Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last Wednesday, April 11, terrorists exploded two bombs in Algiers, Algeria, killing 33 people and wounding over 200. The terrorist organization al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb took credit for the attacks, which targeted the Algerian Prime Minister's office and a police station. The attack occurred 1 day--1 day--after three would-be suicide bombers blew themselves up in Casablanca, Morocco, killing a police officer in the process. A fourth individual was shot before he could detonate his bomb. It also preceded, by only 3 days, attacks by two more would-be suicide bombers in Casablanca, Morocco, this time outside the American consulate and the American Language Center. The consulate subsequently closed. While a link between the Algeria bombings and the terrorists in Morocco has not yet been established, the confluence of these events demonstrates an increasingly deadly and dangerous situation in North Africa, for the region, for the United States, and for our friends and our allies. The bombings should also remind us of the need to be more globally focused in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates, which must be our national security priority. Yet the administration, fixated on Iraq, remains narrowminded in its focus and seemingly almost indifferent to last week's attacks in North Africa. Until last fall, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb was known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or GSPC. It has been described by the State Department as a regional terrorist organization which recruits and operates in Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, and Tunisia, as well as in Europe. In 2005, GSPC killed 15 people at a military outpost in Mauritania. Police in France, Italy, and Spain have arrested individuals suspected of providing support to the organization. GSPC has also called France ``public enemy number one.'' A French counterterrorism magistrate has described GSPC as the biggest terrorist threat facing his country today. Last year, al-Qaida leadership announced its formal ties to the GSPC, raising concerns about the extension of al-Qaida's deadly reach. In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee this February, FBI Director Mueller warned of the possible consequences of this alliance, including to the United States. According to Mueller's testimony: Al-qaida has made efforts to align itself with established regional terrorist groups such as the GSPC that may expand the scope of the threat to the Homeland. Despite this clear threat, our Nation barely took notice of the attacks last week. The State Department issued a brief statement. The White House said virtually nothing--or nothing. Vice President Cheney mentioned them during a radio interview on Friday and again on Sunday, but only in passing, as a part of his repeated efforts to try to link 9/11 to the war in Iraq and to support an endless and disastrous war that is emboldening the members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. Let me read exactly what the Vice President said: We had--just this week there were attacks in Algeria and Morocco by al-Qaida, bombings that were aimed at killing innocent civilians. It is a global conflict, by anybody's measure. And it is clearly against some of the world's worst offenders, and Iraq is very much a part of that. It is, right now, the central front on that global conflict. Amazingly, the only comments by the White House on these horrific attacks in north Africa were to insist that a terrorist attack in Algeria somehow proved that Iraq, more than 2,000 miles away, is the central front in the war on terrorism. The Vice President's assertions are not just factually wrong, they are offensive to the people murdered in Algeria last week, as well as their families and all those working hard to capture these terrorists. It is also indicative of everything that is wrong with this administration's national security policies. We should be directing our attention and resources to combating the threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates, wherever they may be. As we all know, this is not a conventional war. It requires better intelligence, better cooperation with friends and allies, stronger regional institutions, and diplomatic and economic policies designed to deny terrorists safe havens. It is not easy, and I have enormous respect for the men and women in our intelligence community, diplomatic corps, military, and other elements of our Government who are working hard to protect us from this threat. We should provide them our full support, not only in terms of resources but also with an effective global counterterrorism strategy rather than the current myopic and misguided focus on Iraq. First, we must improve our intelligence with regard to threats in Africa. The Intelligence authorization bill we were considering in the Senate earlier this week includes an amendment I offered with Senator Rockefeller calling for more intelligence resources to be directed to Africa. If we are to protect our national interests on the continent, we must commit ourselves to understanding not only the terrorist organizations that operate there but regional conflicts, corruption, poor governance, endemic poverty, and the historic marginalization that has allowed terrorists and other threats to fester. Second, we must expand and strengthen our diplomatic and foreign assistance activities in the continent. Our presence in far-flung parts of Africa, whether it be a new consulate or outpost or an expanded USAID development or public health program, exposes local populations to our Nation, linking us to parts of the world which, as we know, we can no longer afford to ignore. We need to help build strong governmental institutions that respect human rights and an equally vibrant civil society, while also strengthening the relationship between the two. Third, we need military policies that place counterterrorism in the context of a larger, more comprehensive strategy. Policies such as the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative are important, particularly in improving the capacities of local governments. But unless they are part of bilateral and multilateral policies that emphasize human rights and democratization and anticorruption, our military resources may be squandered or, worse, may be even directed in counterproductive ways. For this same reason, I have supported the establishment of an Africa Command within the Defense Department, while insisting that its mission be squarely within the broader strategic goals of the United States on the continent. Fourth, we must develop effective policies for dealing with terrorist safe havens such as the one in the Sahel where al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb operates. According to the most recent State Department terrorism report, the organization not only trains, recruits, and operates in the region, it also raises money, including through smuggling. Clearly, confronting this organization requires addressing the root causes that have allowed it to develop and operate, whether they be poverty or corruption or the lack of government support to and presence in the region. We must develop comprehensive policies to confront these safe havens, including the settlement of regional conflicts and an adequate provision of economic and development assistance, so local populations can reject terrorist organizations. Fifth, we must help governments in the region in their efforts to confront terrorist organizations. The most recent State Department terrorism report stated that, in Mali, the sheer size of the country and the limited resources of the Malian Government ``hamper the effectiveness of military patrols and Border Patrol measures.'' The report also indicated Mauritania, another country where al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb operates, lacks funding and resources to combat terrorism. In order to combat international terrorist organizations such as the al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, we need regional strategies that address the capabilities and policies of all affected countries on a bilateral and multilateral basis. We must expand our assistance to these and other countries while ensuring that their counterterrorism policies are consistent with ours and that corruption and human rights abuses do not undermine efforts to combat terrorist organizations. Sixth, we must work closely with our European allies. Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb is a direct threat to Europe; our allies have every incentive to work with us. By working to establish mutually agreed upon approaches to counterterrorism, we can develop a strong, coordinated strategy that helps keep all of us safer. Seventh, we must encourage regional institutions to confront terrorism. For example, the African Union has established a Center for Study and Research on Terrorism to combat terrorism throughout the continent. This center and other regional initiatives are worthy of far more attention and support than we have thus far provided. Finally, we must at last recognize that the fight against al-Qaida is being undermined by the endless war in Iraq. As the NIE of last April concluded, the war has become a ``cause celebre'' for international terrorists. Moreover, tactics from Iraq are now being used around the world, including by terrorists in Algeria. As the State Department terrorism report noted: Using lessons from Iraq and wanting to reduce the level of casualties sustained in direct confrontation with Algerian security services, the GSPC carried out attacks using roadside improvised explosive devices. In one act on September 14, GSPC terrorists killed three Algerian soldiers and wounded two others in a military vehicle near Boumerdes by remotely detonating a roadside IED. The horrific bombings last week in Algiers and the manifest threat in Morocco should remind us that our national security does not begin and end in Iraq. Indeed, Iraq remains a drain on our national attention to resources and an endless distraction from our real national security priorities, which is fighting al-Qaida and its affiliates. We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al-Qaida is continuing and will continue to be a global terrorist organization. Contrary to what the administration has implied, al-Qaida is not abandoning its efforts to fight us globally so it can fight us in Iraq. No. Instead, it is forming alliances with groups like the GSPC, and it is seeking to attack us and our friends and allies around the world. By downplaying this threat, the administration is ignoring the lessons of September 11 and endangering our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I am very pleased to be here with her today. I sincerely thank the Senator from California for moving the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act through the Rules Committee so that we are now in a position to finally pass this legislation. As the Senator from California indicated, at last count, we now have 35 cosponsors for S. 223, 20 Democrats and 15 Republicans, and no known opposition. The bill fixes the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get timely access to Senate campaign finance reports, even though most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission, FEC. This bill will finally bring Senate campaigns into the 21st century by amending the section of the election laws dealing with electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 hours. This step is long overdue. There is no excuse for keeping our own campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House and Presidential candidates, PACs, parties, and even 527 organizations is readily available almost immediately. The Washington Post has called the outmoded Senate campaign reporting system ``obviously unjustified,'' and Roll Call has called it ``indefensible.'' I couldn't agree more. The current system means that the FEC's detailed coding, which allows the press and the public to do more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. It means that the final disclosure reports covering the first 2 weeks of October are often not available for detailed scrutiny until after the election. That is scandalous and there is no good reason for it. Let me just say that I know that the election laws have a big impact on campaigns and all Senators have a strong personal stake in vetting changes to those laws. I am very familiar with controversial and contested campaign finance legislation. This isn't that kind of bill. This bill is as close to a no-brainer as you can get in this area. In addition to bipartisan support here in the Senate, major media outlets have endorsed it, as have bloggers on the left and the right. No one that I know of opposes it. And yet, it has now been nearly 3 and a half years since I first introduced it. That is nearly half as long as it took us to pass McCain-Feingold. I know McCain-Feingold. You might say McCain-Feingold is a friend of mine. This bill is no McCain- Feingold. As I understand it, this bill has cleared the Democratic side. Given the strong support for it from across the political spectrum, and cosponsorship from many Republican Senators, and I especially thank Senator Cochran for being the main author along with me. I sincerely hope there won't be an objection on the Republican side. It would be wrong to hold this bill up as some kind of bargaining chip. It is time for the Senate to pass this bill, and I hope that can be done today. Once again, I thank the Senator from California, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. No, there is not.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is all it does.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed and concerned about the continuing Republican filibuster of the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill. This bill is critical for our national security. It supports the intelligence community while ensuring that Congress can conduct necessary oversight of our intelligence activities. Failure to pass this legislation would undermine the men and women of our intelligence community who look to Congress not only for funding but for policy guidance and legal clarity. It also sends a terrible signal to the American people, that despite repeated abuses by this administration from warrantless wiretapping to National Security Letters, Senate Republicans have chosen to shield the administration from congressional scrutiny and oversight. Unchecked executive authority is contrary to our constitutional system. And the American people understand well what the 9/11 Commission stressed--that strong congressional oversight is an essential part of defending and protecting America. There are a number of provisions of the bill that I view as particularly important. Besides authorizing the intelligence programs that help keep us safe, the bill improves congressional oversight of the intelligence community and advances the critical work of intelligence reform. The National Security Act requires that the congressional intelligence committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities. The administration failed to comply with this law with regard to its illegal warrantless wiretapping program. I am pleased, therefore, that this bill limits the ability of the executive branch to deny information to the full membership of the Intelligence Committee. I am also pleased that the classified annex to the bill includes my amendment calling on the administration to work with the committee to ensure adequate oversight of the program, which has not yet occurred. With regard to intelligence reform, the bill establishes, within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, an inspector general of the intelligence community, which will strengthen accountability across the community. The bill also requires the declassification of the aggregate budget for all intelligence activities. This longstanding intelligence reform goal, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, will allow for basic budget transparency and a level of accountability without damaging our national security. The bill includes an amendment I offered to the classified annex with Senator Rockefeller calling for more intelligence resources to be directed toward Africa. The continent presents a wide range of threats, such as terrorist havens and the transnational movements of terrorist organizations, while corruption, authoritarianism and poverty allow these conditions to fester. In order to bolster our national security, we need greater information and understanding of these threats. Of particular concern is Somalia, where the committee encouraged the intelligence community to work with other agencies of the U.S. Government on a comprehensive strategic plan for stability. Unfortunately, since the amendment was originally accepted by the committee in May 2006, the situation in the Horn of Africa has only deteriorated and the overall U.S. Government strategy for addressing the crisis remains sorely inadequate. Finally, I am pleased that, in response to the concerns of Senator Wyden and myself, a provision creating a new exemption to the Privacy Act has been removed. Widespread abuses involving National Security Letters recently uncovered by the Department of Justice inspector general only underscore why Congress must conduct vigorous oversight of how current authorities are being used before providing new ones. I again express my disappointment that the bill is being filibustered and hope that the bill will soon be passed into law.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly comment on an important settlement that has been recently announced by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC. Four major radio station groups, Clear Channel, Entercom, Citadel, and CBS Radio, have taken an important first step in cleaning up the radio industry through today's consent decree with the FCC and side agreement with the independent music community on airplay and rules of engagement. I want to especially commend Commissioner Adelstein for his tireless work to bring these groups together and then-Attorney General Spitzer for spearheading the initial investigation that has led to State and now Federal settlements. I was encouraged to see internal business reforms, increased recordkeeping for transactions between labels and radio stations and unfettered access to these records by the FCC as part of the consent decrees. While these provisions are not as broad as those included in my previous payola legislation, the increased recordkeeping and disclosure in the consent decrees represent a step in the right direction. Transparency and accountability through sustained oversight will go a long way in eliminating the pervasive shadowy practices that have plagued the radio industry on and off almost since its inception. While the parties to the consent decrees do not directly admit wrongdoing, the payment of $12.5 million to the U.S. Treasury from the four station groups is an implicit acknowledgement that the evidence uncovered by then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer showed that significant abuses had taken place. From all accounts, the stations also deserve some credit for working in good faith with the FCC and the independent music community to work toward a solution that did more than just put this matter behind them. The internal reforms and side agreement negotiated with the American Association of Independent Music, A2IM, appear to show a real desire to change and include the voices of local, unsigned and independent musicians that have unfortunately been missing more often than not from our public airwaves over the past decade or more. I am pleased by the voluntary side agreement by the radio station groups to provide more airtime and fair rules of engagement. These rules of engagement require nondiscriminatory treatment for labels and musicians seeking to be played at the stations and echo requirements from my previous payola legislation. I am heartened that these major radio station groups have apparently come to the realization that the old system wasn't working and that it was in their best interest to make it easier for small labels and local musicians to be heard. With more and more musicians being successful without or with limited radio airplay--just look at the commercial and critical success of the Dixie Chicks' last album--I hope radio stations are realizing they must change and play what their potential listeners want to hear in order to remain relevant. I hope this important commitment by four station groups will be replicated throughout the rest of the radio industry. I have a few lingering concerns that both the consent decrees and side agreement depend heavily on continued good faith instead of strong enforceable standards. I have no reason to believe that the potential good from these agreements will not be fulfilled, but we can't allow backsliding, especially after the 3-year term of the decrees expires. This means that the FCC will need to maintain vigorous and continued oversight. I urge the FCC to take the next step of building on this first wave of settlements and reaching agreements or taking enforcement action against the other stations implicated by the Spitzer investigation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we debate this important legislation regarding stem cell research, we are reminded of the millions of patients and families across America who await treatment and cures for our most deadly and tragic diseases. Scientists believe that over half of Americans over 85 may suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and at least half a million Americans currently have Parkinson's disease. People of all ages suffer from spinal cord injuries, diabetes and other chronic conditions. As we all know, these kinds of serious diagnoses affect not only the patient, but that patient's family, friends, and community. I am a strong supporter and proud cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I have heard from many of my constituents in Wisconsin in support of this legislation, and I am glad that the Senate is again addressing this issue and responding to the requests of millions across the country. It is important that we approve this legislation as expeditiously as possible, and provide the resources that scientists need to develop treatments and cures for these diseases. Millions of patients and their families across the Nation cannot afford to wait any longer for enactment of this urgently needed legislation. Researchers believe that they can unlock enormous potential in stem cell research if Congress and the President will only give them the keys. At the University of Wisconsin in 1998, Dr. James Thomson became the first scientist to break into this new frontier by isolating human embryonic stem cells. Since then, researchers at the University have continued to be leaders in this science. But despite the incredible promise this research holds, it has been limited by the President since 2001. As others have noted, even Story Landis, director of the NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and interim chair of the agency's stem cell task force, acknowledges that the President's stem cell policy is holding back potential breakthroughs. Congress must act to provide more stem cell lines to scientists so that this research can go forward, without the Federal Government standing in the way. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would allow federally funded research to be conducted on stem cell lines derived from excess embryos originally created for in vitro fertilization--IVF--that are no longer needed and are donated by couples for research. It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of embryos created for fertility treatments that could be used for research and will otherwise be destroyed. This bill does not interfere with alternative stem cell research, but it supports all avenues of research within the ethical limits Congress has already established. This bill will open doors for scientists to access new, healthy, uncontaminated stem cell lines that are currently off-limits to federally funded research under President Bush's restrictions. The embryos that could potentially be used for research are those that will never be implanted. Thanks to this legislation, embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used for research that could save pain and suffering for millions of people, and the lives of millions more. While I support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, I have concerns about the other bill we are considering today, S. 30. The language in that bill has not been properly vetted through the scientific community, and it is unclear what effect it might have. S. 30 could potentially limit the scope of current research, even further restricting the availability of stem cells for federally funded research. For these reasons, I oppose this legislation. There is much work that needs to be done to further understand the role that embryonic stem cells can play in providing answers to some of the most troubling medical diseases and conditions that affect so many Americans. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act will help our Nation's researchers get closer to unlocking what this research holds by increasing the quantity and quality of stem cells lines available for research. Embryonic stem cell research is very important to me and to Wisconsin. I am proud that the University of Wisconsin has played a prominent role in stem cell research in this country. I know that my constituents, and Americans across the country, are eagerly awaiting the benefits that this research will provide. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this incredibly important science which would expand our research horizons, and bring hope to so many people.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this month's elections in Nigeria mark an important moment for Africa's most populous country. Free, fair, and peaceful elections would allow Nigeria to consolidate its young democracy and to set an example for other developing countries in the region and around the world. Last November, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution I introduced that called upon the Government of Nigeria and the Independent National Electoral Commission to demonstrate a commitment to successful democratic elections and promised continued U.S. and international support for this effort. With the first set of votes just days away, I am disheartened by the poor performance of these individuals and institutions in the leadup to these historic polls. Since GEN Olusegun Obasanjo took the helm of Nigeria's first civilian government in 15 years in 1999, the United States and the wider international community have made significant investments in assisting Nigeria's democratic transition in recognition of the country's strategic and symbolic importance. If this month's polls do not produce a legitimate, fairly elected government, however, the United States and our allies will need to reconsider our political and material support to Nigeria. Following a violently contested election in 2003, President Obasanjo declared that his ``initial assignment as President is trying to heal the wounds from the elections.'' Instead, in the runup to this month's polls, he has sparked fresh outrage by using the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to limit competition, not promote it; by repressing dissent rather than encouraging free speech; by harassing domestic observers and obstructing the free and fair participation of opposition candidates. These abuses reveal the need for substantial electoral reform if Nigeria is to continue becoming a role model of democracy in Africa and around the world. By almost all accounts, Nigeria is simply not ready to conduct this election, and the President and the Chairman of INEC should be held accountable for that failure. There is still time, however, to demonstrate a commitment to the democratic process by accrediting and facilitating the work of domestic and foreign election observers, approving and publicizing election procedures and polling places, and posting voter lists at each polling location. Transparent conduct of the polls to be held on April 14 and 21, including unrestricted access to polling places for election monitors, will bolster the credibility of President Obasanjo's government and INEC, which have been damaged by slow and incomplete preparations in past months. Disrespect for the principles and processes of democracy threaten the gains that President Obasanjo's government has overseen in the past 8 years. Nigeria's recent economic growth, domestic security, and international reputation are all at stake because development, stability, and credibility cannot be sustained in a dysfunctional political system. Regardless of the outcome of this month's elections, I urge all political leaders and their supporters to respect the rule of law, preserve the democratic process, and renounce violence. This is a critical moment for Nigeria and for Africa. If problems related to this month's elections lead to unrest and instability in Nigeria, the impact could unsettle the region, indirectly by example and directly by weakening one of the most important forces for peace and progress on the continent. Under President Obasanjo's leadership, Nigeria has defended democracy throughout Africa by working with allies to reverse coups and efforts to undermine constitutional processes. Now the President has put his own democracy at risk, and the world is watching. Corruption, violence, repression, and obstruction of transparent, legitimate elections will not be tolerated by the international community, and Nigeria and its leaders will be judged accordingly.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is just over 4 years since our brave troops marched into Baghdad, bringing an end to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Four long years later, however, over 141,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and more are on the way, while that country continues its tragic descent into widespread violence and civil war. Four years later, the President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end--or even acknowledging when it might end. And, 4 years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission. That is why, today, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I am introducing legislation that would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, and that would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008, by ending funding for the war on that date. While I would personally prefer an even stronger approach, with a shorter time-frame, for ending the war, I am pleased to be working with the Majority Leader on this legislation. Senator Reid understands the terrible costs of this war, and he understands the solemn obligation we have in this body to bring it to a close. As he put it just a few days ago, ``It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain.'' I thank Senator Reid for his support and for agreeing to bring the bill up for a vote before Memorial Day. I am also pleased to have the cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse and Kennedy. There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war, which the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) called a ``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And even if there were a military solution, civil war is only one of the problems causing violence and instability in Iraq. Again, let me quote the NIE: ``the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on- Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.'' Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of ``Shia-on-Shia violence'' or ``criminally motivated violence'' in Iraq. It does, however, make sense to address the ongoing threat posed by al Qaeda. For that reason, the Feingold-Reid legislation would allow ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations'' to continue in Iraq after March 2008. The bill also has narrow exceptions for U.S. troops to train and equip Iraqis and provide security for other U.S. troops and civilian personnel, but neither of these exceptions authorizes U.S. troops to engage in combat operations. The Feingold-Reid bill allows targeted operations to take out terrorists who pose a threat to the United States, but it recognizes that maintaining a huge U.S. troop presence in Iraq doesn't help--in fact, it hurts--our global anti-terrorism efforts. By redeploying the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, this legislation will allow us to re-focus on the broader fight against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a one country franchise, and the President's strategy of devoting so much of our resources and attention to one country is short-sighted and counter-productive. Some of my colleagues argue that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need. Those arguments are false. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. The Feingold-Reid bill would end our involvement in the war without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a March 31, 2008, deadline after which funding for the war will be terminated, Congress can provide ample time for the President to safely redeploy our troops. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' Speaking of my proposal to end funding for the war, he said: ``There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized.'' This has been done before, in fact not that long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform? Of course not. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated. That same day, October 15, 1993, several Senators--myself included-- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal or in case of American POWs or MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty- eight Senators, most of them Republicans, opposed a measure to table that amendment. We did so because we understood that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. As Senator Hatch said at the time, ``The McCain amendment provides the President with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops.'' Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue. The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress--newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq--to let the people's voices be heard. And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is just over 4 years since our brave troops marched into Baghdad, bringing an end to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Four long years later, however, over 141,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and more are on the way, while that country continues its tragic descent into widespread violence and civil war. Four years later, the President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end--or even acknowledging when it might end. And, 4 years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission. That is why, today, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I am introducing legislation that would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, and that would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008, by ending funding for the war on that date. While I would personally prefer an even stronger approach, with a shorter time-frame, for ending the war, I am pleased to be working with the Majority Leader on this legislation. Senator Reid understands the terrible costs of this war, and he understands the solemn obligation we have in this body to bring it to a close. As he put it just a few days ago, ``It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain.'' I thank Senator Reid for his support and for agreeing to bring the bill up for a vote before Memorial Day. I am also pleased to have the cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse and Kennedy. There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war, which the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) called a ``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And even if there were a military solution, civil war is only one of the problems causing violence and instability in Iraq. Again, let me quote the NIE: ``the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on- Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.'' Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of ``Shia-on-Shia violence'' or ``criminally motivated violence'' in Iraq. It does, however, make sense to address the ongoing threat posed by al Qaeda. For that reason, the Feingold-Reid legislation would allow ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations'' to continue in Iraq after March 2008. The bill also has narrow exceptions for U.S. troops to train and equip Iraqis and provide security for other U.S. troops and civilian personnel, but neither of these exceptions authorizes U.S. troops to engage in combat operations. The Feingold-Reid bill allows targeted operations to take out terrorists who pose a threat to the United States, but it recognizes that maintaining a huge U.S. troop presence in Iraq doesn't help--in fact, it hurts--our global anti-terrorism efforts. By redeploying the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, this legislation will allow us to re-focus on the broader fight against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a one country franchise, and the President's strategy of devoting so much of our resources and attention to one country is short-sighted and counter-productive. Some of my colleagues argue that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need. Those arguments are false. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. The Feingold-Reid bill would end our involvement in the war without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a March 31, 2008, deadline after which funding for the war will be terminated, Congress can provide ample time for the President to safely redeploy our troops. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' Speaking of my proposal to end funding for the war, he said: ``There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized.'' This has been done before, in fact not that long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform? Of course not. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated. That same day, October 15, 1993, several Senators--myself included-- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal or in case of American POWs or MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty- eight Senators, most of them Republicans, opposed a measure to table that amendment. We did so because we understood that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. As Senator Hatch said at the time, ``The McCain amendment provides the President with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops.'' Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue. The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress--newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq--to let the people's voices be heard. And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I supported that Ensign amendment today because it is vitally important that we protect our children against sexual predators. I did so despite my serious concern about the offset used to pay for the program. We should not be cutting funding from the State Department's Bureau of Education and Cultural Exchange, ECA. I strongly believe that people-to-people exchange is one of the most effective public diplomacy tools we have, and I hope that funding for the ECA will be restored in conference. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to vote in favor of the fiscal year 2007 supplemental because it contains binding language that effectively ends the current misguided military mission in Iraq and requires the President to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. While this action is long overdue, it is a big step in the right direction and it brings us closer to ending our involvement in this disastrous war. I am also pleased that the supplemental includes necessary funding to address conflicts throughout the world, especially in Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to assist Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons fleeing their homes, and to help pay for U.S. arrears to the U.N. The supplemental also contains a 1-month extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program, which fixes a quirk that could have put family dairy farmers on unequal footing during the upcoming farm bill debate. I was glad this provision was included in the supplemental and will work with my colleagues to retain it during conference. I am extremely disappointed at the removal of a provision in the supplemental spending bill that would have fixed a glaring problem in immigration law that effectively labeled the Hmong as terrorists. We will forever be indebted to the Hmong who fought alongside and supported the United States during the Vietnam war. I will continue working to make sure that Hmong and other legitimate refugees who are not threats to our national security do not face lengthy and unnecessary delays as the Federal agencies involved determine whether they are eligible for a waiver that would permit them to resettle in the United States or adjust their immigration status. I remain concerned at the continued practice of funding the war in Iraq through emergency spending bills. We should not be using such bills to bypass the regular appropriations process. That is why I supported efforts to remove certain spending provisions that do not appear to address true emergencies, including an amendment offered by Senator Coburn to remove funding for next year's political conventions.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2007. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home state. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's 15 species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2012. In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over 5 years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset through the Secretary of the Interior's administrative budget. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of fiscal year 2012. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the over 450 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the bird's tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. A new flock of cranes is currently being reintroduced to the wild in an eastern flyway from Wisconsin to Florida. The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home State in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique. Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941, however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well- watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education, and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2007. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home state. This bill is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 107th, 108th, and 109th Congresses. In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's 15 species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2012. In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over 5 years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset through the Secretary of the Interior's administrative budget. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of fiscal year 2012. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the over 450 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the bird's tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. A new flock of cranes is currently being reintroduced to the wild in an eastern flyway from Wisconsin to Florida. The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home State in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique. Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941, however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well- watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education, and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. I don't think I will need to use all of it, but I appreciate it. Time and time again, history has taught us that preventing a crisis is much less complicated and costly than ending and repairing the damage caused by a humanitarian tragedy. The clumsy and irresolute response to the current crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan, however, shows we still have not learned this painful lesson. While the world's leaders condemn the atrocities but delay taking strong action, the vile hatred and unspeakable violence that has resulted in the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Darfur has now spread to actually infect nearby areas, destabilizing neighboring countries and fueling a downward spiral of conflict and insecurity throughout the region. I am especially disturbed by evidence that the brutal tactics of Darfur--and their tragic consequences--have now, in part, been transferred across the distant western border into eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. Last week I held a hearing in the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs to examine the regional impact of the Darfur crisis. The overwhelming message from our distinguished witnesses was that the victims and perpetrators of the Darfur conflict are no longer simply confined within Sudanese borders, so both our humanitarian response and our strategy for peace need to incorporate these new regional dimensions. Nearly a quarter of a million Darfur refugees have fled into eastern Chad, compounding an existing political and humanitarian crisis in that country. Lax security along Sudan's porous border has also allowed weapons and Darfur-based rebel groups to spread violence into Chad. Both the Chadian and Sudanese Governments accuse each other of supporting rebel factions seeking to overthrow the neighboring state. Last Saturday, the Chadian Government claimed Sudanese aircraft had shelled four Chadian towns. Ironically, the UNHCR has now begun moving Chadian refugees into Darfur for their safety. Even before the recent outbreak of hostilities in the north, the Central African Republic was suffering extreme poverty and was deemed by the UN as ``the world's most silent crisis.'' Displacement--much of it the result of house-burning and other cruel tactics by Government forces--rose fourfold in the past year, with more than 200,000 unable to return to their homes. Since the displacement has been more gradual than in Darfur or eastern Chad, the growing humanitarian crisis has received little attention and the response of aid agencies has been slow and limited. There is not yet a humanitarian emergency in the CAR, but if the fighting between the Government and rebel forces continues and the UN doesn't begin to respond more effectively, conditions could worsen dramatically. Rather than allow another crisis to break out, we could help avert massive starvation and disease with a relatively minor intervention now. That is why I have proposed to include $10 million for the Central African Republic in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental so as to provide seeds and tools, basic shelter materials, and medicine now, a month or two before the rainy season, to reduce the risk of a widespread humanitarian disaster. While U.S. attention to Darfur is essential, the expansion of this crisis now requires a more comprehensive approach that addresses the interrelated emergencies and underlying causes of instability in this volatile region. Conflicts in these countries will continue to simmer and spread unless the international community musters the political will and material resources to act upon the conviction so often expressed. As the violence in Darfur worsens and spreads, we cannot pretend we did not see this coming. For nearly 3 years now, my colleagues and I have stood on this floor and called for an end to the genocide in Darfur. It makes me ill to think of how many lives have been lost and civilians displaced since then, but I become even more upset when I consider how much worse this crisis could still become. There is no excuse for the persistent reluctance of the U.S. Government and the international community to begin applying the economic and military leverage at their disposal to end the violence in Darfur and beyond. I will continue to call for courageous U.S. leadership to defend these innocent people and demand accountability for the perpetrators of the atrocities that have been allowed to continue for far too long. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the recent report by the inspector general of the Department of Justice on the FBI's use of national security letters. According to the inspector general's testimony before the Judiciary Committee, there was ``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities''--misuse that violated statutes, Attorney General guidelines, and internal FBI policies. I was deeply concerned by the findings in that report. Unfortunately, I was not surprised. The national security letter, or NSL, authorities were dramatically expanded by Sections 358 and 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, in its haste to pass this flawed legislation, Congress essentially granted the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong doing, without judicial approval. So it is not surprising that the inspector general identified serious problems with the implementation of these broad authorities. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow. As a result, Congress shares some responsibility for the apparently lax attitude and in some cases serious misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities by the FBI. This inspector general report proves that ``trust us'' doesn't cut it when it comes to the Government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage. It was a grave mistake for Congress to grant the Government broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they wouldn't be misused. We have the responsibility to put appropriate limits on Government authorities-- limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals and terrorists but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans. But let me back up a few steps. What are NSLs, and why are they such a concern? I am going to spend a little time on this because it is important. I believe there should be a legislative response to this report, so I want my colleagues to understand what we are dealing with here. National security letters are issued by the FBI to businesses to obtain certain types of records. So they are similar to the controversial section 215 business record orders but with one very critical difference. While section 215 involves an application to the FISA Court, the Government does not need to get any court approval whatsoever to issue NSLs. It doesn't have to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or any other court and make even the most minimal showing. Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI can simply issue the order signed by the special agent in charge of a field office or some other supervisory official--although we now know that many NSLs were issued without even the signatures required by the PATRIOT Act. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI had to certify specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the records sought with an NSL pertained to a terrorist or spy. But the PATRIOT Act expanded the NSL authorities to allow the Government to use them to obtain records of people who are not suspected of being or even being connected to terrorists or spies. The Government need only certify that the documents are either ``sought for'' or ``relevant to'' an authorized intelligence investigation, a far-reaching standard that--even if followed closely, which we now know it was not--could be used to obtain all kinds of records about innocent Americans. Indeed, as the inspector general suggested, it could be used to ``access NSL information about parties two or three steps removed from their subjects without determining if these contacts reveal suspicious connections.'' And just as with section 215, the recipient is subject to an automatic, permanent gag rule. NSLs can be used to obtain three categories of business records, while section 215 orders can be used to obtain ``any tangible things.'' But even the categories reachable by an NSL are quite broad, and the PATRIOT Act and subsequent legislation expanded them further. Specifically, NSLs can be used to obtain the following: First, subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage, including information about the phone numbers and e-mail addresses that an individual is in communication with. Second, full credit reports. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could not get a full credit report without obtaining a court order--it could only obtain what is called ``credit header'' information, which includes name, current and former addresses, current and former places of employment, and the names of financial institutions at which the individual has accounts. But the PATRIOT Act expanded that authority to include full credit reports, which generally include many personal details about loans, credit scores, and other aspects of individuals' financial situations. And the third category is financial records, a category that includes bank transactions but also was expanded in 2002 to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses like jewelers, car dealers, travel agents and even casinos. Unfortunately, the PATRIOT Act reauthorization legislation that was enacted last year--over my opposition--did nothing to address the standard for issuing an NSL. It left in place the breathtakingly broad ``relevance'' or ``sought for'' standards. Not only that, but it left in place the automatic gag rule for NSL recipients, albeit with a new exception for notifying a lawyer. What did the reauthorization legislation do with regard to NSLs? Well, primarily it created the illusion of judicial review, both for the letters themselves and for the accompanying gag rule. At a Judiciary Committee hearing this week, the FBI Director pointed to this after-the-fact judicial review provision as a privacy protection for NSLs. But if you look at the details, it was drafted in a way that makes that review virtually meaningless. With regard to the NSLs themselves, the reauthorization permits recipients to consult their lawyer and seek judicial review, but it also allows the Government to keep all of its submissions secret and not share them with the challenger, regardless of whether there are national security interests at stake. The other significant problem with the judicial review provisions is the standard for getting the gag rule overturned. In order to prevail, the recipient has to prove that any certification by the Government that disclosure would harm national security or impair diplomatic relations was made in bad faith. This is a standard of review that is virtually impossible to meet. Now, judicial review is not at issue in the IG's report, and indeed, the chances that a business receiving an NSL would seek judicial review rather than just comply are relatively slim, but I think it is important to point out that even on the one issue that the reauthorization legislation did address with regard to NSLs, judicial review, the result was entirely inadequate. I want to make one additional point about national security letters. There is a crucial difference between obtaining records in national security investigations and in standard criminal investigations. As the General Counsel of the FBI testified before the House Judiciary Committee last week, actions in national security investigations ``are typically taken in secret and they don't have the transparency of the criminal justice system.'' She explained that in the criminal system, agents know that ``if they mess up during the course of an investigation, they're going to be cross-examined, they're going to have a federal district judge yelling at them.'' That means that more vigorous controls and compliance mechanisms are needed with respect to sensitive authorities like national security letters than their analogues in the criminal justice system--something I think the inspector general report demonstrates. With that background, what did the inspector general find as a result of his audit of the use of NSLs from 2003 to 2005? He found that even the very limited protections in the existing statute were not being followed. The inspector general found, based on FBI records, that the FBI's use of NSLs expanded exponentially after the PATRIOT Act, moving from approximately 8,500 requests in 2000, to 39,000 requests in 2003, 56,000 requests in 2004, and 47,000 requests in 2005. The total number of requests was 143,074 over the 3-year period. But the inspector general also found that even those numbers are inaccurate because the FBI had no policies in place with respect to the retention or tracking of NSLs. In many cases, agents did not even keep copies of signed NSLs. As a result, the FBI significantly undercounted its NSL requests. In a sample of 77 case files that the IG looked at, the NSL requests were undercounted by roughly 22 percent. Although it is hard to know how much can be extrapolated from that figure, if that figure holds throughout the Bureau, that could mean that there were roughly 30,000 more NSL requests issued that the FBI didn't keep track of. That is appalling--that the privacy rights of Americans would be treated so cavalierly that there are potentially tens of thousands of NSL requests out there that the FBI itself doesn't even have a record of. And it resulted in inaccurate information being reported to Congress about the use of NSLs, raising another grave concern. What else did the inspector general find? He found that the use of NSL requests regarding U.S. persons--that is, citizens and legal permanent residents--shifted from 39 percent of all NSL requests in 2003 to 53 percent of all NSL requests in 2005, at least with respect to the NSL requests for which the FBI kept track of the U.S person status of the target. And, until 2006, the FBI did not keep track of how many NSL requests pertain to individuals who are not the subjects of authorized national security investigations. Obviously, if the FBI is using NSLs frequently to obtain information about people who are not the subjects of open investigations, that would present serious concerns about their use. The inspector general also found that the FBI significantly underreported violations of the NSL statutes and internal guidelines from 2003 to 2005, with respect to notifying both the FBI's Office of General Counsel, or OGC, and the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, or IOB, as required by Executive order. FBI employees did report 26 violations to OGC, but the IG found examples of 22 more unreported violations in 17 investigative case files out of a sample of 77 investigative files in 4 field offices. Some of these were significant violations, others less so. But that means that 22 percent of investigative files surveyed by the IG contained one or more violations not identified by the FBI or reported to the Intelligence Oversight Board, as required. According to the IG, ``we have no reason to believe that the number of NSL-related possible IOB violations we identified in the four field offices was skewed or disproportionate to the number of possible IOB violations that exist in other offices.'' Thus, the IG's findings ``suggest that a significant number of NSL-related possible IOB violations through the FBI have not been identified or reported by FBI personnel.'' What else did the inspector general find? Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in his report, among many disturbing revelations, is that on more than 700 occasions, the FBI obtained telephone toll billing records or subscriber information from 3 telephone companies without first issuing NSLs or grand jury subpoenas. Instead, it relied on what it called ``exigent letters'' signed by personnel not authorized by statute to sign NSLs. Although the Electronic Communications Privacy Act does contain an emergency provision permitting the FBI to obtain certain communications records in emergencies where there is an immediate threat to a person's physical safety, many of these exigent letters were issued, admittedly, in nonemergency circumstances. Indeed, they were used as a matter of course by one headquarters unit. This violated both the statute and internal FBI policy. The inspector general also found that FBI headquarters issued more than 300 NSLs without determining whether there was an authorized investigation in progress. Issuing an NSL without tying it an authorized investigation is a violation of the statute. The inspector general also found that internal FBI guidance on how to properly use NSLs was woefully lacking, and that even to the degree there were FBI policies in place to govern the use of NSLs, those policies were not being followed. In 60 percent of the 77 case files that the IG examined in detail, there was some infraction of FBI guidance. Sixty percent. That is absolutely astounding. But that is not all. Once information is obtained through an NSL, the Inspector general reported that the FBI retains it indefinitely and uploads it into databases like the ``Investigative Data Warehouse,'' where it is retrievable by the thousands of authorized personnel, both inside and outside the FBI, who have access to these types of FBI databases. The FBI has no process for removing that information from its databases depending on the results of the investigation. So if a person's full credit report is obtained with an NSL as part of a preliminary investigation and that preliminary investigation is closed because the FBI determines that the person has done nothing wrong, it doesn't matter--the FBI can keep it anyway. Although the FBI keeps all the data it collects using NSLs, it does not tag or mark that information to indicate that it was derived through an NSL. So the FBI does not track whether information from NSLs ends up in intelligence analysis products or is passed on to prosecutors for criminal investigations. You would think that these would be key indicators of the usefulness and effectiveness of NSLs, but that information is not available, other than anecdotally. That is what the inspector general's report told us. The report revealed that the FBI took a shockingly cavalier attitude toward the privacy of innocent Americans in its implementation of the PATRIOT Act NSL authorities. Congress meant for the inspector general's report to help it in its oversight of the use of national security letters, which are issued and enforced entirely in secret, and there is no question it has done that. The inspector general deserves a great deal of credit for his thorough and careful report. As I have already mentioned, much of the reporting to Congress on the use of NSLs since the PATRIOT Act has been inaccurate or misleading due to FBI recordkeeping problems, so having the results of this independent audit is invaluable. But the report also reveals that the Justice Department essentially tried to whitewash this issue over the past several years. When Congress was considering whether to make changes to the NSL authorities as part of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization debate, the Attorney General came to Congress and resisted any changes, touting the strength of the checks on its power to obtain NSLs and assuring us that the power was being used carefully. On April 5, 2005, Attorney General Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``[T]he PATRIOT Act includes a lot of safeguards that critics of the Act choose to ignore.'' On November 23, 2005, the Justice Department wrote Senators Specter and Leahy a ten-page letter defending the FBI's use of National Security Letters, asserting that ``the use of NSLs is subject to significant internal oversight and checks,'' and that there are ``robust mechanisms for checking misuse,'' and that ``[t]he FBI must and does conduct its investigations within the bounds of our Constitution, statutes, strict internal guidelines, and Executive Orders.'' On December 14, 2005, the Washington Post quoted Attorney General Gonzales as saying, ``[T]he PATRIOT Act has already undergone extensive review and analysis by Congress, by the DOJ Inspector General, and by other bodies . . . This extensive review has uncovered not one verified example of abuse of any of the Act's provisions.'' It is now quite evident that the Attorney General must not have been looking very hard, and certainly not trying very hard to ensure the protection of Americans' privacy rights. There is a lot going on right now that suggests we should be skeptical of assurances from the Justice Department, but this report highlights just how overtly political, and how lacking in fact, were DOJ's representations regarding the implementation of the Patriot Act. Indeed, as recently as November 2006, the Justice Department asserted--in response to an inspector general memo warning against the potential for abuse of national security letters--that the FBI is ``aggressively vigilant in guarding against any abuse,'' a claim we now know was simply false. It is an understatement to say that the inspector general's report uncovered serious flaws in the use of national security letters. But these were flaws waiting to happen. It should not have taken this type of highly critical report to convince Congress to do something about such wide-ranging Government power. In fact, a bipartisan group of Senators proposed changes to the NSL statutes years ago, in the Security and Freedom Enhancement Act, or SAFE, Act. I, along with Senators Craig, Durbin, Sununu, Murkowski, Salazar, and many others, pushed for changes to the NSL statutes to try to prevent precisely the types of abuses that have now come to light. For example, the SAFE Act would have required that agents demonstrate that the records pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy before the FBI can issue an NSL, rather than the extremely loose standard in the PATRIOT Act. The SAFE Act also would have given the recipient of an NSL a meaningful right to challenge the letter and the nondisclosure requirement, and placed a time limit on the nondisclosure requirement, which could be extended by the court. As is the case for FISA authorities, the SAFE Act would have required notice to the target of an NSL if the Government sought to use the records obtained from the NSL in a subsequent proceeding and given the target an opportunity to challenge the use of those records. So the idea that the NSL statutes need to be revised is not new. But the inspector general's report has now highlighted the need for legislation and suggested some problems with the statutes that had not previously been identified. The time for changing the lax and unchecked system for issuing national security letters is now. The hearings the Judiciary Committee has held with the inspector general and the FBI Director have been immensely helpful. But we must not stop there. Legislation is needed. During the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, we were unable to fix the NSL statutes. The administration and its supporters even refused to put a sunset on the NSL powers. So we need to act, and soon. I hope to work closely with the bipartisan group of Senators who cosponsored the SAFE Act. I plan to press for Senate action on sensible reforms to help prevent future abuses of national security letters. Let me say, in conclusion, that this report shows beyond doubt that Congress made a grave mistake when it let this administration intimidate us into silence and inaction rather than protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people. The Justice Department's credibility concerning the powers contained in the PATRIOT Act is in shreds. Congress needs to exercise extensive and searching oversight of those powers, and it must take corrective action. The inspector general's report has shown both that current safeguards are inadequate and that the Government cannot be trusted to exercise those powers lawfully. Congress must address these problems and fix the mistakes it made in passing and reauthorizing the flawed PATRIOT Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in recent weeks, we have seen a level of chaos and brutal violence in Mogadishu, Somalia, that is tragic and horrific, not to mention extremely dangerous to our national security interests. According to the U.N., 40,000 people fled Mogadishu in February, and conditions have only deteriorated this month. Humanitarian access is severely restricted. Ugandan troops serving in an African Union peacekeeping force have been attacked. Last week a cargo plane was shot down. The Transitional Federal Government has been overwhelmed by the violence, and appears unable or unwilling to work with rival clans and other opponents. A mere 3 months after the Ethiopian incursion, the TFG is isolated and a dangerous power vacuum is forming. These are the conditions that permit terrorist organizations to operate in Somalia, as they have for years. Insecurity and lawlessness facilitated the rise of the Islamic courts in recent years and now circumstances are again conducive for extremist elements to regroup and return. In other words, without a consistent, comprehensive plan for fostering stability in Somalia, we could find ourselves faced with the same conditions that preceded the Ethiopian incursion against the courts and subsequent U.S. military operations. The United States and the international community has approached Somalia, and continues to approach Somalia, sporadically, with policy made on the fly and with few resources directed toward long-term political and economic development. When required by Congress to provide a comprehensive plan for Somalia, the Administration has failed to do so. In February, when I asked the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs why this legally mandated report was overdue, she indicated that that the Department was busy responding to ``fast-moving events on the ground.'' But that is precisely the problem. Ad hoc approaches to Somalia have not worked; they have never worked. There was no comprehensive plan last year, when the Islamic courts took advantage of years of civil conflict to consolidate their power. There was no plan when Ethiopian troops entered Somalia, even though the international community had no ready peacekeeping capability to follow. There was no plan when the TFG was installed in Mogadishu with no effective international framework to ensure that it could govern. And there was no broader plan when U.S. airstrikes pursued targets in a country that, unless policies change, will remain a terrorist safe haven for years to come. None of what we are seeing in Somalia today should come as a surprise. Last fall, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles was loudly proclaiming his intention to go into Somalia. In my own meeting with Meles in early December, he told me exactly what he intended to do. He would enter Somalia, he would teach the Islamic courts a lesson, and he would withdraw. Ethiopia, he told me, had neither the capability nor the desire to engage in nation building. I asked him about the instability that might ensue and warned him against an invasion. The lessons from Iraq were perhaps inevitable and we discussed them. Yet Meles was committed to a strike against the Islamic courts, regardless of what would follow. In other words, quick military action was, from his perspective, in Ethiopia's national interests, even without an adequate international political framework or a robust peacekeeping capability. That does not mean, however, that this was in America's national interests. I do not know if the Ethiopian incursion would have occurred if the United States had sought to stop it. I do know that the ruins left behind by this incursion were foreseeable and there was no excuse for the United States and the international community to have been caught so shamefully unprepared. As I warned in January, even after the incursion there was a brief window of opportunity to bring some stability to Somalia. That window may have now closed. Still, we have no choice but to do what we should have been doing all along. It is in our interest to increase support for the peacekeepers who are currently being asked to police a state of chaos. It is in our interest to identify economic resources that could be used for development in Somalia and as an incentive for stability and representative government. And it is in our interest to promote a broad, international framework for stability in Somalia. It is not acceptable for the Transitional Federal Government to resist the tough political choices--including the inclusion of rival factions and clans--necessary to establish an effective national government that is seen as credible and legitimate by its own people as well as the international community. It is the Somalis who suffer when there is no representative government, and it is the terrorists who benefit. And it is irresponsible for other countries in the region to pursue their separate, conflicting agendas in Somalia rather than contribute to a sustainable compromise. The stabilization and reconstruction of Somalia will not happen without a real commitment of attention and political capital from the United States. We must appoint a Special Envoy to work fulltime on Somalia and the Horn of Africa. The ambassadors in the region all have their own host countries to worry about every day. And it is not an option for the Secretary of State to be ``in the lead on our Somalia policy,'' as the Assistant Secretary stated in February. Such unfocused leadership results in precisely the kind of sporadic response to events in Somalia that has so utterly failed us. Last week, the violence in Mogadishu took a grisly and familiar turn: the dragging and mutilating of bodies through the streets. It was these kinds of images that helped prompt the United States to turn away from Somalia 15 years ago. But, as we learned in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998, when we turn away from Somalia, we invite disaster. That does not mean that there was a military solution in 1993--certainly, the poorly defined U.S. military mission in Somalia 14 years ago was not a solution. Nor does it mean that there is a military solution now. Airstrikes can never, by themselves, dry up a terrorist safe haven, nor can they bring to power a stable government with which we can work to pursue our mutual interests. Yet all too often, military options are all we consider, all we plan for, and all we devote resources to. High-level diplomacy has been neglected. Economic investments have been short-changed. And, worst of all, those who are supposed to be leaders on this issue have already gotten distracted. We cannot afford to let history repeat itself. If we do not act, conditions will continue to deteriorate. Civilians will die. Extremists who offer the promise of a modicum of security will not only emerge, but will be welcomed by a population desperate for some peace. Terrorist networks will thrive. And plots against the United States will be hatched. The longer we continue to neglect Somalia, the longer we potentially undermine our own national security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Cochran amendment, which would strike language in the bill that takes a significant step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. The language I am referring to won the support of 48 Senators just a few weeks ago. I voted for it then and will vote to retain it today. While it does not go as far or as fast as I would like, it would effectively end the President's misguided policies in Iraq by terminating, within 120 days, the current open-ended military mission in Iraq. At that point, U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for three specified, narrow purposes. The remainder of our troops would be redeployed. This provision is binding and it would bring to an end our current involvement in perhaps the greatest foreign policy mistake in our country's history. Some of my colleagues continue to argue that Congress should defer to the Commander in Chief when it comes to Iraq, that we should give him the opportunity to change course in Iraq, or that we should allow his escalation plan the chance to succeed. Those arguments ignore our congressional responsibilities. Congress authorized this war and it is in our power to bring it to a close. More importantly, we have not just the power but the responsibility to end a war that is draining vital national security resources in pursuit of a goal that cannot be achieved militarily. The political problems that are driving much of the insurgency and sectarian strife in Iraq are tragic and important. They require the attention of U.S. policymakers. They do not require in fact, they cannot be solved by a massive and indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq. Our troops continue to perform heroically in Iraq but there is no military solution to Iraq's problems. Some of my colleagues raise the specter of dire consequences if we redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq. That is precisely why we need a strategic approach to redeployment, one that addresses ongoing instability and other threats with our intelligence, diplomatic, economic and, in a limited manner, military capabilities. Not only is the continuation of this war not going to end sectarian and insurgent violence, it puts off the day when we develop a comprehensive strategy for Iraq that is sustainable and fits squarely within the larger struggle of fighting al-Qaida. As long as the President's policies continue, our troops will continue to put their lives on the line, our constituents will continue putting billions of their dollars into this war, our military readiness will continue to erode, our Guard and Reserve members will continue to face heavy burdens, and our ability to respond to an array of national security challenges will continue to suffer. From Somalia to Afghanistan to the ongoing fight against al-Qaida, we face threats and challenges that require serious attention and resources. Right now, far too much of both are being spent on a single country. It is this single-minded and self-defeating policy that needs to end, and it is up to Congress to do so. Time and again, the President has made it clear that nothing not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of members of both parties will dissuade him from pursuing policies in Iraq that are not working. Faced with a clear mandate from the voters last November, he stalled for time, before announcing not just a continuation but an escalation of his policies. Congress cannot wait for the President to change course we need to change the course ourselves. The provision that Senator Cochran seeks to strike represents a change of course. It requires redeployment of our troops while recognizing that the U.S. has an ongoing role to play in addressing the terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hot-bed of terrorism before the President led us to war in that country, al-Qaida and its allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state and breeding ground for terrorism. And we must be prepared to pursue targeted missions to take out terrorists. But maintaining 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is not the way to defeat al-Qaida. And military operations of any size will only succeed if they are combined with other measures including diplomatic, economic and intelligence measures as part of a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terrorists who threaten our country. Al-Qaida is not a one-country franchise it is a global threat that requires a global response.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held its second hearing on the unprecedented dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys in December. In the past few days, increasingly disturbing information has come to light that suggests that Congress was intentionally misled with regard to why these U.S. attorneys were fired and who was involved in making the decision to fire them. Under the leadership of Chairman Leahy and Senator Schumer, the Judiciary Committee will continue to investigate these matters in the coming weeks. But today, we will vote on legislation to repeal a change in the law that apparently helped to bring about these unfortunate events. I will vote in favor of S. 214 and against both amendments that have been offered. In many ways, U.S. attorneys are the face of the Federal Government and of Federal law in our local jurisdictions. They make crucial decisions on how federal law will be enforced. To faithfully execute the law, they must be able to exercise that essential prosecutorial discretion that distinguishes our criminal justice system from a mere draconian rule book that is applied without regard for the circumstances of each individual case. Who fills these positions in our system is a matter of great consequence. That is why they are subject to confirmation by the Senate. In Wisconsin, we take the nomination process for our two U.S. attorneys, and the participation of the Senate in that process, very seriously. In 1979, Senators William Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson created the Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission to advise them on judicial and U.S. attorney nominations. The Commission process has been used for over a quarter century, by both Republican and Democratic senators from our State under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. The Commission operates whenever a vacancy occurs for a Federal judge or U.S. attorney position in Wisconsin. The Commission reviews applications and then makes recommendations to the Senators. The two Wisconsin Senators, now Senator Kohl and myself, choose from those recommended by the Commission in making our recommendations to the President. This bipartisan Commission helps ensure that dedicated and qualified individuals fill the positions. It gives our citizens additional assurance that these important nominations are made based on merit, not politics. I believe commissions like this are a particularly reliable and transparent form of filling these vacancies. That is one reason that I feel so strongly that the change made during the PATRIOT Act reauthorization process to the process for appointing interim U.S. attorneys was a mistake: It allows the Justice Department to sidestep the confirmation process for U.S. attorneys altogether. There is simply no good reason why the Attorney General needs the power to make indefinite interim appointments. When it exercises that power, the administration cuts Congress, and in the case of my state, the people of Wisconsin, out of that process. As some of the recently released emails from the Attorney General's chief of staff reveal, this change in law allowing the Attorney General to make indefinite interim appointments was going to be used to circumvent congressional involvement and instead install preselected ``interim'' replacements for the fired U.S. attorneys with no intention to seek Senate confirmation. Worse yet, the emails indicate that the Department of Justice was actively planning to pretend it was following a traditional confirmation process ``in good faith.'' Such blatant disregard for Congress's legitimate role in this process--and for the integrity of a three branch system of government in general--is simply unacceptable. S. 214 will repeal the provision that prompted this plan to circumvent the confirmation process. Enacting this bill is an important start in preventing further abuses. I want to note that the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues about the involvement of the district courts in making interim appointments just don't ring true. Beginning in the late 1800s, and continuing until the fiasco of this past year, district courts were involved in the interim appointment process. In the time that the district courts were involved, either exclusively--until 1986--or as a fail-safe after the Attorney General exercised a temporary appointment power--from 1986-2006--the interim appointment process went smoothly. Never before have we seen an administration hatch a plan to replace a large number of U.S. attorneys in the middle of a term for what appear to be political reasons. The reason, of course, is that until this year, individuals appointed on an interim basis could only serve for 120 days without Senate confirmation. By repealing this clearly ill-advised change to interim appointment power and returning to the law used for the previous 20 years, S. 214 allows for the needed flexibility to accommodate short-term interim appointments made by the Attorney General while also ensuring that the Senate confirmation process remains in place for permanent appointments. And the Senate confirmation process allows states like mine to encourage a transparent and accountable selection process for these important positions. These are grave matters, for it is absolutely vital that our citizens be able to rely on the integrity of the justice system. It is equally important that they have confidence that individuals who represent the Federal Government in the justice system are above reproach, and are acting in the interest of justice--and not politics--at all times. Even an appearance of impropriety can harm our judicial system and, in turn, harm the rule of law by undermining citizens' confidence in its integrity. Whatever role political motivations played in the dismissals of these U.S. attorneys--and each day more evidence surfaces to suggest that politics did, in fact, play quite a large role--I think it is clear that the administration has not acted in a manner that upholds the best interests of law enforcement and the reputation of our criminal justice system. We have a duty to remedy this problem, and passing S. 214 is an important step towards doing so. We must ensure that there is, once again, some accountability in how U.S. attorneys are selected to serve. It is the very least that we can do to help restore the public's confidence that our criminal justice system is above partisan interference.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I spoke yesterday in favor of the resolution introduced by Senator Reid, S.J. Res. 9. By bringing the current open-ended military mission to a close and requiring the funding of U.S. troops, the Reid resolution takes a significant, binding step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. I am pleased that the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on that resolution shortly. The Senate will also be voting, as the Senator from Louisiana just pointed out, on another resolution regarding Iraq sponsored by the senior Senator from New Hampshire. Unfortunately, this resolution is badly flawed, and I strongly oppose it. My chief objection is simple. The resolution rejects the idea of Congress using its power of the purse to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Moreover, it does so in a manner that can only be described as inaccurate and almost intellectually dishonest. By warning against ``the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field,'' the resolution fully embraces the misleading rhetoric the White House has used to try to prevent serious discussion of Congress ending the war. Those who engage in such rhetoric pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops somehow being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment, and resources they need. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. Every Member of Congress agrees we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single Member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated, as I have proposed, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. How can I say this with such confidence? There really is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict. I recently chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power To End a War.'' Without exception, every witness--those called by the majority and those called by the minority--did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress's authority to end a war. Lou Fisher with the Library of Congress, one of the foremost experts on separation of powers issues, pointed out that Congress does not simply have the power, it has a responsibility, to exercise it when it is needed. He said: The question to me, always remember, Congress, is the continued use of military force and a military commitment in the Nation's interest? That is the core question. Once you decide that, if you decide it is not in the national interest, you certainly do not want to continue putting U.S. troops in harm's way. The argument that cutting off funding for a flawed policy would hurt the troops, and that continuing to put U.S. troops in harm's way supports the troops, makes no sense. By ending funding for the war, we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq. Walter Dellinger of the Duke Law School made this point when he testified about my proposal: There would not be one penny less for the salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for the benefit of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or for support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized. So instead of allowing the President's failed policy to continue, Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as I do in my bill and as the Reid resolution permits, that important counterterrorism and other limited operations are still carried out. Now, for those who don't believe this has ever been done or for those who say it can't be done, let me cite an example from not that long ago. In October of 1993, Congress enacted an amendment sponsored by the senior Senator from West Virginia cutting off funding--cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and Senator Warner. Now, did those eight Senators and many Democratic Senators who joined them act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform? Of course not. All of these Members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close by establishing a date after which the funds would be terminated. Now, on that same day with regard to Somalia, several Senators, myself included, supported an even stronger effort to end funding for operations in Somalia. The amendment offered by Senator McCain on October 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for Somalia right away, except for funds for withdrawal, or in the case of American POWs, MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty-eight Senators opposed a measure to table that amendment. I was joined by many Republican Senators in supporting the amendment, including none other than the current sponsor of S. Con. Res. 20, Senator Gregg. Senator Gregg suggests in that resolution that eliminating funds for troops would undermine their safety. Was he voting 14 years ago to do that? Obviously, he would not do that. In 1993, was he committing the same egregious offense that he so strongly opposes in 2007? Could he have been so cavalier about the safety of our troops? Not the Senator I know. He would never have been indifferent to their need for guns or ammunition or food or clothing, nor would I, nor would any other Member of this body. Of course not. Senator Gregg knew, as did I, that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. Unfortunately, the new Gregg resolution seems to have forgotten this point. I hope that my colleagues will think better of efforts such as that proposed by Senator Gregg today. All Senators, including the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, are, of course, entitled to their opinions, and all Senators are certainly entitled to oppose my efforts to end funding for a disastrous war. But by putting forth misleading and baseless arguments, by suggesting that ending funding for the war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops, they are making it that much harder to have the open, honest, and essential debate about the Iraq war that this body and the American people so badly need. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate has voted to allow debate on the Iraq war to go forward. It is far past time we had this important debate. It is far past time we brought our involvement in this misguided war to a close. Under the strong leadership of Senator Reid, the Democratic caucus has produced a joint resolution that takes a significant step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. I support the resolution, and I hope my colleagues will do the same. The resolution does not go as far as I would like. I continue to believe the only way we are ultimately going to end the President's failed policies in Iraq is by exercising Congress's power of the purse to safely bring our troops out of Iraq. I have introduced legislation that would do that, and I will continue to look for every opportunity to bring up my bill for a vote. I will support this resolution because it avoids the mistakes of previous proposals to address Iraq. It does not allow the President's misguided policies to continue. It does not tacitly reauthorize the war. It does not focus solely on the so-called surge. This is binding legislation that would bring to an end our involvement in perhaps the greatest foreign policy mistake in our country's history. Some of my colleagues continue to argue that Congress should defer to the Commander in Chief when it comes to Iraq, that we should give him the opportunity to change course in Iraq or that we should allow his escalation plan a chance to succeed. Those arguments ignore our congressional responsibilities.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I would be happy to yield. Congress authorized this war, and it is in our power to bring it to a close. More importantly, we have not just the power but the responsibility to end a war that is draining vital national security resources in pursuit of a goal that cannot be achieved militarily. The political problems that are driving much of the insurgency and sectarian strife in Iraq are tragic and important. They require the attention of U.S. policymakers. They do not require--in fact, they cannot be solved by--a massive and indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq. Some of my colleagues raise the specter of dire consequences if we redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq. That is precisely why we need a strategic approach to redeployment, one that addresses ongoing instability and other threats, with our intelligence, diplomatic, economic and, in a limited manner, military capabilities. Not only is the continuation of this war not going to end sectarian and insurgent violence, it puts off the day when we develop a comprehensive strategy for Iraq that is sustainable, and that fits squarely within the larger struggle of fighting al-Qaida. As long as the President's policies continue, our troops will continue to put their lives on the line, our constituents will continue putting billions of their dollars into this war, our military readiness will continue to erode, our Guard and Reserve members will continue to face heavy burdens, and our ability to respond to an array of national security challenges will continue to suffer a great deal. From Somalia to Afghanistan to the ongoing fight against al-Qaida, we face threats and challenges that require serious attention and resources. Right now, far too much of both are being spent on a single country. It is this singleminded and self-defeating policy that needs to end, and it is up to Congress to do so. Time and again, the President has made it clear that nothing--not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of Members of both parties--will dissuade him from pursuing policies in Iraq that are not working. Faced with a clear mandate from the voters last November, the President just stalled for time, and then he announced not just a continuation but an escalation of his policy. So Congress cannot wait for the President to change course. We need to change the course ourselves. This resolution recognizes, and acts on, that reality. It would effectively terminate the misguided resolution authorizing force in Iraq, while allowing a minimal number of troops to remain to perform very limited functions: protecting personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting certain targeted counterterrorism operations. The latter provision is a particular priority of mine, which is why my original legislation includes exactly the same language. Clearly, the United States has an ongoing role to play in addressing the terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism before the President led us to war in that country, al-Qaida and its allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorism, and we must be prepared to pursue targeted missions to take out terrorists. But maintaining 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is not the way to defeat al-Qaida. Military operations of any size will only succeed if they are combined with other measures--including diplomatic, economic, and intelligence measures--as part of a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terrorists who threaten our country. Al-Qaida is not a one-country franchise; it is a global threat that requires a global response. The Reid resolution would require the President to begin redeploying combat forces not essential to the three limited functions I just mentioned within 120 days, with a goal of finishing redeployment by the end of March 2008. While I support a faster redeployment with a firm deadline, these provisions are, in fact, binding and would make clear that the President's commitment to an open-ended, massive military mission in Iraq is over. That is what the American people want, and that is what this Congress should ensure. Regardless of what happens this week, I believe the introduction of this resolution, with the cosponsorship of some 41 Senators, represents a significant step toward ending the war. The overwhelming majority of Democrats are saying that the war must come to a close and that they are prepared to take binding steps to do just that. The question each of us will face as this debate continues is how to best end our involvement in the war and redeploy our troops. I look forward to the opportunity to offer an amendment to the upcoming supplemental that would actually use Congress's appropriations power to require the safe redeployment of our troops. While I do not agree with much of what has been said by those in this body who continue to defend a disastrous war, they are right about one point: If we are serious about opposing the war, we must be serious about ending funding for the war. I am pleased the Senate has voted to allow debate on the Reid resolution to go forward. Unfortunately, however, some in this body continue to make arguments that undermine the ability of Congress to have a serious discussion about the Iraq war. They fail to recognize that this body has an obligation to address the most pressing issue facing the country today and respond to the overwhelming sentiment of our constituents. They purport to defend the President's prerogatives and the morale and well-being of our troops, but their rhetoric has the effect of trying to stifle open and honest debate. While I cannot speak for the President, I am confident our troops, and our constituents, are ready for this debate. They know that in a democracy such as ours, discussion of major foreign policy issues can and should be conducted openly. So I am glad the Senate is beginning such a discussion today, and I will continue pushing this body to finally bring to a close our involvement in a war that has been a disaster on so many fronts. Madam President, I am now happy to yield for a question to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas, first of all, for his kind words and for listening to my speech and for being present to do so. He has endangered himself politically by saying kind words about me and my resolution in front of some groups who may find that a little strange. But I do enjoy working with him, and I especially enjoyed working with him when he was the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I, of course, want to do exactly what the Senator from Kansas has said. I want to have a debate and a vote on the approach I have suggested. As I just indicated in my remarks, I believe that is the next thing which needs to happen after we have this debate. Just so the record is clear, though, the Democrats have agreed to vote on S.J. Res. 9 and the McCain amendment and the Gregg amendment and the Warner resolution, as well as the Reid resolution. So the Republicans objected to that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to do that, but I think probably the appropriate place to do that is the supplemental.