never fully keep up with technology, but we must make every effort we can. I am proud to be involved in this comprehensive, reasoned approach to privacy and security. I congratulate Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for their excellent work on this bill. This bill is important and it deserves very serious consideration by the Senate.

Mr. President, I am proud to join the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in cosponsoring the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. This bill is a much- needed solution to the daunting problem of ensuring the privacy and the security of our personal data, which has become such a precious commodity.

As we enter the 21st century, several forces are converging to make our personal information more valuable--and vulnerable--than ever. The world is going digital, and so is our personal data. In this day and age, almost everything we do results in a third party creating a digital record about us--digital records that we may not even realize exist. We seek the convenience of opening bank accounts and making major purchases over the Internet, often without ever speaking to another person face to face or even over the telephone, making identity theft easier and more lucrative. Businesses, nonprofits and even political parties are personalizing their messages, products and services to a degree we've never seen before, and they are willing to invest significant amounts of money in collecting personal information about potential customers or donors. And we are living in an age where identity-based screening and security programs can be vitally important, resulting in more information being collected about individuals in an attempt to identify them accurately.

As a result, personal information has become a hot commodity that is bought, sold, and--as so often happens when something becomes valuable--stolen.

We are at a crossroads. We all know about the security breaches that have been on the front pages of newspapers all over the country for the past 6 months. They have placed the identities of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk.

But this is about much more than just information security. Until California law required ChoicePoint to notify individuals that their information was compromised and they might be vulnerable to identity theft, many Americans had never heard of this company. As news stories focused on the data broker business, many Americans were surprised to discover that companies are creating digital dossiers about them that contain massive amounts of information, and that these companies sell that information to commercial and government entities. The revelations about these security breaches highlighted the fact that Americans need a better understanding of what happens to their information in a digital world--and what kind of consequences they can face as a result.

When I am back home in Wisconsin, I hear from people who do not understand why companies have the right to sell their sensitive personal information. I hear from people who are shocked to discover that personal information about them is available for free on the Internet.

There is no question that data aggregators facilitate societal benefits, allowing consumers to obtain instant credit and personalized services, and police officers to locate suspects. But these companies also gather a great deal of potentially sensitive information about individuals, and in many instances they go largely unregulated.

Too many of my constituents feel they have lost control over their own information. Congress must return some power to individual Americans so that we can all better understand and manage what happens to our own personal data.

The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act takes a comprehensive approach to the privacy and security problems we face. It gives consumers back some control over their own information. The bill requires data brokers to allow consumers to access their own information, and to investigate when consumers tell them that corrections are necessary. And it requires companies to give notice to affected consumers and to law enforcement if there is a serious security breach, so that individuals know their identity may be at risk and can take steps to protect themselves.

In addition, the bill increases penalties for those who steal our identities. It provides grants to State and local law enforcement to help them combat data fraud and related crimes. It requires companies that buy and sell information to have appropriate data security systems in place. It provides protection to Social Security numbers by prohibiting the sale, purchase or display of Social Security numbers, with certain exceptions, and preventing companies from requiring customers to provide their Social Security numbers in order to purchase goods or services. These protections will help safeguard against future privacy violations and security breaches in the commercial data industry. But that is not all this bill accomplishes.

The bill also contains some critically important privacy and security provisions to govern the Government's use of commercial data. This is an aspect of the data broker business that has not yet gotten as much attention in the wake of the recent security breaches. The information gathered by these companies is not just sold to individuals and businesses; Government agencies of all stripes also buy or subscribe to information from commercial sources. The most recent example was the discovery that the Pentagon has a contract with a marketing firm to analyze commercial and other data about high school and college students.

While I believe the Government should be able to access commercial databases in appropriate circumstances, there are few existing rules or guidelines to ensure this information is used responsibly. Nor are there restrictions on the use of commercial data for powerful, intrusive data mining programs, an issue I have been particularly concerned about. The Privacy Act, which governs when Government agencies themselves are collecting data, does not apply because the information is held outside the Government and is not gathered solely at Government direction.

As a result, there is a great deal we do not know about Government use of commercial data, even in clearly appropriate circumstances such as when the agency's goal is simply to locate an individual already suspected of a crime.

We don't know under what circumstances Government employees can obtain access to these databases or for what purposes. We don't know how Government agencies evaluate the accuracy of the databases to which they subscribe, or how the accuracy level affects government use of the data. We don't know how employees are monitored to ensure they do not abuse their access to these databases, or how those who misuse the information are punished. And we don't know how Government agencies, particularly those engaged in sensitive national security investigations, ensure that the data brokers cannot keep records of who the Government is investigating, records which themselves could create a huge security risk in light of the vulnerabilities that have come to the forefront in recent months.

That is why I am so pleased that this bill includes provisions to address the Government's use of commercial data. A comprehensive approach to data privacy and security would be incomplete without taking on this piece of the puzzle. The bill recognizes there are many legitimate reasons for Government agencies to obtain commercially available data, but that they need to be subject to privacy and security protections. It takes a commonsense approach, pushing Government agencies to take basic steps to ensure that individuals' personal information is secure and only used for legitimate purposes, and that the commercial information the Government is paying for and relying on is accurate and complete.

Specifically, the bill would require that Federal agencies that subscribe to commercial data adopt standards governing its use. These standards would reflect long-standing basic privacy principles. The bill would ensure that Government agencies consider and determine which personnel will be permitted to access the information and under what circumstances; develop retention policies for this personal data and get rid of data they no longer need, minimizing the opportunity for abuse or theft; rely only on accurate and complete data, and penalize vendors who knowingly provide inaccurate information to the Federal Government; provide individuals who suffer adverse consequences as a result of the agency's reliance on commercial data with a redress mechanism; and establish enforcement mechanisms for those privacy policies.

The bill also extends to other screening programs the existing protections that already are in place to govern the Transportation Security Administration's possible use of commercial data for its identity-based airline passenger screening program, Secure Flight. If the Federal Government is going to rely on commercial data to screen Americans and decide whether to permit them to travel by air or engage in other common activities, it should do so only subject to explicit congressional authorization, as this bill provides. In addition, agencies should have to provide a redress process for those wrongly affected, and should have to operate under rules that govern the access, use, disclosure, accuracy and retention of that data.

The bill also directs the General Services Administration to review Government contracts for commercial data to make sure that vendors have appropriate security programs in place, and that they do not provide information to the Government that they know to be inaccurate. And it requires agencies to audit the information security practices of their vendors.

These are basic good Government measures. They guarantee that the Federal Government is not wasting money on inaccurate data, and that vendors are undertaking the security programs that they have promised and for which the Government is paying.

We live in a new digital world. The law may never fully keep up with technology, but we must make every effort we can. I am proud to be involved in this comprehensive, reasoned approach to privacy and security. I congratulate Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for their excellent work on this bill. This bill is important and it deserves very serious consideration by the Senate.

Mr. President, energy policy is an important issue for America and one which my Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. Crafting an energy policy requires us to address important questions about, for example, the role of domestic production of energy resources versus foreign imports, the need to ensure adequate energy supplies while protecting the environment, the need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our energy efficiency, and the wisest use of our energy resources. Given the need for a sound national energy policy, a vote on an energy bill is a very serious matter and I do not take a decision to oppose such a bill lightly. In my view, however, this bill does not achieve the correct balance on several important issues, which is why I will oppose it.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that implementing the bill will cost $5.1 billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006- 2010 period. I am concerned that this estimate does not include the at least $10.1 billion in unpaid-for tax breaks. The $10.1 billion includes $5.7 billion in production tax credits and $4.4 billion in various subsidies to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries. Although I support the extension of the wind energy production tax credit and incentives for alternative fuels such as biodiesel, I am concerned that these tax expenditures are not offset. This billion dollar figure does not include the potential costs of the billions of dollars in loan guarantees provided in the bill, which could prove extremely costly to taxpayers. According to the CBO, loan default risk is ``well above 50 percent'' leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. The oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric and nuclear industries are mature industries that do not need to be propped up by the taxpayers. I am also especially concerned about the tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry, which is already experiencing windfall profits as oil nears $60 a barrel.

Even before the Senate added the tax title to the bill or any other amendments, CBO estimated that implementing the bill would cost $5.1 billion in 2006 and $35.9 billion over the 2006-2010 period. None of this spending is offset, or paid for. Our nation's budget position has deteriorated significantly over the past few years, in large part because of the massive tax cuts that were enacted. We now face years of projected budget deficits. The only way we will climb out of this deficit hole is to return to the fiscally responsible policies that helped put our nation on a sound fiscal footing in the 1990s, and that means making sure the bills we pass are paid for. Otherwise we are digging our deficit hole even deeper and adding to the massive debt already facing our children and grandchildren.

In addition, this bill repeals the proconsumer Public Utility Holding Company Act, the Federal Government's most important mechanism to protect electricity consumers. The bill does include language from my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, banning Enron-like energy trading schemes. I also welcome the addition of new language that gives the Federal Government more oversight of utility mergers. This language, however, in my opinion, does not adequately prevent utilities from using affiliate companies to out compete small businesses.

That is why I joined with the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, in filing the consumer protection, fair competition, and financial integrity amendment. We believe that small businesses and consumers should be protected from abuses involving public utility companies' related businesses. We also share the belief that repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act in the underlying bill creates a serious regulatory void and market flaw that Congress should correct.

Our amendment would have improved the bill by making clear the actions that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--or FERC--must take to ensure that deregulated holding companies do not outcompete our small businesses, damage their financial standing, and then pass the costs of bad investments to consumers.

Our amendment was supported by a wide and impressive coalition of business, labor, financial, and consumer groups which include AARP, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Public Power Association, American Subcontractors Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation, Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty Corporation, Blue Point Re Limited, CIFG, IXIS Financial Guaranty, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Financial Security Assurance, MBIA Insurance Corporation, Radian Asset Assurance Inc., RAM Reinsurance Company, XL Capital Assurance, ELCON, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Mechanical Contractors Association of America, National Electrical Contractors Association, Plumbing- Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association, Public Citizen, Public Interest Research Group, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Small Business Legislative Council, and Wisconsin Public Power, Incorporated.

My State of Wisconsin is acutely interested in and concerned about the repeal of PUHCA and about ongoing abuses involving the unregulated corporate affiliates of regulated utilities. I have also heard from contractors and other small businesses across the Nation who have been harmed by unfair competition by affiliates of public utilities.

I am pleased this consumer protection amendment was a bipartisan effort. I believe we have broad support in this body and beyond for this amendment, which is why I was disappointed that we were not able to offer this amendment because of the threat of another amendment being offered that would eliminate the oversight provisions currently in the bill.

I am pleased, however, that we were able to obtain assurances from the chair and ranking member that they would hold a hearing on abusive affiliate transactions. I also appreciate the ranking member's commitment to request a GAO investigation of the potential for abusive transactions involving affiliates of public utility companies.

During debate on this important measure, I supported several efforts to improve the underlying bill and the bill contains many provisions that I support. Specifically, I strongly supported the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, No. 779. I am pleased that the Senate overwhelmingly passed this important measure. I support the national ban of methyl tertiary butyl ether,

MTBE, and the measures in the bill that increase the supply of ethanol. I am also pleased that the amendment includes language I drafted to consolidate the number of Federal reformulated gasoline blends. I have worked closely with Congressman Paul Ryan in an effort to reduce the number of Federal reformulated gasoline blends and increase gasoline supplies for consumers.

In recent years, fuel supply shocks such as pipeline problems and refinery fires have contributed significantly to gasoline price spikes in southern Wisconsin. Chicago and southeast Wisconsin use a specialized blend of reformulated gasoline to meet Federal Clean Air Act requirements that is not used elsewhere in the country. When supplies of this type of gasoline run low, Wisconsin is unable to draw on supplies of gasoline from other areas. Consolidation of the number of boutique fuels will help Wisconsin and consumers across the country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the boutique fuels issue is adequately addressed in the energy bill conference report.

I also supported Senator Bingaman's amendment to mandate a renewable portfolio standard requiring electric utilities to generate or purchase 10 percent of the electricity they sell from renewable sources by 2020. The Senate has previously considered renewable portfolio standards of 20 percent. We can do even better on renewable energy sources, but I am pleased that the Senate took a positive step forward on this important issue.

I am also pleased with the many energy efficiency incentives and the reauthorization of the Energy Performance Savings Contracts Program. I also support the inclusion of mandatory electricity reliability standards to prevent blackouts.

I supported the Cantwell energy security amendment, No. 784, because it would have helped to put America on the path towards independence from foreign oil. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent by 2025 will make our country stronger and safer. For years, the American economy has been subject to the whims of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, cartel. The amendment did not address which technology should be used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and does not mandate changes in fuel economy standards. The language is simple--it sets our goal and we have to figure out how to get there. We are a country of innovators. Whether it is wind, solar, biodiesel, or a technology we still have not dreamed of yet, we can-- and we must--break our addiction to foreign oil. This bold, aggressive amendment would have ensured that we meet our goal of real energy independence. I was disappointed that the Senate did not adopt this amendment.

In sum, the American people deserve a more fiscally responsible energy policy than that is reflected in this bill, and I cannot vote in favor of it. This measure will need to be improved in conference to get my vote.

Mr. President, I voted in favor of the Bond-Levin amendment regarding CAFE standards, and I want to explain my views in detail. Fuel efficiency is a critically important issue for our country, for my home State of Wisconsin, and for our future. I remain committed to the goal that significant improvements in automobile and light truck fuel efficiency can be achieved over an appropriate time frame. My vote for the Levin-Bond is entirely consistent with that goal.

The Levin-Bond amendment seeks to renew the Department of Transportation's role in setting CAFE standards, acting through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA. If Congress does not act to try to restore normalcy to the NHTSA process, we will keep having these fights which Congress attempts to either block or set CAFE standards, every 20 years or so, when the political will is sufficient to do so. NHTSA will never be able to carry out the normal process of reviewing and incrementally improving fuel efficiency for automobiles and light trucks, as Congress

originally intended when it passed the CAFE law in the 1970s.

Both interest groups battling over the CAFE issue, the auto manufacturers and the environmental community, have switched their positions in this debate on this bill over the past several years. The auto industry, which once wanted CAFE perpetually frozen with a rider to an appropriations bill, now supports the Levin amendment. The environmental community, which once opposed the rider and wanted NHTSA to act, now wants Congress to set the standard rather than NHTSA. With my vote, I am maintaining my consistent position on this issue.

As I stated on the Senate floor in the debate on the CAFE rider on June 15, 2000, my vote was about ``Congress getting out of the way and letting a Federal agency meet the requirements of Federal law originally imposed by Congress.'' I supported removing the rider back in 2000 because I was concerned that Congress has for more than 5 years blocked NHTSA from meeting its legal duty to evaluate whether there is a need to modify fuel economy standards.

As I made clear in 2000, 2002, 2003 and many other previous debates on this issue, I have made no determination about what fuel economy standards should be, though I do think that an increase is possible. NHTSA has the authority to set new standards for a given model year, taking into account several factors; technological feasibility, economic practicability, other vehicle standards such as those for safety and environmental performance, the need to conserve energy, and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. I want NHTSA to fully and fairly evaluate all the criteria, and then make an objective recommendation on the basis of those facts. I expect NHTSA to consult with all interested parties--unions, environmental interests, auto manufacturers, and other interested citizens--in developing this rule. And, I expect NHTSA to act, and if it does not, this amendment requires Congress to act on a standard.

In opposing the Levin-Bond amendment, some subscribe to the view that NHTSA has a particular agenda and will recommend weak standards. I do not support that view.

NHTSA should be allowed to set this standard. Congress is not the best forum for understanding whether or not improvements in fuel economy can and should be made using existing technologies or whether emerging technologies may have the potential to improve fuel economy. Changes in fuel economy standards could have a variety of consequences. I seek to understand those consequences and to balance the concerns of those interested in seeing improvements to fuel economy as a means of reducing gasoline consumption and associated pollution.

In the end, I would like to see that Wisconsin consumers, indeed all consumers, have a wide range of new, more fuel efficient automobiles, SUVs, and trucks available to them, taking into account all appropriate energy, technological and economic factors. That balancing is required by the law. I expect NHTSA to proceed in a manner consistent with the law by fully considering all those factors, and this amendment ensures they do so.

In supporting this amendment, I maintain the position that it is my job to ensure that the agency responsible for setting fuel economy be allowed to do its job. I expect it to be fair and neutral in that process, and I will work with interested Wisconsinites to ensure that their views are represented and that the regulatory process proceeds in a fair and reasonable manner toward whatever conclusions the merits will support.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the ANTI-GANG Act, introduced today by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities.

Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The ANTI-GANG Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics.

The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow the recruitment of the very best Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorneys General and allow them to remain in public service longer so they can use their wealth of experience to combat gang violence.

The ANTI-GANG Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute, which was never intended to be used against violent street gangs, with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but also addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The ANTI-GANG Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement and certify that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest

Finally, the ANTI-GANG Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional young prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence. It is very hard to know whether this will work, and what effect if might have on the criminal justice system. With the review required by the ANTI-GANG Act, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand to Federal role in prosecuting juveniles.

We all know that the gang problem is a serious one, and that it is only getting worse. Other members of Congress have proposed different approaches to combating the gang problem, and the House of Representatives has passed its own gang bill. But the ANTI-GANG Act is the approach most responsive to the needs of State and local prosecutors who are on the ground fighting this problem, day in and day. Other approaches go down the wrong path.

State and Federal prosecutors have not demanded unchecked and increased Federal jurisdiction over State crimes that diminishes the States' historic and primary role in fighting violent street gangs. They did not come to us seeking new and expanded Federal death penalty crimes, but rather effective laws that focus on the recruitment and retention of gang members. They never mentioned needing a massive and unwarranted reworking of the Federal rules used to prosecute juveniles as adults, regardless of whether the juvenile is in a gang or not. And, to my knowledge, no prosecutors have put increased mandatory minimums targeted at first offenders on their wish list. All of these approaches sound tough, but they aren't what prosecutors and law enforcement have asked for and they won't solve the gang problem.

Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks, and walk their streets without fearing that gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The ANTI-GANG Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe. I am proud to cosponsor it and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the ANTI-GANG Act, introduced today by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities.

Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The ANTI-GANG Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics.

The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow the recruitment of the very best Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorneys General and allow them to remain in public service longer so they can use their wealth of experience to combat gang violence.

The ANTI-GANG Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute, which was never intended to be used against violent street gangs, with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but also addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The ANTI-GANG Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement and certify that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest

Finally, the ANTI-GANG Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional young prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence. It is very hard to know whether this will work, and what effect if might have on the criminal justice system. With the review required by the ANTI-GANG Act, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand to Federal role in prosecuting juveniles.

We all know that the gang problem is a serious one, and that it is only getting worse. Other members of Congress have proposed different approaches to combating the gang problem, and the House of Representatives has passed its own gang bill. But the ANTI-GANG Act is the approach most responsive to the needs of State and local prosecutors who are on the ground fighting this problem, day in and day. Other approaches go down the wrong path.

State and Federal prosecutors have not demanded unchecked and increased Federal jurisdiction over State crimes that diminishes the States' historic and primary role in fighting violent street gangs. They did not come to us seeking new and expanded Federal death penalty crimes, but rather effective laws that focus on the recruitment and retention of gang members. They never mentioned needing a massive and unwarranted reworking of the Federal rules used to prosecute juveniles as adults, regardless of whether the juvenile is in a gang or not. And, to my knowledge, no prosecutors have put increased mandatory minimums targeted at first offenders on their wish list. All of these approaches sound tough, but they aren't what prosecutors and law enforcement have asked for and they won't solve the gang problem.

Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks, and walk their streets without fearing that gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The ANTI-GANG Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe. I am proud to cosponsor it and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, while I voted for a similar amendment offered by the Senators from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, in 2003, unfortunately, the current version of the amendment includes over $600 million in taxpayer subsidies for the creation of new nuclear powerplants. The nuclear industry is a mature industry that does not need to be propped up by the taxpayers. Over 300 national environmental and consumer organizations, including the League of Conservation Voters, Public Interest Research Group, and the Sierra Club, oppose this amendment. Our Nation faces an ever-growing budget deficit and we must be fiscally and environmentally responsible. I strongly believe that global warming is an important national issue, which is why I supported the Bingaman-Specter sense-of-the-Senate amendment to push for a national policy on global warming. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to create a meaningful global warming program.

Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to take part in yesterday's cloture vote because I was testifying before the BRAC Commission in St. Louis, MO, along with the senior Senator from Wisconsin, in an effort to save the Milwaukee-based 440th Airlift Wing from closing. The fate of the 440th is very important to me and my constituents, and, while I have only missed a handful of votes in my 12 years in the Senate, it is clear to me that testifying in St. Louis was the right decision.

If I had been present I would have again voted against the cloture motion on the nomination of John Bolton. Since the motion required 60 votes to pass, my absence did not affect, and could not have affected, the outcome of the vote.

Mr. President, The Senator from Kansas and I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman about an issue that we're concerned could adversely affect electricity consumers and small businesses.

In addition to consumers and small businesses, we have heard from a diverse array of financial companies and credit agencies that are deeply concerned about this issue. From 2001-2003, financial ratings agencies issued over 180 bond downgrades--overwhelmingly as a result of poor performance by nonutility investments. All too often, utilities have succumbed to temptation and have relied on the more stable, regulated utilities within the company to shore up balance sheets and offset risky nonutility investments, while customers, ratepayers and investors pay the bill. We all agree that we cannot let Enron-style abuses we keep hearing about from consumers, small businesses, and financial companies continue.

The Feingold-Brownback amendment adds a new section to the Federal Power Act to give FERC new power to regulate transactions between public utility companies and their affiliate and associate companies. The amendment also requires FERC to issue regulations that require affiliate, associate, and subsidiary companies to be independent, separate, and distinct entities from public utilities; maintain separate books and records; structure their governance in a manner that would prevent creditors from having recourse against the assets of public utilities; and prohibit cross-subsidizing, or shifting costs from affiliate, associate, or subsidiary companies to the public utilities.

I am pleased that language in the underlying amendment includes more merger oversight authority for FERC, it includes anti- market manipulation language, and it allows FERC to look at the books. My concern is that if there are not standards about keeping the entities separate, FERC's authority will not be enough to prevent abuses. I am also concerned that State commissions, public service commissions, and others are not able to take care of these kinds of problems because they often do not have the authority to regulate these multi-State entities. That's why small businesses and consumers need increased Federal protection, especially given that this bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act.

Yes, we thank you and look forward to working with the committee on this common-sense proposal.

Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to pay tribute to Rotary International as the organization celebrates its 100th anniversary this week in Chicago. Paul P. Harris' establishment of the original Chicago chapter heralded an era of philanthropic activity and community building that has flourished throughout the last century. Rotary International's extensive public service stands as an example of what we can accomplish through organization and commitment to the common good.

Since its inception, our nation has relied on the cooperation of disparate communities to achieve common goals. Rotary Clubs provide a critical forum of communication for leaders from a wide variety of backgrounds to share information and ideas. Through Rotary, men and women from myriad professions can share thoughts from their distinct perspectives. These perspectives are what gives Rotary its great strength, and have enabled the organization to accomplish so much in the last century.

Without a doubt, one of those great accomplishments has been Rotary International's work, begun in 1985, to eradicate polio through its PolioPlus program. Thanks to the efforts of Rotarians worldwide, the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and the Western Pacific have been declared polio-free. Rotary's continuing success combating polio provides hope to the world's health community as we struggle against the ravages of disease. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. Res. 62, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a ``Rotary International Day'' and celebrating and honoring Rotary International on the occasion of its centennial anniversary. Last Congress, I was also pleased to be the lead Democratic co-sponsor of S. Con. Res. 111, a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Congress that a commemorative stamp should be issued in honor of the centennial anniversary of Rotary International and its work to eradicate this disease.

In addition to Rotary's work to combat polio, the organization also provides indispensable support to students. The Rotary Student of the Month program consistently encourages high school students to become leaders in their schools and communities, while the Rotary scholarship program provides funds for deserving students.

The list of Rotary's contributions to our communities goes on and on. I join people across the U.S., and around the world this year who honor Rotary's many accomplishments as the organization celebrates 100 years of service. I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations and best wishes for the organization's next 100 years.

Mr. President, I will vote no on the nomination of Thomas Griffith to be a Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The D.C. Circuit is widely regarded as the most important Federal circuit. It has jurisdiction over the actions of most Federal agencies. Many of the highest profile cases that have been decided in recent years by the Supreme Court concerning regulation of economic activity by federal agencies in

areas such as the environment, health and safety regulation, and labor law, went first to the D.C. Circuit. In the area of administrative law and the interpretation of the major regulatory statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, the D.C. Circuit is often the last word, as the Supreme Court reviews only a tiny minority of circuit court decisions.

After the confirmation of Judge Janice Rogers Brown last week, there are 6 judges on the D.C. Circuit who were appointed by Republican Presidents, and four by Democrats, and there are two vacancies. President Clinton, of course, made two nominations that were never acted upon by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In one case, the committee held a hearing but never scheduled a vote on attorney Alan Snyder, and in another case, Clinton nominee and now Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan wasn't even given the courtesy of a hearing.

I am disappointed that the Bush administration has not been willing to seek a compromise on judicial nominees, and on this circuit in particular. At the beginning of President Bush's first term, there were enough vacancies to accommodate the two nominations by President Clinton who were treated so badly in the 106th Congress and allow President Bush to nominate additional judges to the circuit. The administration squandered an opportunity to change the tone and repair some of the damage done to the nomination process by previous Congresses.

In light of this history, and the importance of this circuit, I believe it is my duty to give this nomination very close scrutiny. After reviewing Mr. Griffith's record and his testimony at two different Judiciary Committee hearings, I do not believe he should be confirmed to a lifetime appointment to this important court. Let me take a few minutes to outline the concerns that have caused me to reach this conclusion.

Mr. Griffith's adherence to professional rules of conduct and State laws regarding bar membership has been less than scrupulous. In the District of Columbia, Mr. Griffith twice was administratively suspended for failure to pay his bar dues, one time for over 3 years. During that time, Mr. Griffith continued to practice law in the District and then in Utah. This might not be all that troubling if he had later been honest about the administrative suspensions he received for failure to pay his dues. Instead, Mr. Griffith failed to note those suspensions in answering two separate questions on his Utah bar application in November 2003.

First, he answered ``no'' when asked if he had ``ever been disbarred, suspended, censured, sanctioned, disciplined, or otherwise reprimanded or disqualified, whether publicly or privately, as an attorney.'' At his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Griffith claimed that he interpreted the question as referring only to disciplinary suspensions, and that he considered his suspension from the D.C. bar to be administrative. Given the clear language of the question, and the fact that the application gives an applicant the opportunity to explain a yes answer, Mr. Griffith's no response is cause for concern.

In addition, Mr. Griffith answered yes when asked whether he had ``ever given legal advice and/or held himself out as an attorney, lawyer, or legal counselor in the state of Utah.'' He stated:

Since August 2000, I have served as Assistant to the

President and General Counsel at [BYU]. When called up to act

in my capacity as an attorney, I have done so as a member of

the bar of the District of Columbia.

At the time he answered this question in 2003, Mr. Griffith certainly was aware that his license in D.C. had been suspended from November 1998 to November 2001.

Even more disturbingly, Mr. Griffith has practiced law in Utah without a Utah law license, and still does so to this day. Utah law does not provide that in-house counsel do not need to obtain a Utah law license. Yet Mr. Griffith failed to seek guidance from the Utah bar for almost three years on what he could and could not do without a Utah law license when he began working for BYU. Instead, according to this testimony, Mr. Griffith relied on his own professional experience and discussions with other in-house counsel in Utah. None of these people told him such an exception existed, yet he did not make inquiries to the bar until 2003. In 2003, Mr. Griffith received a letter from Katherine Fox, general counsel to the Utah bar, which indicated that he should limit himself to work that would not constitute the practice of law, and if he had to practice law, he should do so only in close association with members of the Utah bar. She also advised him to sit for the bar exam as soon as possible, and warned him that lawyers who have practiced in the state without a Utah license have later had difficultly obtaining such a license.

Since he received that letter, Mr. Griffith has had four opportunities to sit for the Utah bar, but has instead insisted that he may practice law in Utah without a law license so long as he works in close association with members of the Utah bar. He made it abundantly clear at his second hearing that he does not intend to sit for the Utah bar exam. I suppose that since he is now about to be confirmed to a D.C. Circuit seat for life, he won't have to. But his attitude toward a basic responsibility of every practicing lawyer was disturbing.

In response to these concerns, Mr. Griffith stated at his hearing that from the very beginning of his work as general counsel at BYU he has worked in close association with attorneys in his office who were licensed to practice in Utah. When I questioned him about his adherence to this close association requirement during his time in Utah, I was troubled by what I learned. Although Mr. Griffith insists that he has always worked in close association with members of the Utah bar when dispensing legal advice, he can provide no documentation of that practice whatsoever. It is not even clear how Mr. Griffith interprets the close association requirement. He testified, for example, that he does not require a licensed member of the Utah bar to be present on phone calls where he dispensed legal advice.

Mr. Griffith's failure to document his close association with other attorneys is disturbing and revealing, in light of the letter from Katherine Fox, which warned him about the consequences that practicing law without a license might have on his eventual application to the bar. It also makes it even more difficult to believe that when he began working for BYU he was aware of the issue and was taking steps to ensure he involved members of the Utah bar in activities that would be considered giving legal advice.

Mr. Griffith did submit several letters written beginning last summer from current and former officers of the Utah bar, to support his position that he has not violated bar rules so long as he works in close association with members of the Utah bar. These letters were written, however, long after Mr. Griffith approached the bar about a general counsel exception, and long after he received notice from Ms. Fox of the Utah bar's position on it. Furthermore, these letters reiterate that there is no general counsel exception to the requirement that a lawyer practicing law in Utah must be a member of the Utah bar.

Mr. Griffith's entire approach to the issue of his Utah bar membership has been to suggest that he knew all along what he was doing and took care to avoid any improper conduct. But a prudent and careful person, aware of and being careful to abide by restrictions on his activities, would have documented his actions. It seems clear to me that much of Mr. Griffith's argument is simply a post hoc rationalization. He has chosen to stick to his story and try and convince the Senate that he was fully aware of the Utah license issue from the beginning and acted at all times in accordance with part of the advice he received only in 2003. I find Mr. Griffith's explanations not credible and disdainful of his professional obligations. This is not the kind of conduct that the public has a right to expect from someone who will sit on the second most important court in the land.

Mr. President, I am not predisposed to vote against judicial nominees. In fact, I have voted for over 90 percent of this President's choices. Mr. Griffith served the Senate with distinction, and his foremost supporter is the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee,

for whom I have great regard. But we have an affirmative duty to place on the bench judges who adhere to the ethical standards of the legal profession. I am not satisfied that Mr. Griffith meets that test, and I will vote no.

Mr. President, I say a few words to honor the extraordinary life of Robert M. La Follette Sr., on the 150th anniversary of his birth. Throughout his life, La Follette was revered for his tireless and deeply principled service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the United States. His dogged, full- steam-ahead dedication to his life's work earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.''

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

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

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

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

As a founder of the national progressive movement, La Follette championed political reform, civil rights and workers' and women's rights throughout his career. As governor, he advanced an agenda that included the country's first workers compensation system, direct election of United States Senators, and railroad rate and tax reforms. Collectively, these reforms would become known as the ``Wisconsin Idea.''

His terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate were spent fighting for women's rights, working to limit the power of monopolies, opposing pork barrel legislation, and rooting out political corruption. La Follette also championed electoral reforms, and he brought his support of the direct election of United States Senators to this body. His efforts were brought to fruition with the ratification of the 17th amendment in 1913. Fighting Bob also worked tirelessly to hold the government accountable, and was a key figure in exposing the Teapot Dome Scandal.

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

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

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

Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 16, 1917. If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing through this Chamber as he said:

Mr. President, our government, above all others, is founded

on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters

pertaining to their government, in war not less than in

peace, for in this government, the people are the rulers in

war no less than in peace.

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

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

general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation,

requests from various individuals and certain organizations

have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this

body, and that such requests have been referred to and

considered by one of the Committees of the Senate.

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

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

consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have

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

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

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

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

by such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and

directed by a solemn conviction of right and duty.

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

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

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

Recently, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced in the other body by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that will name the post office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La Follette's honor. I commend Congresswoman Baldwin for her efforts to pass this bill.

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

The La Follette Reading Room was dedicated on March 5, 1985, the 100th

anniversary of Fighting Bob being sworn in for his first term as a Member of Congress.

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

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

To honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., on the sesquicentennial of his birth, last week I introduced three pieces of legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. The first is a resolution celebrating this event and recognizing the importance of La Follette's important contributions to the Progressive movement, the state of Wisconsin, and the United States of America.

We also introduced a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to commemorate Fighting Bob's life and legacy. Our third bill would authorize the President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The minting of a commemorative coin and the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal would be fitting tributes to the memory of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and to his deeply held beliefs and long record of service to his state and to his country.

I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for their assistance in passing our resolution honoring Fighting Bob today, on the 150th anniversary of his birth. And I thank my colleagues for honoring Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s character, his integrity, his deep commitment to Progressive causes, and his unwillingness to waver from doing what he thought was right. No one has fought harder for the common man and woman, and against corruption and cronyism, than ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, and I consider it a privilege to speak in the same Chamber, and serve the same great State, as he did.

Mr. President, today, I am submitting a resolution that addresses a gaping hole in the administration's rhetoric and strategy with respect to Iraq. My resolution calls on the President to define the mission of our military in Iraq, and to issue a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission. It has been over 2 years since the President launched the war in Iraq, but we still don't have a defined mission or timeframe that would allow us to hold ourselves accountable for giving the military the tools they need to succeed in achieving those goals. My resolution also calls for a plan for the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops, so that we can provide some clarity with regard to our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that there is an end date in mind.

This resolution does not establish a timeframe for troop withdrawal-- that is for our military commanders to determine. Any such timeframe has to be flexible--there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it's hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn't linked to some timetables.

The rationale for our military action in Iraq has changed over time. The projections regarding the resources that would be required were wrong. And now we seem to be in the midst of some vague policy of muddling through. When I speak to servicemen and women in Wisconsin and in Iraq, and when I speak to their families, their pride in their service is evident and it is well-earned. But their frustration with this open-ended commitment, with the stop-loss orders and the multiple deployments, with the extensions and the uncertainties, is equally evident, and it is painful. We can do better by them, by insisting on clarity, by insisting on accountability, and by assuring them that we have a plan with clear and achievable goals.

In fact, by leveling with the American people about our commitment in Iraq, the administration can regain some of their confidence. After the shifting justifications for this war, after the premature declarations of ``mission accomplished,'' after the exciting and inspiring elections, we still don't have any kind of finish line for our military engagement in Iraq. The American people and our troops deserve a sound plan that is linked to real timeframes and real achievements.

A real timeframe will also help us achieve our security goals in Iraq. The most common argument against clarifying how long we plan to keep troops in Iraq goes something like this: If we reveal a timetable, insurgents and terrorists will simply lie in wait, emerging in force to achieve their goals once we are gone.

But any responsible timetable for U.S. withdrawal would be based just on the establishment of a competent Iraqi force. Americans won't leave until that force has the training it needs to succeed. An Iraqi force, which would not suffer from shortages of translators or struggle to bridge the cultural divide, is the right force to handle any resurgent threat.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the administration's refusal to set a plan and timetable about just how long vast numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq is actually an advantage for insurgents and terrorists. This large U.S. military presence smack in the middle of the Arab world is a major recruiting tool for international terrorist networks, and young men are coming to Iraq from around the world to get on-the-job training in attacking Americans. These foreign forces are motivated by our presence, and they feed off conspiracy theories and suspicions regarding American intentions. When I was in Baghdad in February, a very senior coalition officer confided to me that he believed a public U.S. timetable for withdrawing from Iraq would ``take the wind out of the sails'' of the insurgents.

What's more, the indefinite presence of vast numbers of American troops could also undercut the legitimacy of the Iraqi government in the eyes of many--ironically, destabilizing Iraq despite our best intentions. Having a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty and having a timetable for Iraqi elections have resulted in real political and strategic advantages for the U.S. Having a timetable for the withdrawal of troops should be no different.

Clear plans could also help lead to responsible budgeting. This administration has bypassed the regular budget process, placing hundreds of billions of dollars on the country's tab, on the grounds that requirements are simply ``unknowable'' and cannot be incorporated into responsible budget planning. This is simply not credible, and continuing to mortgage our children's future with these irresponsible policies is unacceptable. It is time to hold ourselves accountable for the costs of this war, time to accept the tough choices that come with responsible budgeting, and time to insist on sound planning and clarity about all of this is going.

This resolution is not some kind of cut-and-run strategy, or a call to bring all of our troops home now, regardless of what remains to be achieved on the ground. It is clear to me that we still have military missions on the ground--most notably, training the Iraqi forces to provide for their own security. Moreover, a military response--as well as a diplomatic response, and a financial response--is vital in combating terrorist networks in Iraq and elsewhere. It may well be that some units--perhaps special forces--will be operating in Iraq in coordination with the Iraqi military well into the future as part of the counterterrorism strategy that we need to be pursuing around the world, not just in Iraq.

But Mr. President, the military is only one part of solving the puzzle that we face in Iraq. For many years to come, we will have to work diligently to combat a burgeoning culture of corruption in Iraq, or the rule of law doesn't stand a chance. We need to make reconstruction work and deliver real democracy dividends for the Iraqi people, and this work will go on for some time. Intense American diplomatic and political engagement and support are likely to continue long after all or most of the troops are withdrawn.

Our troops on the ground are truly amazing in their resolve, their professionalism, and their sincere desire to help the people of Iraq. Their courage and commitment was underscored for me during my trip to Iraq earlier this year. I want to help these brave men and women succeed, by insuring that they have an achievable mission, sound planning, and a reasonable timeframe in which to finish their part of the job.

Mr. President, the Senate has accomplished some wonderful things for this country. But sometimes this body makes grave mistakes. Today, by passing the resolution apologizing to the victims of lynching, we acknowledge one of the gravest. The use of the filibuster and other dilatory tactics to prevent the enactment of a law criminalizing lynching is among the darkest chapters in the history of the U.S. Senate. This resolution is a small but important step toward helping us come to terms with the Senate's disgraceful failure over a period of many years, at the beginning of this century, to protect our citizens. I congratulate Senators Landrieu and Allen for their work to bring this resolution before the Senate.

There are few crimes as despicable and contrary to the rule of law as lynching. The practice was born of hatred, racial or otherwise, and disdain for our criminal justice institutions. Unfortunately, lynching occurred throughout the United States, with cases documented in all but four states. From 1881 to 1964, there were 4,749 recorded victims of lynching. Of these victims, 3,452 were African Americans. Worse still, in nearly all cases of lynching before 1968, local and state law enforcement officials failed to investigate or prosecute the perpetrators.

An anti-lynching law would have allowed Federal prosecutors to bring the perpetrators of lynching to justice. On three occasions, the House passed anti-lynching bills, but each time a small group of Senators filibustered the proposals in the Senate.

Although a resolution cannot make up for the terrible injustice perpetrated against the victims of lynching and their families, this resolution is, at least, a positive step toward recognizing the Senate's past mistakes. There is much more that the Senate must do to address continuing racial injustice in this country. But this resolution is a worthy effort. I am proud to support it, and I am pleased that the Senate will pass it tonight.

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

Mr President, I will vote ``no'' on Justice Brown's nomination to the D.C. Circuit.

Let me first remind my colleagues of the importance of this particular circuit in our judicial system. The D.C. Circuit is widely regarded as the most important Federal circuit. It has jurisdiction over the actions of most Federal agencies. Many of the highest profile cases that have been decided in recent years by the Supreme Court concerning regulation of economic activity by Federal agencies in areas such as the environment, health and safety regulation, and labor law, went first to the D.C. Circuit. In the area of administrative law and the interpretation of major regulatory statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, the D.C. Circuit is generally the last word, as the Supreme Court reviews only a tiny minority of circuit court decisions.

The D.C. Circuit is now almost evenly split, and has been for some time, between nominees of Democratic and Republican Presidents. There are five judges who were appointed by Republicans, including John Roberts, who the Senate confirmed earlier this year, and four by Democrats, and there are three vacancies. President Clinton made two excellent nominations that were never acted upon by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In one case, the committee held a hearing but never scheduled a vote, and in another, that of now-Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, the Clinton nominee was not even given the courtesy of a hearing.

I want to express my great disappointment that the administration has not been willing to seek a compromise on the many vacancies that now exist on this court. By insisting on its often highly controversial choices for this circuit in particular, the administration has continued to push the Senate toward the ``nuclear'' confrontation that loomed over the Senate before the recess. Regrettably, President Bush is responsible for much of the ill will that has plagued this body for the past few years and the potentially disastrous upending of Senate precedents that we faced last month and may well see again.

If only the President had really been a uniter and not a divider; if only he had truly tried to change the tone in Washington and repair some of the damage done to the nomination process by previous Congresses; if only he had not squandered the opportunity that the four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit as of his inauguration in 2001 presented, we would not be in this situation today.

In light of this history and the importance of this Circuit, I believe it is my duty to give this nomination very close scrutiny. After reviewing this nominee's record and her testimony, I will vote ``no.'' I do not believe she is the right person at this time to be given a lifetime appointment to this important court. The fact that a majority of the Senate is apparently willing to confirm a nominee whose record so clearly demonstrates that she is not suited for such an important position is surprising and discouraging. I do not and will never apologize for supporting the filibuster to protect the Federal courts and the people of this country from her ideological, results- oriented judging.

At her hearing, I asked Justice Brown about a case on age discrimination called Stevenson v. Superior Court. The majority in that case said that Ms. Stevenson's wrongful discharge violated a fundamental public policy against age discrimination. Justice Brown dissented, saying that the plaintiff had ``failed to establish that public policy against age discrimination . . . is fundamental and substantial.'' She went on: ``Discrimination based on age does not mark its victim with a stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship.''

These statements looked shocking when I read them, but I wanted to make sure I understood Justice Brown's views, so I gave her a chance to respond. I questioned her about the case in the Judiciary Committee, and concluded by asking if it was fair to say she believed age discrimination does not stigmatize senior citizens. She agreed that it was. I appreciate her candor, but I have to say I found that testimony very troubling. Senior citizens in this country live every day with the stigma of age discrimination; it is a real problem, and I think everyone here takes it very seriously. Just because we all will be old someday, and, therefore perhaps will be subject to prejudice and discrimination of this type, does not make it any less reprehensible. I have not heard anyone in the Senate trying to defend Justice Brown's view on this issue; nor do I expect to, because it is truly indefensible.

I was also concerned by a comment Justice Brown made in 2000 about senior citizens. She said: ``Today senior

citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much free stuff as the political system will permit them to exact.'' When I asked her about this statement at her hearing, she made no effort to distance herself from it.

Justice Brown seemed to suggest at her hearing that we should ignore her inflammatory speeches because she was just trying to be provocative in talking to audiences of youthful lawyers. She said that in her judging she is nonideological. The problem with that position is that the caustic style and even some of the extreme language she used in her speeches makes its way into her opinions. For example, in a 2000 speech entitled ``50 Ways To Lose Your Freedom'' in which Justice Brown suggests there may be some validity to the substantive due process theory of the Lochner case, she says the following: ``[I]f we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy--a license to steal, a warrant for oppression.'' That is a pretty provocative statement to be sure.

In 2002, Justice Brown issued a scathing dissent in a zoning case called San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco. In that case, San Francisco had a requirement that when residential hotels were converted into daily hotels, the owners pay a fee to help the government pay for affordable housing that would make up for the housing that was lost in the conversion. This seems like a fairly mild requirement to me, and the majority of the court saw nothing wrong with it. But her dissent used very strong language to criticize the requirement. She said, in words that sounds an awful lot like her speech, that San Francisco was ``[t]urning a democracy into a kleptocracy.'' In case that was not strong enough, she added that the government had imposed a ``neo-feudal regime.''

Frankly, I had a hard time imagining a more extreme statement than that, but Justice Brown came up with one: ``But private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco.'' (San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 27 Cal. 4th 643 (2002).) She continued to use this dissent to showcase her extreme views on the takings clause: ``Where once government was a necessary evil because it protected private property, now private property is a necessary evil because it funds government programs,'' she said.

In her dissent, she argued that the zoning fee did not ``substantially advance legitimate government interests'' and therefore was ``obviously'' unconstitutional. Justice Brown's colleagues on the California Supreme Court rejected her analysis. They noted that Justice Brown's approach to takings law would open a Pandora's box of judicial activism, in that courts would have to examine the wisdom of a ``myriad government economic regulations, a task the courts have been loath to undertake pursuant to either the takings or due process clause.''

On May 23, 2005--just last month--the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the ``substantially advances'' test supported by Justice Brown in the San Remo case and affirmed that courts should not subject regulatory takings cases to heightened scrutiny. Other than Justice Kennedy's two paragraph concurrence, the entire court, including Justices Scalia and Thomas, unanimously agreed with Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in this case, Lingle v. Chevron (No. 04-163,--S. Ct.--, 2005 WL 1200710 (May 23, 2005).)

The U.S. Supreme Court's critique of the district court in Lingle paralleled the San Remo majority's critique of Justice Brown's dissent. In Lingle, the Supreme Court addressed whether a Hawaiian regulation that prohibited oil companies from charging extraordinary rent to franchisees constituted a regulatory taking. The Supreme Court held that it did not, and the Court explicitly rejected the test Justice Brown used in her takings analysis. Like the majority in the San Remo opinion, the Court noted that if the ``substantially advances'' test were the law of the land:

[I]t would require courts to scrutinize the efficacy of a

vast array of State and Federal regulations--a task for which

courts are not well suited. Moreover, it would empower--and

might often require--courts to substitute their predictive

judgments for those of elected legislatures and expert

agencies. Although the instant case is only the tip of the

proverbial iceberg, it foreshadows the hazards of placing

courts in this role. . . .

The Supreme Court rejected the district court's decision, and the view of the takings clause advanced by Justice Brown, because it would require that judges substitute their judgments for those of elected legislatures--something that many of Justice Brown's supporters have spoken out against on the Senate floor.

As a former State legislator and now a Federal legislator, I appreciate and respect the Supreme Court's reluctance to endorse this activist view of regulatory takings law promoted by Justice Brown. Some in this body, including many who style themselves advocates of judicial restraint, would like to enact her views by legislation. They have every right to try to do so. I will fight them hard, and fortunately, so far, they have not been successful. But for them to support a judicial nominee who so clearly wants to use her power as a judge to promote such a radical view of the law is disappointing.

Justice Brown's extreme comments in her opinions and speeches, and there are many, many such quotations that were discussed at her hearing, lead me to question whether she has the temperament to be a fair judge. Despite her testimony at the hearing that ``I am not an ideologue of any stripe,'' much of her record demonstrates the contrary. She seems to view the world through an ideological prism, and she expresses her views in the most divisive and striking language of any judicial nominee we have seen thus far.

Referring to cases upholding President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, for example, Justice Brown has said that ``1937 . . . marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution.'' She went on to say that ``In the New Deal/Great Society Era, a rule that was the polar opposite of American law reigned.'' At her hearing, Senator Durbin asked her about another speech, where she said that ``Protection of private property was a major casualty of the revolution of 1937.'' She said, ``I don't think that's at all controversial.''

The court to which Justice Brown has been nominated has a docket that is laden with challenges to government regulations and interpretations of Federal statutes dealing with economic regulation. I am not confident that Justice Brown will follow the law, rather than her personal views on the law, in hearing those cases.

I have heard my colleagues argue that Justice Brown will follow the law faithfully on the court, that she will be constrained by precedent, but I simply do not find these assurances reassuring. As Justice Brown herself acknowledged in the Hughes Aircraft case, ``all judges `make law'.'' When they are faced with questions of first impression, they have no choice. And when they sit on a court of last resort, as Justice Brown does now, there is no one to stop them. Federal Courts of Appeals also often hear questions of first impression. And for all practical purposes, they are often courts of last resort, because the Supreme Court--again, an important point--reviews only a tiny percentage of their cases. So we must ask ourselves: How will Justice Brown use her enormous power as a Federal appellate judge when she has the opportunity to make new law?

Justice Brown's record does not give me comfort in answering that question. Too often, she seems to adopt contrary theories of judging and even statutory interpretation depending on which outcome she favors.

When the plaintiffs were victims of employment discrimination, she supported limits on punitive damages. (Lane v. Hughes Aircraft, Cal. 4th 405 (2000).) But when the plaintiffs were property owners prohibited from increasing rent in a mobile home park, she opposed any limit on damages. (Galland v. City of Clovis, 24 Cal. 4th 1003.)

When the California Supreme Court ruled that juries must be given a certain instruction to protect criminal defendants, Justice Brown dissented because of her faith in juries: ``I would presume, as we do in virtually every other context, that jurors are `intelligent, capable of understanding instructions and applying them to the facts of the case.' '' (People v. Guiuan, 18 Cal. 4th 558 (1998).)

But she suddenly stopped trusting juries when faced with the possibility

that they might award punitive damages to employers found liable for racial discrimination, writing: ``When setting punitive damages, a jury does not have the perspective, and the resulting proportionality, that a court has after observing many trials.'' (Lane v. Hughes Aircraft, 22 Cal. 4th 405 (2000).)

When property owners would benefit from a literal interpretation of a voter initiative, Justice Brown wrote: ``In my view the voters did not intend the courts to look any further than a standard dictionary in applying the terms. . . .'' (Apt. Ass'n of Los Angeles Cty. v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. 4th 830 (Jan. 2000).) But only 11 months later, when those challenging an affirmative action program advocated a broad interpretation of a voter initiative, she had a different view. She said: ``We can discern and thereby effectuate the voters'' intention only by interpreting this language in a historical context.'' (Hi- Voltage v. City of San Jose, 24 Cal. 4th 537 (Nov. 2000).)

When she wanted to limit the explicit right to privacy in the California Constitution, she argued: ``Where, as here, a state constitutional protection was modeled on a federal constitutional right, we should be extremely reticent to disregard U.S. Supreme Court precedent delineating the scope and contours of that right.'' (American Academy of Pediatricians v. Lungren, 16 Cal. 4th 307 (Aug. 1997).)

But when the majority of her court relied on analysis from the United States Supreme Court on the question of remedies for a violation of constitutional rights, she said: ``Defaulting to the high court fundamentally disserves the independent force and effect of our Constitution. Rather than enrich the texture of our law, this reliance on federal precedent shortchanges future generations.'' (Katzburg v. Regents, 29 Cal 4th 300 (Nov. 2002).)

I urge my colleagues to review these cases before voting on this nomination. These examples lead me to conclude that the jurisprudence of Justice Brown is a jurisprudence of convenience. She is skilled at finding a legal theory to support a desired result. I do not think that kind of approach to judging should be rewarded with an appointment to the second highest court in the land.

This nominee has complained about ``militant judges'' while herself openly defying precedent when it suits her; she believes that the New Deal was a ``socialist revolution'' and that America's elderly ``cannibalize'' their grandchildren for handouts; she has expressed doubts about the application of the Bill of Rights to the States through the incorporation doctrine and has suggested a return to an era when the courts regularly overturned the judgment of legislatures on questions of economic regulation. Putting it simply, this nominee truly does have extreme views. To confirm her to a seat on the D.C. Circuit would be a grave mistake. So I cannot support this nominee, and I will vote ``no.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bharat Ramamurti, a legal intern with my Senate Judiciary staff, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the Brown nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert M. La Follette Sr. Next week, on June 14th, people around my home State of Wisconsin will mark the 150th anniversary of La Follette's birth. Throughout his life, La Follette was revered for his tireless service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the United States. His dogged, full-steam-ahead approach to his life's work earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 16, 1917. If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing through this chamber as he said: ``Mr. President, our government, above all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters pertaining to their government, in war not less than in peace, for in this government, the people are the rulers in war no less than in peace.''

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

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

general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation,

requests from various individuals and certain organizations

have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this

body, and that such requests have been referred to and

considered by one of the Committees of the Senate.

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

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

consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have

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

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

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

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

by such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and

directed by a solemn conviction of right and duty.''

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

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

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

Recently, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced in the other body by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that will name the post office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La Follette's honor. I commend Congresswomen Baldwin for her efforts to pass this bill.

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

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

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

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

To honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., on the sesquicentennial of his birth, today I am introducing three pieces of legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. The first is a resolution celebrating this event and recognizing the importance of La Follette's important contributions to the Progressive movement, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States of America.

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

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