Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am happy to see the Senator from Montana presiding. I am very pleased to speak about ethics and lobbying reform and the bill we will consider over the next week or so. To start, what a pleasure it is to have a majority here that not only supports reform but recognizes the importance of dealing with this issue immediately in this new Congress. There is no better way to show the American people that things have changed in Washington and will continue to change than by taking up and passing strong ethics and lobbying reforms right away. I thank Majority Leader Reid for making a decision to start our work in this new Congress with this issue. This is the right thing to do. Ethical conduct in Government should not be an aspiration, it should be a given. For too long, the public has had to open the morning papers and read about how Congress is mired in scandal rather than about how we are going to deal with the really tough problems) facing our country. We might wish that rules aren't necessary, but time has proven, over and over again, that they are. And once there are rules, there seem always to be people who want to bend those rules or skate as close to the line as they can. And sometimes they fall or jump over that line. And so the rules need to be revisited and toughened, based on experience. Just over a year ago, it looked like the Jack Abramoff scandal had finally lit a fuse under the Congress. Soaring promises were made that reform was on the way last year. Bills were introduced, hearings were held, and ultimately both the House and Senate considered legislation on the floor. But there was always a sense that what was going on was just a show. It was clear that many of those in charge wanted to change as little as possible. It seemed like the Republican leaders in the House believed that the public really didn't care about these issues. First they attached major campaign finance reform provisions to the bill the Senate passed, and then they let it die. We found out on November 7 just how wrong they were. The new faces in this Senate are the direct result of the public's distaste for how the last Congress handled this issue, and many others. So now it is time for real action. And the public will again be watching closely to see how we perform. We start our work today on S. 1, which is the same bill that the Senate approved last year, by a vote of 90-8. Last year, I was one of the eight. I thought the bill was too weak in some very significant ways. And so today, along with the junior Senators from Illinois and Connecticut, Senators Obama and Lieberman, I have introduced the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act. This is our attempt to say what we think the Senate's final product should look like when we finish our work on S. 1. I do not intend to offer this new bill as a complete substitute. Instead, I will seek to I have important provisions of this bill added as amendments to S. 1. I am happy to say that a number of the suggestions that we make in our bill have been accepted by the majority leader. Some are included in his substitute, which is the base bill for this legislation. Some very important additional improvements are included in the Reid first degree amendment. This is a very good start for this debate, to improve the bill right at the outset. I take a few minutes as we start this debate to talk about some of the most important issues that we must address in this bill. First, we need an airtight lobbyist gift ban. No loopholes, no ambiguity. We took a first step towards banning gifts from lobbyists, including meals, tickets, and everything else, in last year's bill, but we left open a big loophole. If we do nothing else to improve last year's effort, we have to close that loophole. I am not going to stand here and say that any Senator's vote can be purchased for a free meal or a ticket to a football game. But I don't think anyone can argue that lobbyists are providing these perks out of the goodness of their hearts, either. At this point, no reform bill is going to be credible unless it contains a strict lobbyist gift ban. No one has ever explained to me why Members of Congress need to be allowed to accept free meals, tickets, or any other gift from a lobbyist. If you really want to have dinner with a lobbyist, no one is saying that you can't. Just take out your credit card and pay your own way. I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that you will survive just fine under a no-gifts policy. The Wisconsin Legislature has such a policy and I brought it here with me to Washington. I don't go hungry. We need to just stop the practice of eating out at the expense of others. It is not necessary. It looks bad. And it leads to abuses. I am happy to say that Senator Reid agrees that the lobbyist gift ban is not a ban if organizations that retain or employ lobbyists can still give gifts. He is prepared to close the loophole in S. 1 that would allow that to continue. His amendment does that and I support it. Another important shortcoming of S. 1 is in the area of privately funded travel. That was the issue that leapt to the fore when Jack Abramoff pled guilty just a little over a year ago. Abramoff took Members of Congress on ``fact finding trips'' to Scotland where they went shopping and golfed at St. Andrews. It was a scandal and Members of Congress were falling all over each other in a race to do something about it. But just a few months later, the Senate passed a bill that did almost nothing at all about it. My staff keeps a file of invitations for fact-finding trips for staff. Here are a few from over the years. A ``legislative issues seminar'' on St. Michaels Island, sponsored by MCI World Com, with dinner at the Inn at Perry Cabin; a trip to Silicon Valley sponsored by the Information Technology Industry Council, with dinner sponsored by the Wine Institute; a ``congressional field trip'' sponsored by GTE to Tampa and Clearwater Beach. The invitation reads: To take advantage of the terrific location beside Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, we'll demonstrate that you can place a cellular call over water, either while dining aboard a boat or fishing for that night's dinner. These kinds of ``fact finding trips'' paid for by industry groups were left untouched by the bill the Senate passed. That was one of the reasons I voted against the bill. Fortunately, the new House leadership recognized the need to do something about privately funded travel, even if they weren't prepared to prohibit it entirely. The House passed a rules change on the first day of the session to allow only trips sponsored by groups that don't employ or retain lobbyists. The only trips that groups that lobby can offer are to a one day event--to make a speech, for example. This is a major improvement, especially because lobbyist participation in organizing, arranging, or planning these trips would be strictly limited. There are many things that could be done about privately funded travel, but at the very least we should not have more lenient travel rules than the House of Representatives. Again, I am pleased that Senator Reid supports the House travel rules and I hope we will adopt his amendment that brings us in line with those rules. When I introduced my lobbying reform bill back in July 2005, it included a provision addressing the abuse of Members flying on corporate jets. At that time, I have to say, it seemed like a fantasy that we would actually pass such a provision. I heard complaint after complaint about it, that we shouldn't do it. Slowly but surely, many people have come around to where the public is: Corporate jet travel is a real abuse. Sure, it is convenient, but it is based on a fiction--that the fair market value of such a trip is just the cost of a first class ticket. And when that fiction is applied to political travel, it creates a loophole in the ban on corporate contributions that we have had in this country for over a century. Any legislation on corporate jets must include campaign trips as well as official travel because one thing is for certain--the lobbyist for the company that provides the jet is likely to be on the flight, whether it is taking you to see a factory back home or a fundraiser for your campaign. Our bill does that. It covers all of the possible uses of corporate jets, and amends all of the Senate rules needed to put in place a strong reform, and the Federal election laws as well. From now on, if you want to fly on a corporate jet, you will have to pay the charter rate. And these flights shouldn't be an opportunity for the lobbyist or CEO of the company that owns the jet to have several hours alone with a Senator. Our bill prohibits that as well. This is what the American people have been calling for. There are no loopholes or ambiguities here. Politicians flying on private planes for cheap will be a thing of the past if we can get this provision into the bill. Senator Reid's amendment includes a tough corporate jet provision. I am pleased to support that portion of the amendment. This is a big deal, and I commend the majority leader for taking this step. Another issue on which I hope we will make some improvements in this bill is the revolving door between between Government service and lobbying firms. One of the things that really sticks in the craw of the people back home is the idea that politicians use their government service as a stepping stone to lucrative lobbying careers. And they also believe, rightly in some cases, that former Members who are lobbyists have special access and influence over their former colleagues. We have a criminal statute that prohibits former Senators from lobbying the Congress for a year after they leave office. The same tough provisions apply to top officials in the executive branch. But experience has shown that these provisions don't really get at the problem. The cooling off period is too short. Our bill doubles it. And the cooling off period has become more of a warming up period for some Members of Congress who move on to work for an organization with interests in legislation. They basically run the lobbying show behind the scenes during the time they can't lobby their colleagues directly. Is it too much to ask a Member of Congress who leaves office to take a 2-year breather before accepting money from an employer for trying to influence Congress? I don't think so. We are talking here about highly talented and highly employable people. There are so many employers, so many worthy causes, that would benefit from their talents and experience, doing things other than trying to influence legislation. Fortunately, the Lobbying Disclosure Act has a ready made definition of ``lobbying activities'' that is broader than lobbying contacts. Our bill's revolving door provision prohibits Members of Congress from engaging in lobbying activities for 2 years after leaving office, not just lobbying contacts. That would make the revolving door restrictions really mean something. I believe that is what the public wants--restrictions that mean something, not rules for show, with hidden loopholes and not a system of rules with lax enforcement. That is why our bill includes the Lieberman-Collins proposal for an Office of Public Integrity to investigate ethics complaints and make recommendations to the Ethics Committee on whether to take action. It is certainly time that this proposal receive very serious consideration. We are on the cusp of making some very significant changes to our own rules. Let's not undermine what we are accomplishing by leaving unaddressed the very real need for tough and independent enforcement. I also believe this bill must go further in addressing earmarks. Senator McCain's bill, which I have cosponsored, includes a provision that would allow the Senate to strip out earmarks for unauthorized spending. This is an important reform and I hope it can be added to the bill. Thus far, I have talked only about ethics rules, but the bill on the floor contains some very significant improvements to our lobbying disclosure laws as well. The current law, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which was enacted in 1995, was itself a landmark reform, the first change in nearly 50 years to the original Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. I was here when the LDA passed, under the leadership of the Senator of Michigan, Mr. Levin. It is an important and effective law. A decade of experience has shown, however, that it has shortcomings. The bill on the floor includes some important improvements. My bill incorporates those improvements and also adds some--requiring disclosure by lobbyists of the earmarks they try to get for their clients, and requiring lobbyists and lobbying organizations to file separate reports on their political contributions and fundraising. The use of campaign contributions as a lobbying tool is well known in this city and in this Senate. It is time that our lobbying disclosure laws reflected that. And we should cover all of the tools in the lobbyist's work bench, not just direct contributions but the collection or bundling of the contributions of others. Lobbyists wield influence by serving as fundraisers, not just be giving money themselves. I have high hopes for this debate. After a false start last year, we can get this job done. The House has moved quickly to pass new ethics rules. It is our turn now. And we can lead the way with serious lobbying disclosure reforms. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides to start this Congress with a real accomplishment. If we do this, the public's confidence in how we tackle the many pressing issues before us will be greatly enhanced. That, in the end, is the best reason to undertake these reforms. They are the foundation on which the rest of our work together stands. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with the, Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, a bill to bring Senate campaigns into the 21st century by requiring that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. This step is long overdue, and I hope that the fact that we now have two dozen or so bipartisan cosponsors indicates that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation. A series of reports by the Campaign Finance Institute has highlighted the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get access to Senate campaign finance reports while most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Campaign Finance Institute asks a rhetorical question: ``What makes the Senate so special that it exempts itself from a key requirement of campaign finance disclosure that applies to everyone else, including candidates for the House of Representatives and Political Action Committees?'' The answer, of course, is nothing. The United States Senate is special in many ways. I am proud to serve here. But there is no excuse for keeping our campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House candidates or others is readily available. A recent Washington Post editorial called this delay ``completely unjustified.'' I couldn't agree more, especially now, when the Senate is debating ethics reforms designed to increase transparency and accountability to the public. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this editorial be printed in the Record following the text of the bill. My bill amends 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. The FEC is required to make available on the Internet within 24 hours any filing it receives electronically. So if this bill is enacted, electronic versions of Senate reports should be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast improvement over the current situation, which, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, requires journalists and interested members of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of reports, and involves a completely wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost every campaign has available in electronic format. The current filing system also means that the detailed coding that the FEC does, which allows for more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering the first two weeks of October are often not susceptible to detailed scrutiny before the election. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, in the 2006 election, ``[v]oters in six of the hottest Senate races were out of luck the week before the November 7 election if they did Web searches for information on general election contributions since June 30. In all ten of the most closely followed Senate races voters were unable to search through any candidate reports for information on `pre-general election (October 1-18)' donations.'' And a September 18, 2006, column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum in the Washington Post noted that ``When the polls opened in November 2004, voters were in the dark about $53 million in individual Senate contributions of $200 or more dating all the way back to July . . .'' It is time for the Senate to at long last relinquish its backward attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I am encouraged by the supportive statements from a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the new Minority Leader and Minority Whip, and the new Chair of the Rules Committee. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs, House and Presidential candidates, and even 527 organizations. I close with another question from the Campaign Finance Institute: ``Isn't it time that the Senate join the 21st century and allow itself to vote on a simple legislative fix that could significantly improve our democracy?'' This Congress, let us answer that question in the affirmative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with the, Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, a bill to bring Senate campaigns into the 21st century by requiring that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. This step is long overdue, and I hope that the fact that we now have two dozen or so bipartisan cosponsors indicates that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation. A series of reports by the Campaign Finance Institute has highlighted the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get access to Senate campaign finance reports while most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Campaign Finance Institute asks a rhetorical question: ``What makes the Senate so special that it exempts itself from a key requirement of campaign finance disclosure that applies to everyone else, including candidates for the House of Representatives and Political Action Committees?'' The answer, of course, is nothing. The United States Senate is special in many ways. I am proud to serve here. But there is no excuse for keeping our campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House candidates or others is readily available. A recent Washington Post editorial called this delay ``completely unjustified.'' I couldn't agree more, especially now, when the Senate is debating ethics reforms designed to increase transparency and accountability to the public. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this editorial be printed in the Record following the text of the bill. My bill amends 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. The FEC is required to make available on the Internet within 24 hours any filing it receives electronically. So if this bill is enacted, electronic versions of Senate reports should be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast improvement over the current situation, which, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, requires journalists and interested members of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of reports, and involves a completely wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost every campaign has available in electronic format. The current filing system also means that the detailed coding that the FEC does, which allows for more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering the first two weeks of October are often not susceptible to detailed scrutiny before the election. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, in the 2006 election, ``[v]oters in six of the hottest Senate races were out of luck the week before the November 7 election if they did Web searches for information on general election contributions since June 30. In all ten of the most closely followed Senate races voters were unable to search through any candidate reports for information on `pre-general election (October 1-18)' donations.'' And a September 18, 2006, column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum in the Washington Post noted that ``When the polls opened in November 2004, voters were in the dark about $53 million in individual Senate contributions of $200 or more dating all the way back to July . . .'' It is time for the Senate to at long last relinquish its backward attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I am encouraged by the supportive statements from a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the new Minority Leader and Minority Whip, and the new Chair of the Rules Committee. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs, House and Presidential candidates, and even 527 organizations. I close with another question from the Campaign Finance Institute: ``Isn't it time that the Senate join the 21st century and allow itself to vote on a simple legislative fix that could significantly improve our democracy?'' This Congress, let us answer that question in the affirmative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose this measure. In addition to containing some questionable policy provisions, such as the provisions relating to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and granting Vietnam permanent most-favored-nation trading status, the bill before us contains expensive entitlement spending and tax cuts that have not been fully offset. As a result, the legislation will increase the deficit by $40 billion over the next 5 years. I can count votes as well as the next person, and it is obvious that this measure will pass and pass by a large margin and with bipartisan support. That is disappointing, because while Members of my own party have rightly called for a return to the budget rules requiring that tax cuts and increased entitlement spending be offset, some are nevertheless pushing for the enactment of this measure without any serious effort to require such offsets. One might wonder why that is. At least two reasons come to mind. First, there are reasons to believe that some in my party are anxious to get this bill through this year because they know full well that the new incoming Democratic majority in the House and Senate would bristle at some of the trade provisions in this proposal. Those who have supported the trade policies of the past several years understand that this may be their last chance to pass questionable trade measures. If that is the reason, I have little to say other than thank goodness the 110th Congress is just around the corner. I am not sure the country could withstand another week of the kind of trade policy that we have seen promoted by both members of both parties since the early 1990s. It was during the session following the 1994 elections that a lameduck Congress passed legislation implementing the GATT trade agreement that established the World Trade Organization. The trade model that the GATT and NAFTA established has been devastating to thousands of communities across our country. We can only hope that the action taken by this lameduck Congress will mark the end of a disastrous period of deeply flawed trade policies. And there is some hope because the November elections did result in dozens of new Members in both Houses who reject that ruinous trade model. Beyond the trade issues, I have heard indirectly that some may want these bills to go through during the 109th Congress so that their cost would be assigned to the current budget rather than to a budget that the new Democratic majority will craft next year. I certainly hope that this scuttlebutt is unfounded because it reflects a cynical view of governing that we should reject. It certainly won't help those future generations of taxpayers who will be stuck with the additional debt that will result from this bill. The bill also includes a fiscally irresponsible provision that will result in Outer Continental Shelf drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Just a few months ago, the Senate approved this same misguided policy, which will redirect billions of dollars in Federal revenues to just four States. While I support efforts to provide needed assistance to those affected by Hurricane Katrina, we should not do so by creating a massive and long-term new entitlement for a handful of States. This measure has also been used to jam through a provision to expand the income eligibility of the District of Columbia school voucher program. I oppose school vouchers because such programs funnel taxpayer money away from the public schools and instead direct Federal dollars to private schools that do not have to adhere to the same Federal, State, and local accountability provisions, civil rights laws, and regulations that apply to public schools. However, as is the case of nearly any bill of this size, there are some good provisions in it. This bill provides relief for physicians who would have seen a reduction in payment of 5.1 percent in the absence of legislative action, and it goes a step further to provide payments for physicians who report quality-of-care data. This is a first step toward implementing some kind of pay-for-performance in Medicare, and I think this is something that should be pursued. Quality improvement is certainly something that the State of Wisconsin has been a leader in, and I am happy to see that there are Federal incentives for quality improvement. I am especially pleased to see that this bill includes a measure that is very important to Wisconsin and other rural States--an extension of a provision enacted in the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, that will keep physicians in rural States paid at a comparable level to those in other States. Under current Medicare law, Wisconsin physicians are paid less than physicians in other areas of the country, even though the work they do is identical. This provision helps address this inequity so that physicians who practice in States with large rural areas will not be at a disadvantage. I am pleased to see that Congress has taken the right steps to ensure that Medicare dollars are more fairly distributed throughout the State of Wisconsin and our Nation. These fixes for physician payment will be paid for with the Medicare slush fund that provided ``bonus'' payments to insurance companies. These payments were unnecessary and simply provided a cash flow of taxpayer dollars to an industry already awash in money. I have long advocated for elimination of this fund, and I am glad to see it used in a way that actually benefits the American people rather than big business. There are other good measures in the health portion of this bill. These include technical corrections to the so-called Deficit Reduction Act, an extension of a provision to help Medicare beneficiaries have better access to physical therapy, and a provision to help protect State Medicaid budgets. These are all important to the health care of people in our country, and are policies that I support. It is unfortunate that this bill does not include a measure agreed to in the proposed Senate bill that would have preserved children's health care in our country. This measure was budget neutral, a good policy, and the right thing to do, but the other body would not agree to this provision that would have prevented budget shortfalls in State Children's Health Insurance Programs, SCHIP, in 14 States in fiscal year 2007. Wisconsin is one of the States that will see a shortfall next year, and I will work aggressively to see that this shortfall is addressed before it harms children in Wisconsin. It is shameful that Congress will add $40 billion to our deficit for tax breaks, but we cannot agree to a budget-neutral measure to provide health care to children who would otherwise not have it. Despite some worthy provisions, this bill, on balance, is fiscally irresponsible, and I cannot support it. Perhaps the most telling gauge of this bill's cost is that it even violates the lax budget rules set forth in the last budget resolution adopted by this Congress, the 2005 budget resolution. That is right,this bill violates the loose fiscal rules adopted by Congress 2 years ago. In some ways, this bill is a fitting end to the 109th Congress. It is a fair summary of the fiscal recklessness in which the White House and this Congress have engaged. I very much hope that when they take their seats in the 110th Congress, the new majority will govern in a more fiscally responsible manner, adopt tough, commonsense budget rules, and put an end to this kind of budget-busting, debt-swelling legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I think we all can agree that North Korea remains one of the greatest challenges to our country's foreign and national security policy, and it is clear that approaches to date haven't been successful. This year saw Kim Jong Il launch seven ballistic missiles into the sea of Japan and successfully detonate a nuclear device, defying the clear will of the international community and forcing us to confront the reality of a nuclearized North Korea. The Bush administration's policy on North Korea has been a complete failure. The 1994 Agreed Framework which this administration inherited was not perfect, and the North Koreans cheated by pursuing uranium enrichment. But the collapse of the framework, which had kept North Korea's fuel rods under IAEA supervision, has been a disaster. As the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet testified publicly in 2004, ``the IC judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons. The 8000 rods the North [now] claims to have processed into plutonium metal would provide enough plutonium for several more.'' But that is the past; our problem now is to find a way forward. For far too many months we have been waiting on the sidelines, hoping, passively, that conditions will turn our way. We have been distracted by Iraq--it took a series of missile launches and the actual detonation of a nuclear device for us to get fully engaged again. And still we wait for the Six Party Talks to reconvene. I welcome the news that North Korea has agreed to come back to the Six Party Talks. That is a good starting point, but it cannot be the end point; the Six Party process has dragged on for years now, and the only objective result has been that Kim Jong Il now has nuclear weapons. There must be results that come from these talks, and we must have in place benchmarks for what success means. I hope that we can convince Kim Jong Il to give up his nuclear weapons, but history does not provide a great deal of reassurance on that score. At a minimum, we should seek steps in that direction, such as partial dismantlement or a freeze on further production of fissile material, as a starting point. Ultimately, North Korea needs to be brought back into the international fold. Unfortunately, we can't do that if we signal that our true desire is ``regime change'' and we continue to refuse to consider other options, such as direct negotiations. When dealing with such an important matter to our national security, we should not keep any option off the table. It is high time for a change of course in President Bush's North Korea policy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this past Wednesday, Washington felt a little like Hollywood. In fact, not many blockbuster movies have gotten the kind of massive press and critical acclaim that we saw yesterday for the release of the Iraq Study Group report. Official Washington rushed to embrace the report--understandably, since it reflected the same flawed mindset that led so many here to embrace the war in Iraq 4 years ago. Unfortunately, that same mindset is now what is keeping too many here from fixing an Iraq policy that many now agree is badly flawed. The administration still believes that Iraq is the be-all and end-all of our national security. So, too, does most of Washington. Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group report does too little to change that flawed mind-set. I respect the serious efforts of the group to correct the administration's misguided policies, and the report has some valuable ideas. But the very name, the ``Iraq Study Group'' says it all. We need recommendations on how to address Iraq, but those recommendations must be guided by our top national security priority-- defeating terrorist networks operating in dozens of countries around the world. We can't just look at Iraq in isolation--we need to also be looking at Somalia and Afghanistan and the many other places around the world where we face grave and growing threats. The report doesn't adequately put Iraq in the context of a broader national security strategy. We need an Iraq policy that is guided by our top national security priority--defeating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies. Unless we set a serious timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq, we will be unable to effectively address these global threats. In the end, this report is a regrettable example of ``official Washington'' missing the point. The report may have gotten a glowing reception at its DC premiere, but I don't think it will get the same response once it goes on the road. Maybe there are still people in Washington who need a study group to tell them that the policy in Iraq isn't working, but the American people are way ahead of this report. It has been just over a month since the American people told us clearly what they were thinking about Iraq. They recognize that we need a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq. They know that a flexible timetable is needed to preserve our military readiness, to prevent more unnecessary and tragic American casualties in Iraq and to protect our national security. They are the ones we should be listening to--not the insiders, politicians and think-tankers who believe they have cornered the market on wisdom. Unfortunately, the focus of this commission, and the amount of attention being given to this single report, show just how myopic this administration and Members of Congress are. The long-running debate here in Washington about whether and when to redeploy our troops from Iraq always centers on the situation on the ground there, and whether a drawdown of troops will make it better or worse. Those are important considerations. But even more important are the issues that are largely ignored--the fact that our commitment of troops and resources in Iraq is dangerously weakening our national security and the opportunity cost of ignoring the growing threats elsewhere in the world. As the administration and Congress mull over the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, it comes as no surprise that the group's work includes what the New York Times had called a ``classic Washington compromise.'' But we need much more than a compromise to fix our national security policy. We need a dramatic and immediate change of course in Iraq--a timeline to redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can refocus on the terrorist networks that threaten the safety of the American people. The war in Iraq was, and remains, a war of choice. The administration has tried to create a false choice, between staying in Iraq with no end date in sight and ``cutting and running.'' They want us to believe that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, just as they wanted us to believe their trumped-up reasons for going to war in the first place. They want us to believe that any option besides staying the course is going to be detrimental to our national security. That argument is mistaken. The real choice is this: continuing to devote so much of our resources to Iraq, or devoting some of those resources to waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its allies. We cannot do both. The administration's choice--to maintain a massive and seemingly indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq--is harmful both to our efforts in Iraq, as well as to our global efforts to defeat the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. Our indefinite presence in Iraq is destabilizing and potentially damaging Iraqi efforts to rebuild their government and their country. That is not the fault of our brave troops--it's the fault of the policymakers here in Washington, who don't recognize that our presence is generating instability in Iraq, and that, unless we make it clear that we intend to leave, and to leave soon, our presence is more harmful than it is helpful. The Administration's approach in Iraq is a diversion from the global fight against terrorism. Iraq isn't, and never was, the central front in the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, because of our disproportionate focus on Iraq, we are not using enough of our military and intelligence capabilities for defeating al-Qaida and other terrorist networks around the world. While we have been distracted in Iraq, terrorist networks have developed new capabilities and found new sources of support throughout the world. We have seen terrorist attacks in India, Morocco, Turkey, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Spain, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The administration has also failed to adequately address the terrorist safe haven that has existed for years in Somalia and the recent instability that has threatened to destabilize the region. And resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida forces are contributing to growing levels of instability in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the U.S. presence in Iraq is being used as a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations from around the world. In Indonesia, home to historically moderate Islamic communities, conservative religious groups are becoming increasingly hostile towards the U.S. In countries like Thailand, Nigeria, Mali, the Philippines, and elsewhere, militant groups are using U.S. policies in Iraq to fuel hatred towards the West. This administration's choices have been devastating to our national security. Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group's report doesn't do enough to put Iraq into a global context. It doesn't recognize the extent to which our disproportionate efforts in Iraq are damaging our national security. And, even where the report suggests the toll that Iraq is taking on our ability to address global threats, it ends up falling back into the same Iraq-centric mindset that we need to change. For example, the report says that ``the United States should provide additional political, economic, and military support for Afghanistan, including resources that might become available as combat forces are moved out of Iraq.'' But then it goes on to recommend that ``The most highly qualified U.S. officers and military personnel should be assigned to'' teams imbedded in Iraqi battalions and brigades. Those are the very people we need in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere we face significant threats to our national security. It was the administration's decision to move resources from Afghanistan to Iraq that contributed to the resurgence of the Taliban there--we can't afford to perpetuate that mistake. Elsewhere, the report recommends that the DNI and Secretary of Defense ``should devote significantly greater analytic resources to the task of understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq.'' The problem is that the report doesn't consider the relative importance of directing more intelligence resources to understanding Iraq as opposed to al-Qaida and its affiliates around the world, Afghanistan, Somalia and other critically important regions and concerns. So it came up with a recommendation that doesn't serve our overall national security interests. Implementing this recommendation at the expense of fighting terrorism and dealing with other terrorist safe havens around the world will make us less safe. We need to return to the post-9/11 mindset. In the days after 9/11, we all shared an anger at and a resolve to fight back against those who attacked us. This body was united and was supportive of the Administration's decision to attack al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. No one disputed that decision. That is because our top priority immediately following 9/11 was defeating the terrorists that attacked us. The American people expected us to devote most of our national security resources to that effort, and rightly so. But unfortunately, 5 years later, our efforts to defeat al-Qaida and its supporters have gone badly astray. The administration took its eye off the ball. Instead of focusing on the pursuit of al- Qaida in Afghanistan, it launched a diversion into Iraq--a country that had no connection to the 9/11 plot or al-Qaida. In fact, the President's decision to invade Iraq has emboldened the terrorists and has played into their hands, by allowing them to falsely suggest that our fight against terrorism is anti-Muslim and anti-Arab, when nothing could be further from the truth. But instead of recognizing that our current policy in Iraq is damaging our national security, the President continues to argue that the best way to fight terrorists is to stay in Iraq. He even quotes terrorists to bolster his argument that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Just a few months ago, he told the country that Osama bin Laden has proclaimed that the ``third world war is raging'' in Iraq and that this is ``a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam.'' Instead of letting the terrorists decide where we will fight them, the President should remember what he said on September 14, just 2 days after 9/11. He said: [t]his conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing. The President was right when he said that, and he is now wrong to suggest that we must stay in Iraq because that is where the terrorists say they want to fight us. al-Qaida and its allies are operating around the globe. We must engage in a global campaign to defeat them, not focus all of our resources on one country. The way to win a war against global terrorist networks is not to keep over 140,000 American troops in Iraq indefinitely. We will weaken, not strengthen, our national security by continuing to pour a disproportionate level of our military and intelligence and fiscal resources into Iraq. Unfortunately, the administration has yet to understand that the threats to our country are global, unlike any we have encountered in the past. Our enemy is not a state with clearly defined borders. We must respond instead to a loose network of terrorist organizations that do not function according to a strict hierarchy. Our enemy isn't one organization. It is a series of highly mobile, diffuse entities that operate largely beyond the reach of our conventional war-fighting techniques. The only way to defeat them is to adapt our strategy and our capabilities, and to engage the enemy on our terms and by using our advantages. We have proven that we can't do that with our current approach in Iraq. By redeploying our troops from Iraq, we can pursue a new national security strategy. We can finish the job in Afghanistan with increased resources, troops, and equipment. We can develop a new form of diplomacy, scrapping the ``transformational diplomacy'' this administration has used to offend, push away, and ultimately alienate so many of our friends and allies, and replacing it with an aggressive, multilateral approach that would leverage the strength of our friends to defeat our common enemies. And we can repair and infuse new capabilities and strength into our armed forces. By freeing up our Special Forces assets and redeploying our military power from Iraq, we will be better positioned to handle global threats and future contingencies. Our current state of readiness is unacceptable and must be repaired. Our National Guard, too, must be capable of responding to natural disasters and future contingencies. This new national security strategy will make our country safer. It will enable our government to fully address the wide range of threats our country faces. It will free up strategic capacity to deal with Iran, North Korea, and the Middle East, and to provide real leadership internationally against other enemies that we all face, like poverty, HIV/AIDS, and corruption. In sum, it will help return the United States to a place of preeminence in the world and will give us the opportunity to address the very real threats we face in the 21st century. While the Iraq Study Group has generated some good ideas and choices, it doesn't put Iraq in the context of a broader national security strategy. We face an unprecedented threat to our national security, and we must respond with much more than a classic Washington compromise. We need to refocus on fighting and defeating the terrorist network that attacked this country on September 11, 2001, and that means realizing that the war in Iraq is not the way to defeat al-Qaida and its global affiliates. It never was and it never will be. That global fight can't be won if we let Iraq continue to dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time. The President's Iraq-centric policies are preventing us from effectively engaging serious threats around the world. We must change course in Iraq, and we must change course now. This isn't a choice, it's a necessity.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Food and Drug Administration will finally have a confirmed Commissioner. And I am glad that the President's nominee, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, has acted to address concerns that have been raised about his nomination. He addressed conflict-of-interest concerns by resigning his position as head of the National Cancer Institute. The FDA also approved access to emergency contraception without a prescription. This decision should have been made when the FDA's expert panel recommended it, and I was disappointed at the shameless politicizing of science over emergency contraception. With those issues now resolved, I will vote for his nomination.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to Senator Bill Frist, who has served Tennessee in the U.S. Senate for the last 12 years, the last few in the esteemed and challenging position of Senate majority leader. Senator Frist was my partner on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs for several years in which we both served as chairman or ranking member. I have appreciated his knowledge and passion for issues affecting Africa and the deep commitment he brings to the global fight against HIV/AIDS. I also have great respect for his commitment to bringing his medical expertise to remote areas in Africa. There is no doubt that he has personally made a significant contribution to helping improve the lives of people around the world living with HIV/AIDS. I have also had the honor of sharing with Senator Frist the important work of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, Task Force on HIV/AIDS. Together, with many distinguished experts, we have been able to contribute to the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. We set course on a bold agenda to help nearly 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the world today. Senator Frist understands the impact of this disease that continues to ravage individuals, families, communities, and entire economies. While we have much work left ahead, Senator Frist has been pivotal in the efforts we have made thus far in the fight against this devastating disease. Here in the Senate, we will miss Senator Frist's dedication to Africa and his hard work to find a cure for HIV/AIDS. I thank him for his service and wish him all the best in his future endeavors. Jim Jeffords Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to Senator Jim Jeffords, a man who has honorably served Vermont and this country in the U.S. Senate since 1989. The people of Vermont have been fortunate to be represented by a man who is as principled and dedicated to serving our Nation's best interests as Jim Jeffords. Senator Jeffords will long be remembered for his courage and conviction and for his bold decision to leave the Republican Party and become an Independent. Never straying from his principles and his commitment to representing the interests of his constituents, Senator Jeffords made this decision despite the consequences for him personally. He knew his decision would enable him to better serve the people of Vermont and this Nation. His conviction was also clear when he voted against authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. He has also been an unyielding voice for upholding civil liberties and seeking to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, and I greatly respect him for his outspoken leadership on these critically important issues. I am proud to have worked with him on other widely ranging issues over the years. I want to particularly thank him for helping to pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and eliminate soft money. Senator Jeffords also played a crucial role in the effort to pass much-needed Army Corps of Engineers reforms. Debate over these reforms was contentious at times, and his work behind the scenes and on the floor was needed to win support for changing the way the Corps does business. In the next Congress we will work to build on Senator Jeffords' hard work and commitment to these important issues. As chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he has been committed to reforming our Nation's energy and environmental policies. He is a champion for our environment, and his leadership and expertise will be greatly missed. It is the responsibility of the next Congress to honor Senator Jeffords' legacy in this area by redoubling our efforts to protect the environment. I was proud to work with Senator Jeffords on other critical issues as well. As a knowledgeable leader on education issues, having served as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, he pushed for reforms to the No Child Left Behind law. I was proud to work with him on efforts to support our military families and to cast votes alongside him to force Congress to be more fiscally responsible. Here in the Senate, we will miss Jim Jeffords' thoughtful leadership, his independence, and his friendship. He was a valued ally on so many issues, and I wish him all the best in his retirement. Lincoln Chafee Mr. President, today I wish to thank Lincoln Chafee for his 7 years of service in the Senate and to recognize the many contributions he has made during his time in this body. Senator Chafee is a soft-spoken man, but he has not been afraid to take courageous stands, even when that meant standing alone in his own party. From the moment he arrived in the Senate, it was clear that Senator Chafee would not only honor his father's outstanding legacy but that he would become a respected leader in his own right. Working with him on so many issues over the last several years, I have come to know Senator Chafee well and to appreciate just how dedicated he is to serving the people of Rhode Island and the people of this great Nation. I don't know anyone in this body more committed to fiscal responsibility than Lincoln Chafee. He is absolutely as tough as they come on that issue, and he was tireless about holding Congress's feet to the fire. On pay-as-you-go legislation, on the congressional pay raise, and on so many issues, Senator Chafee demanded that Congress take fiscal responsibility seriously when it counted and not simply pay lip service to the issue when it is convenient. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this issue, and I am grateful for his efforts. Senator Chafee has been a strong supporter of campaign finance reform and of environmental protection and conservation, and I appreciate his work on those critical issues. Before I close, I also want to recognize Senator Chafee's vote against the war in Iraq, which is one of the most courageous votes I have seen cast during my time here in the Senate. That was a hard vote for many Members of this body, but to be the only Member of his party to oppose the war must have been especially difficult. But, as always, Senator Chafee did what he thought was right, and we have seen just how right he was to vote against this war, which has been so harmful to our national security. With every vote he has cast and every position he has taken, Senator Chafee has conducted himself with the utmost integrity and earned his colleagues' utmost respect. While he and I certainly haven't agreed on every issue, I always appreciate his thoughtful approach to our work here and his strong commitment to the highest ideals in public service. I know that the work he has done here has made a lasting mark on our Nation for many years to come. I will miss serving with him in the Senate, and I wish him all the best. Mike De Wine Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to Senator Mike DeWine, who has served Ohio, and the Senate, with honor and integrity during his 12-year tenure in this body. I am pleased to have worked with him on a wide range of issues over the years, including reforming children's health care and Medicaid. We also worked together quite frequently on other issues of importance to this Nation, and he has been a valuable colleague on both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. Although we did not see eye-to-eye on every issue, we found common ground on several initiatives including passing stricter antitrust legislation. Together with Senator Dick Durbin, we introduced the Clean Diamonds Act, a bill to ensure that the United States is not participating in the conflict diamond trade. This bill would prohibit the importation of diamonds from countries that fail to implement a clearly articulated system of controls on rough diamonds. Senator DeWine believed in the international community's responsibility to stop the trade in conflict diamonds, and I have been proud to work with him in that effort. I also want to take a moment to recognize Senator DeWine's dedication to honoring fallen service members from Ohio. By coming to the floor to pay tribute to those who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has reminded all of us of the tremendous debt we owe these brave men and women in uniform. I thank him for his leadership and his service to Ohio and our country, and I wish him all the best as he moves on to begin a new chapter in his distinguished career.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, our next Secretary of Defense will face unprecedented and wide-ranging challenges. Terrorist networks are developing new capabilities and sources of support around the world, the Taliban and al- Qaida are resurgent in Afghanistan, our military is over-stretched--all while the administration continues to devote so much of its resources to a self-defeating, Iraq-centric strategy. I am not convinced that the President's nominee for this position, Robert Gates, has the will or ability to fix our failed Iraq strategy. Once confirmed, Mr. Gates will answer to the President, and the President still fails to recognize the need for a new course--one that includes a flexible timetable to redeploy troops from Iraq and re-focus on the fight against terrorism. Until the President recognizes that his Iraq policy is undermining our national security, simply changing one advisor for another may not make that big a difference. Nonetheless, I will vote to confirm Mr. Gates. I believe that a president should be given great deference in selecting his cabinet. And Mr. Gates showed a refreshing candor and humility in his testimony this week--qualities that have been sorely lacking in this administration. He acknowledged that the United States is not ``winning'' in Iraq and that the status quo is not acceptable, and said that ``all options are on the table.'' There remain serious questions stemming from his role in Iran/Contra and charges that he politicized intelligence. I do not take these lightly. However, Mr. Gates is intelligent, experienced and well qualified for the position. And I am pleased that he indicated a willingness to work with the Director of National Intelligence ``to ensure that he has the authority that he needs to fulfill his responsibilities.'' I am also encouraged by his statement that he expects intelligence professionals to ``call the shots as they see them and not try and shape their answers to meet a policy need.'' I hope that Mr. Gates will follow through on these and other commitments. And I will continue working to change our Iraq policy so that we can devote greater resources to our top national security priority--going after the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and their allies.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this week marks the opening of a film that has already gotten a lot of attention, Warner Brothers' ``Blood Diamond.'' Many will flock to theaters to see this Hollywood blockbuster, but I hope these audiences will remember more than the celebrities and action sequences. So-called blood diamonds finance criminal activity that threatens the lives and environments of civilians, the stability of communities and countries, and national, regional, and international security. Innocent citizens, many of them children, are forced to mine the gems in hazardous conditions while rebel groups reap large profits, which are used to pay for weapons that breed brutal violence. In the past decade, the sale of blood diamonds fuelled civil wars resulting in over 4 million deaths and the displacement of millions of people in Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and now in Ivory Coast. In 2003, Congress passed the Clean Diamond Trade Act, which sought to ensure that the United States does not participate in the conflict diamond trade by prohibiting the importation of diamonds from countries that fail to implement a clearly articulated system of controls on rough diamonds. It was designed to implement the multinational Kimberley Process scheme launched earlier that year by 70 governments and the global diamond industry, which requires governments to certify that diamond shipments through their countries are conflict-free. The scheme's objectives are to: (1) stem the flow of rough diamonds used by rebels to finance armed conflict; and (2) protect the legitimate diamond industry, upon which several African countries depend for their economic and social development. A 3-year review of Kimberley Process implementation held earlier this month in Botswana revealed that while important progress has been made, serious loopholes remain and must be closed to stop diamonds from funding conflict in Africa and elsewhere. This meeting comes on the heels of a U.N. report which found that $23 million in conflict diamonds from Ivory Coast are being sold around the world, and that diamonds continue to cause instability and brutal human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo. As the largest consumer of diamonds in the world and a strong advocate for transparency and human rights, the U.S. should be setting an example by ensuring that its domestic certification system is effective and by working to strengthen the Kimberley Process. Just 2 months ago, however, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released an in-depth study that revealed blood diamonds may be entering the United States due to poor enforcement of the Clean Diamond Trade Act and a failure by the U.S. diamond industry to abide by its promise to police itself in support of the Kimberley Process. The 2003 Clean Diamond Act commissioned this GAO study to identify areas for improvement in domestic and international implementation of the Kimberley Process scheme, so it is now Congress's responsibility to ensure that the responsible government agencies and departments act upon the report's recommendations. The GAO reports that the U.S. does not inspect rough diamond imports or exports and so must rely on importers to confirm the legality of their wares. Official statistics show an excess of diamond exports over imports of 300,000 carats last year that cannot be accounted for, suggesting that some diamonds are entering the U.S. through informal channels. Clearly, existing U.S. controls are not strong enough and are insufficiently enforced. Similarly, the GAO study finds that implementation of the Kimberley Process scheme in Africa is severely constrained by the limited capacity and resources of these countries and the need to harmonize diamond trade and certification policies among these and other countries in the region. Both to discourage the mining and sale of blood diamonds and to promote legitimate diamond trade, the United States must initiate regular, independent, and systematic monitoring of diamond imports and exports. The American diamond industry must also adopt and enforce a credible system to make sure that companies are verifiably adhering to the scheme and responsibly sourcing diamonds. In addition to conducting oversight of these domestic activities, Congress needs to advocate and appropriate U.S. assistance for regional efforts to strengthen implementation of the Kimberley Process in Africa. The release of the film ``Blood Diamond'' coincides with the holiday shopping season, and it should remind us all that much work remains to put an end to the illicit diamond trade that continues to fuel violence, finance criminals, and exploit innocent people and their environments. I remain committed to improving the Kimberley Process scheme at home and abroad and promoting active leadership by the U.S. government and the American diamond industry towards ensuring that diamond mining contributes to sustainable development in Africa, rather than fueling conflict by financing criminal activity.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Conrad to provide agricultural disaster assistance. I would have preferred that we had found a way to pay for this in the normal budget. But the Conrad amendment is an appropriate response to the severe drought and other weather-related disasters this year. Even in areas like western Wisconsin, which were significantly impacted but missed the most brutal conditions, many farmers have been pushed to the brink. Just as we did for the farmers devastated by hurricanes on the gulf coast, we should provide a helping hand to farms and rural communities that have been overwhelmed by this extreme weather.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator from North Dakota and I have introduced this bill to address one of the most serious economic problems facing our Nation; namely, the trade deficit. There is no greater advocate for sensible trade policies than Senator Dorgan, and I am proud to join him in this effort. The measure we have introduced is based on a proposal advocated by one of the foremost free market advocates in the world, Warren Buffett. It is a straightforward and market-based approach to our massive trade deficit, and I commend Mr. Buffett for his willingness to step forward with this idea. In a seminal article in Fortune magazine, Mr. Buffett made the case for taking action on this problem and laid out the basics of the approach that Senator Dorgan and I take in this bill. In that article, Mr. Buffett argued that our trade deficit is, in effect, a transfer of our Nation's net worth. He describes our situation by using the imaginary example of two islands, Squanderville and Thriftville. Here is some of what he wrote: A perpetuation of this transfer will lead to major trouble. To understand why, take a wildly fanciful trip with me to two isolated, side-by-side islands of equal size, Squanderville and Thriftville. Land is the only capital asset on these islands, and their communities are primitive, needing only food and producing only food. Working eight hours a day, in fact, each inhabitant can produce enough food to sustain himself or herself. And for a long time that's how things go along. On each island everybody works the prescribed eight hours a day, which means that each society is self- sufficient. Eventually, though, the industrious citizens of Thriftville decide to do some serious saving and investing, and they start to work 16 hours a day. In this mode they continue to live off the food they produce in eight hours of work but begin exporting an equal amount to their one and only trading outlet, Squanderville. The citizens of Squanderville are ecstatic about this turn of events, since they can now live their lives free from toil but eat as well as ever. Oh, yes, there's a quid pro quo--but to the Squanders, it seems harmless: All that the Thrifts want in exchange for their food is Squanderbonds (which are denominated, naturally, in Squanderbucks). Over time Thriftville accumulates an enormous amount of these bonds, which at their core represent claim checks on the future output of Squanderville. A few pundits in Squanderville smell trouble coming. They foresee that for the Squanders both to eat and to pay off--or simply service--the debt they're piling up will eventually require them to work more than eight hours a day. But the residents of Squanderville are in no mood to listen to such doomsaying. Meanwhile, the citizens of Thriftville begin to get nervous. Just how good, they ask, are the IOUs of a shiftless island? So the Thrifts change strategy: Though they continue to hold some bonds, they sell most of them to Squanderville residents for Squanderbucks and use the proceeds to buy Squanderville land. And eventually the Thrifts own all of Squanderville. At that point, the Squanders are forced to deal with an ugly equation: They must now not only return to working eight hours a day in order to eat--they have nothing left to trade--but must also work additional hours to service their debt and pay Thriftville rent on the land so imprudently sold. In effect, Squanderville has been colonized by purchase rather than conquest. Mr. Buffett paints a grim picture for the future of our economy in his article. At the time he wrote those words, our trade deficit was about $500 billion. Last year, the trade deficit was about 60 percent higher. There are many factors contributing to our trade deficit, but there can be no doubt that the deeply flawed trade policies of the past decade and more have contributed greatly to the mess in which we find ourselves. The trade agreements into which we have entered, based on the model established by the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA, have helped ship much of our wealth overseas, often in the form of factories that provided entire communities with good-paying, family-supporting jobs. I hold listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year. This is my 14th year holding those listening sessions, listening to tens of thousands of people from all over Wisconsin. I completed my 1000th of those sessions just a few weeks ago, and I can tell you that there is nearly universal frustration and anger with the trade policies we have pursued since the late 1980s. Even among those who would have called themselves traditional free-traders, it is increasingly obvious that the so-called NAFTA model of trade has been a tragic failure. I voted against NAFTA, GATT, and permanent most favored nation status for China, in great part because I felt they were bad deals for Wisconsin businesses and Wisconsin workers. At the time I voted against those agreements, I thought they would result in lost jobs for my State. But, Mr. President, even as an opponent of those trade agreements, I had no idea just how bad things would be. And things could hardly be worse. You can see the results of those policies in hundreds of communities around my State. And I note that these trade policies are not the result of partisan politics. I wish they were. I wish I could lay the blame at the feet of our colleagues in the other party. But Members of both parties have aided and abetted these flawed policies. Presidents of both parties have advanced them, and Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have approved them. This legislation is not a substitute for a sound trade policy. It is not intended to be. Even if we enact this measure, we will still need to straighten out the flawed trade policies of the past several administrations. But there is a clear relationship between the flawed trade agreements into which we have entered and the mushrooming trade deficit. In 1993, before NAFTA was implemented, our trade deficit with Canada and Mexico was $9 billion. In 2004, 10 years after NAFTA was implemented, our trade deficit with those two countries has ballooned 1,200 percent--1,200 percent--to $111 billion. By one estimate, the massive growth of imports into this country from Canada and Mexico relative to exports to those two countries has displaced almost 1 million jobs. Giving China permanent most favored nation trading status and ratifying the creation of the World Trade Organization have only made matters worse. Far from improving our trade balance, NAFTA and these other trade agreements have only made matters worse. When questions were raised about the actual provisions of these flawed agreements, supporters were quick to play the free trade card and label those who questioned these policies as ``protectionist.'' It is somewhat encouraging that some who blindly accepted these agreements are now beginning to read the fine print. One might think it obvious, but apparently it needs to be reiterated--these aren't your father's trade agreements, and the elegant theories of Adam Smith and others do not apply to the agreements we are asked to approve. As Thea Lee wrote in a column in the Wall Street Journal: We should all understand by now that modern (post-NAFTA) free-trade agreements are not just about lowering tariffs. They are about changing the conditions attached to trade liberalization, in ways that benefit some players and hurt others. These are not your textbook free-trade deals. These are finely orchestrated special-interest deals that boost the profits and power of multinational corporations, leaving workers, family farmers, many small businesses, and the environment more vulnerable than ever. Millions of working families across Wisconsin know this. If instead of exporting manufacturing goods, China exported editorial writers, the opinion pages of our newspapers might reflect an understanding of this as well. The argument we hear is that trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA may cause some short-term pain, but they are ultimately good for all countries concerned. Maybe we lose a few jobs to Mexico or China, the argument goes, but we would also gain jobs. Each country would engage in the economic activity for which it has a so-called comparative advantage and everyone wins. But as I noted during the CAFTA debate, this nice, neat academic theory bears little relation to what is actually happening in the real world. And one of the reasons for this disconnect is that in an arena that has been fundamentally changed by technical advances, such as the Internet and the rapid flow of capital, we are not playing by the same rules as our trading partners. The trade agreements into which our country has entered in recent years too often lack even the most reasonable standards to ensure that our businesses and workers can compete on a level playing field. This was certainly the case with CAFTA, which failed to include meaningful labor standards. The weak standards it did include were effectively unenforceable. Similarly, the environmental provisions it included were largely cosmetic. And the promised positive impact claimed for U.S. agriculture is far more likely to benefit middlemen and large agribusiness, while putting smaller family farms at a long-term competitive disadvantage as they continue to keep both the water and air clean while paying their employees a living wage. As I said, we have to stop entering into trade agreements that are so fundamentally skewed and that result in a race to the bottom. I was pleased to introduce a resolution laying out standards for the kind of trade policies we should pursue. The principles set forth in my resolution are not complex. They are straightforward and achievable. They require enforceable worker protections in our trade agreements, including the core International Labor Organization standards. They insist that trade agreements preserve the ability of the United States to enact and enforce its own trade laws. They provide that trade agreements may protect foreign investors but state that foreign investors should not be provided with greater rights than those provided under U.S. law. The standards in my resolution also require that trade agreements protect public interest laws from challenge by foreign investors in secret tribunals. They require that the agreements into which we enter ensure that food entering into our country meets domestic food safety standards. They mandate that trade agreements preserve the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to maintain essential public services and to regulate private sector services in the public interest. They require that trade agreements contain environmental provisions that are subject to the same enforcement as commercial provisions. My resolution requires trade agreements to preserve the right of Federal, State, and local governments to use procurement as a policy tool, including through Buy American laws, environmental laws such as recycled content, and purchasing preferences for small, minority, or women-owned businesses. And it requires that trade negotiations and the implementation of trade agreements be conducted openly. These are sensible policies. They are entirely consistent with the goal of increased international commerce, and in fact they advance that goal. We should pursue trade agreements that are built around these principles, but I fully understand that such a change in our trade policies is unlikely to occur overnight. The bill Senator Dorgan and I are introducing today focuses on reducing the trade deficit, and while it is not a substitute for soundly crafted trade agreements, it can stem some of the damage done by the trade policies of the past several years. This proposal is straightforward. It requires that the total value of what we import not exceed the total value of what we export, and rather than trying to pick winners and losers, as some of our trade agreements do, it lets the market decide which product areas will thrive in global competition and which will not. This is done through the use of Balanced Trade Certificates, BTCs. BTCs would be issued to U.S. exporters in an amount equal to the dollar value of their exports. Those BTCs would be sold, directly or indirectly, to foreign exporters who wanted to bring goods into the United States. Foreign exporters would have to have BTCs in an amount equal to the dollar value of the goods they want to bring into the United States. To import $1 million worth of products, a foreign exporter would have to have $1 million worth of BTCs, representing $1 million worth of U.S. exports. By limiting the total value of all BTCs to the total value of all products we export, the bill would result in a balance of trade. Unlike an industry-specific tariff or quota, the BTCs proposed in this bill will not shield any particular industry or penalize any specific country. While there would clearly be a net benefit to American industries competing in the global market, that marketplace ultimately would determine which industries and businesses succeed and which do not. This new balanced trade system is phased in over 5 years to minimize any economic shocks, with a longer phase-in period of 10 years for oil and gas. While our addiction to oil is not the focus of this bill, that addiction continues to have an impact on our balance of trade. The additional time provided in the bill for oil and gas imports will give Congress an opportunity to advance a serious energy policy, one that moves us away from our addiction to oil, an addiction that only aggravates our dangerous trade imbalance. As Mr. Buffet warns in making this proposal, ``there is no free lunch here.'' These balanced trade certificates will increase the price of imported goods. Some domestically produced goods might also increase in price. But the alternative, continuing down the path we are now on, will mean that we will increasingly transfer our net worth overseas, and with it our economic future. Nor are we the only ones put at risk by our trade deficit. A recent story in the New York Times headlined ``U.S. Trade Deficit Is Called a Threat to Global Growth'' reported the concerns of the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Rodrigo de Rato, and others, over our trade deficit with China and other countries. The story reports on the threat our trade deficit poses to global economic growth and notes that the warnings about our trade deficit by Mr. de Rato and other financial experts will be addressed later this month ``at the annual meeting of the directors of the I.M.F. and the World Bank this month in Singapore.'' Some of the foremost experts in the world of international finance are concerned about our mushrooming trade deficit. It is time that we did something about it. In the article describing the proposal on which this legislation is based, Mr. Buffett compares our country to a very rich family that owns an immense farm. He writes: ``In order to consume 4 percent more than we produce, we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own.'' Mr. President, if we don't do something to straighten out our trade policies and turn our trade deficit around, before we know it, we won't have any more of the farm to sell off. We will have sold off all of it. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Dorgan and me in sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 5183 Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the relationship between the United States and India is very important. As we look ahead to the coming decades, it is clear that United States-India relations will be integral to establishing a secure, sustainable, and prosperous international system--not only in the Asian region but around the world as India increasingly grows into its role as a global power. And, of course, India, in many ways, is a natural ally of the United States. We share a great deal in common as ethnically diverse, religiously tolerant democratic societies. Our peoples are innovative, driven, and eager to participate in the global economy. We both face the threat of terrorism. India occupies an important position in an important part of the world, and by itself represents over l7 percent of the world's total population. We absolutely should be working to strengthen our relationship with this important partner, and seeking ways to deepen our strategic ties. While I want to strengthen the relationship between the United States and India, this bill would do more than simply bring our two nations closer together. It would pave the way for civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and India for the first time since India exploded a nuclear device in the 1970s. If this bill is passed, it will dramatically shift 30 years of nonproliferation policy. Specifically, this bill would have serious consequences for the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, the international nonproliferation regime, and U.S. national security. Such a fundamental change in policy should not be undertaken lightly, which is why it is crucial that this body fully discuss and understand the implications of this bill. In my work on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have had a chance to study this issue and this legislation closely. I have talked to a number of people, on all sides of this issue: senior officials from the administration, business groups, nonproliferation and arms control experts, Indian officials, and concerned citizens in my home State of Wisconsin. The committee held a number of hearings to examine the issue, and the panelists we heard from represented a wide range of opinions on the prospect of nuclear cooperation with India. And after all of this careful consideration, I have to report that I am left with some deep concerns regarding what this legislation means for United States national security. The primary consideration for us in the U.S. Senate as we debate this bill should be this: will this legislation make the citizens of the United States more secure or less? As we consider this fundamental shift in the international nonproliferation regime, we must make sure that we have adequate protections in place to guard against the further spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology. The threat of nuclear weapons to the United States and the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear material are among the gravest dangers that our country faces. It is crucial to our national security that the nuclear non-proliferation framework remains strong. I want to make sure that the United States, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is working to strengthen the international treaties and regimes that have been designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. A world with more nuclear weapons is, simply put, a more dangerous world. So that is why I am offering an amendment to this bill that spells out in greater detail that nuclear cooperation between the United States and India will be only civilian in nature, and that none of the assistance the United States provides will be used for strengthening or further developing India's nuclear weapons arsenal. This is completely in line with President Bush's and Secretary Rice's statements about the deal, and is something the United States is already committed to under article I of the NPT. My amendment simply makes it a binding requirement: Before the nuclear cooperation agreement can go into effect, the President of the United States must certify that the scope and content of the agreement does nothing to contribute directly or indirectly to the development of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. This amendment will strengthen this bill. It will enhance transparency. And it will send a clear message to the world that the United States will, in fact, abide by its commitments and is working within the letter and spirit of the agreements and treaties to which it is party. Allow me to quote from article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, because I think it will help to set forth the obligations of the agreement the United States is a party to. Article I states that: Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices. Let me repeat that second clause, because it is what my amendment intends to address: ``not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.'' India is considered to be a nonnuclear weapon state for the purposes of the NPT, and we are therefore prohibited from assisting their nuclear weapons program. My amendment will require the President to make determinations to ensure that we are in line with that treaty obligation. First, the President would have to certify to Congress that the scope and content of the nuclear cooperation agreement that he negotiates will not contribute to India's nuclear weapons program-- specifically that it does not: Allow for the use of U.S.-origin equipment, technology, or material in an unsafeguarded Indian nuclear facility; or allow for the replication and subsequent use of U.S.- origin technology for any activity related to nuclear explosive devices. Second, the President would have to certify that he had received sufficient assurances from the Government of India that nuclear fuel provided by the United States will not facilitate the increased production by India of fissile material for weapons use. Both India and the United States should feel comfortable with this amendment; it only requires that the United States certify that this deal is in line with our current commitments. It will go a long way to enhance transparency and reassure all sides that this civil nuclear cooperation agreement does not have any military aspects. This is particularly important now, as we face nuclear crises in North Korea and Iran. While we are pressuring those countries to submit to international inspections and abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is crucial that we not simultaneously be seen to undermine the NPT's foundations by our actions. My amendment sends a clear message that the United States stands by the spirit and the letter of the NPT. Rejecting my amendment would send a dangerous signal to Iran, North Korea and other states that we are not taking seriously our international commitments, and that the NPT is no longer relevant. As you can see, my amendment is quite detailed in spelling out exactly how assistance to India's weapons program is defined, and what activities should be prohibited under the terms of the agreement. The second determination, which relates to the provision of nuclear fuel by the United States, is particularly important, because it gets to the heart of concerns about a possible buildup of nuclear weapons. Currently, India's production of weapons grade plutonium is constrained by its limited domestic supply of natural uranium. Experts, from former Senator Sam Nunn former Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Bob Einhorn, have expressed concern that by providing nuclear fuel to India through this agreement, India's domestic supply of uranium might be freed up in order to accelerate the production of nuclear weapons materials. And in fact, the Indians themselves have expressed this possibility. Listen to the words of a former head of the Indian National Security Advisory Board, less than a year ago: Given India's uranium ore crunch and the need to build up our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India's advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refueled bv imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production. This is from an article entitled ``India and the Nuclear Deal,'' in the Times of India on December 12, 2005. This is a former high-level Indian Government official, arguing less than a year ago that India should increase its production of weapons material through the provision of imported uranium. I am, frankly, concerned by that prospect. India has said that its strategic nuclear weapons program, and the production of fissile material, is unrelated to this deal. Secretary Rice and other members of the administration have assured us of the same thing. In fact, in its official response to one of Senator Lugar's questions last year, the State Department noted that ``nothing to be provided to India under the Initiative will be used to enhance India's military capability or add to its military stockpile.'' If that is truly the case--and I believe both sides when they say that expanding India's nuclear weapons arsenal is not a goal of this agreement--then my amendment should be absolutely uncontroversial. It simply makes those claims binding, by requiring the President to make such a determination. Some of my colleagues might ask, if we are already committed to non- assistance under the NPT, and if members of the administration have assured us that this is the case, why is this amendment necessary? After all, requiring a presidential determination is a big deal. My response is that this issue is a big deal. Nonassistance to India's nuclear weapons program is such a critical aspect of this agreement that it must be spelled out within the legislation in clear, concrete terms, leaving no question or ambiguity. It is an issue that demands the high bar of a presidential determination to Congress. And there is a significant precedent for such determination The 1985 Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation Between the United States and China required a presidential determination on nonassistance to China's nuclear weapons program--one of only two binding presidential determinations included in that legislation. Specifically, the law stated that the U.S.-China nuclear cooperation agreement could not go into force until the President provided a certification to Congress that the agreement was designed ``to be effective in ensuring that any nuclear material, facilities, or components provided under the Agreement shall be utilized solely for intended peaceful purposes as set forth in the Agreement.'' In 1985, the Members of this body deemed that one of the two things the President of the United States should have to make a certification about prior to nuclear cooperation with another country was that our civilian cooperation would in no way assist that country's weapons program. My amendment is identical in scope and purpose, and should be passed. If anything, there are even more reasons to push for such a determination with regard to India, given that India is a nonsignatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Some may argue that the President cannot make such a determination-- that the President cannot know in advance what India will do with material we provide to them. But this amendment is about the scope and content of the agreement, and about assurances received from the Indian government. It is about our current actions, and the strength of the agreement that the President negotiates. And in fact, the President made exactly such a determination, in 1998, when he submitted Presidential Determination 98-10 to the U.S. Congress to enable nuclear cooperation with China to move forward under that agreement. If this body is afraid that the President would be unable to make such a determination with respect to India, I ask one question: why then are we pursuing this deal? If we cannot be reasonably certain that this agreement will not help India to expand its nuclear arsenal, how good a deal is this? This should be a simple calculation based on the best interests of the United States. My colleagues are aware that I voted against this legislation in committee. I stated at the time of my vote that I was not opposed to the deal in principle, but was committed to working constructively to strengthen this bill when it came to the floor, because I still had concerns that had not been addressed. I stand by that statement. I would like to see an agreement that brings our countries closer together strategically, while preserving our national security interests. However, since the time of the committee hearing, more information has come to light that further justifies the concerns I expressed earlier, and which I would like to share with my colleagues. First of all, since that time, the State Department released a report sanctioning two Indian firms for illicit missile-related transactions with Iran. This report was 10 months overdue and was not released until 1 day after the House voted on its version of this legislation. There are a number of things that I find troubling about this report and the way it was released, but the biggest is that it seems to contravene the Bush administration's assertions that India has a stellar nonproliferation record. At a minimum, this report demonstrates that there continue to be legitimate concerns about the spread of dangerous weapons technology, know-how, and equipment--in India and elsewhere. Secondly, there have been troubling signals coming from the Indian Government itself about its commitment to nonproliferation controls. In an August 17 speech to the Indian Parliament, Prime Minister Singh declared that India would not agree to any changes to the nuclear deal imposed by the U.S. Congress: ``We will stick to the parameters of the agreement signed in Washington last year and this alone will be the basis of nuclear cooperation,'' he said. He specifically noted that India would not allow ``external supervision'' of its strategic nuclear programs, and argued that President Bush had committed to providing an ``uninterrupted supply of fuel''--presumably, even if India were to detonate another nuclear device. Prime Minister Singh also stated that ``there is no question of India being bound by a law passed by a foreign legislature.'' This raises significant concerns in my mind as to whether India would accept the important elements of this legislation that the U.S. Congress will put in place if it passes. Finally, there have been signs of an increasingly warm official relationship between India and Iran. I note the irony of the timing: at the same time we are debating passage of a bill that will lend considerable assistance to India's nuclear program, we are doing everything in our power to prevent Iran from furthering its own nuclear program. I would like to read a couple of quotes from Indian Prime Minister Singh, who had a meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinejad on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Cuba in September. Following the meeting, Prime Minister Singh stated that ``India is determined to consolidate cultural, economic, and political ties with Iran,'' and he expressed regret over the ``misunderstanding caused about India's stance on Iran's peaceful nuclear program,'' stressing that India would ``never join any efforts against Iran.'' I don't think it takes very much reading between the lines to doubt that India will support us in our efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear program--one of the most important national security challenges facing our country at this time. As further evidence of the support for my amendment, I would like to submit for the Record a letter that was recently signed by a wide range of non-proliferation experts, former senior government officials, and respected scientists. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Briefly, the letter notes that there are still flaws that remain in S. 3709, and urges the Senate to adopt at least four measures to address them. The second of their four recommendations for improvements is that there be ``a determination and annual certification that U.S. civil nuclear policy does not in any way assist or encourage India's nuclear weapons program.'' My amendment is directly in line with the advice of these leading experts, and addresses an important shortfall in the legislation as it stands now. I acknowledge that the U.S. business community has come out strongly in support of this legislation. I would only like to add a note of caution to their optimism. There is nothing in this deal that would secure U.S. contracts or guarantee an increase in U.S. business. The U.S. is not the only one in the nuclear market. Australia and Russia have already indicated they are working with India to sell fuel, and companies from Great Britain, France, and Russia have viable civil reactor technology that they will certainly pitch to India. It is far from a foregone conclusion that U.S. companies will directly benefit from the deal. In the 8 years that nuclear trade has been permitted with China, the United States has sold exactly zero nuclear reactors to China--zero. I bring this up to point out that some of the benefits of this deal may be exaggerated, and we should remember the overriding priority as we consider this legislation: whether it will make the citizens of the United States more safe, or less. Mr. President, in closing, I would like to put in a brief word of appreciation for the substantial amount of work done on this bill by Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and their staffs. This bill is a real improvement over the original proposal put forward by the administration, but there are still a few shortcomings that remain. My amendment would address what I, and many others, see as one of the main outstanding concerns with the bill. It will ensure that this agreement is in line with our non-proliferation obligations and protects U.S. national security, without putting any undue burdens on the U.S. or our Indian partners. It is a nonpartisan, commonsense amendment, in line with previous legislation, and I hope that all of my colleagues will consider voting in favor of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana. It is late, and I think that people already have a sense of where they will go with this amendment, but I do want to make a couple of points for the record, given how important this amendment is and how important this agreement is. The chairman suggests that what we would do here with this amendment would somehow force the renegotiation of the agreement. I don't accept that notion. But I would say, given the importance of making sure this isn't used for nuclear weapons, it is well worth renegotiating if it actually required that. But I don't think it does. More importantly, it just doesn't make any sense to me that such an amendment would require the full renegotiation of the agreement when you look at the fact that the bill before us today already, in section 105, requires eight different Presidential determinations. I am just adding two additional ones. There are already Presidential determinations that have to be made, so how can it be that the additional requirement that there be determinations by the President of the United States, not by Indian officials--how can that force the renegotiation of this agreement? It doesn't direct the Indians to do anything. So I reject the notion that somehow this would require the renegotiation of the agreement, and if it did, I think it would be better than not changing it. Now, the biggest problem with the chairman's argument is that he is relying on an earlier version of our amendment which we offered in committee, which I thought was worth passing. But the chairman correctly notes that we were defeated in the committee 13 to 5. One of the criticisms was that somehow this amendment would force the President to certify some facts, that he couldn't necessarily know for sure what the Indians were exactly doing or what they might do in the future. I recognize that point. That is why I drafted this amendment to only relate to the scope and content of the agreement. There is nothing in my amendment that requires the President to certify what might happen in the future. And this is the critical distinction. This amendment does not have the flaw that was argued in committee. It only talks about the President certifying with regard to the scope and content of this agreement and also getting assurances from the Indian Government that the purpose of this agreement is not about nuclear weapons but is about civil purposes. So it is, in fact, different from the amendment in committee, and that is an important distinction as Members think about whether they want to vote for this version on the floor of the Senate. It is more modest, but it still accomplishes an important goal. This is not unheard of. This is exactly what was done in the China agreement in the 1980s. I described it in my original statement. The agreement called for a Presidential certification of this kind. It worked, and the President, in fact, made such a certification. So this is both necessary and practical from that point of view. I believe I have responded to each of the arguments made by the Senator from Indiana. Obviously, I have enormous respect for him and his leadership of the committee, but I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment which would allow me to feel comfortable supporting this agreement, because I do want us to have a good agreement with India. I just think we need to have this sort of an assurance that my amendment provides. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the Senator from New York such time as he needs.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Indiana. I yield back my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to briefly recap what my amendment does and why I believe it is important for the Senate to adopt it. The amendment is very simple. It will require the President to make determinations that nothing in the nuclear cooperation agreement he negotiates with India will contribute to India's nuclear weapons program. Both the United States and India have stated that expanding India's nuclear arsenal is not an objective of this agreement, and my amendment simply makes those claims binding. The United States is prohibited under our current obligations in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to directly or indirectly assist the nuclear weapons programs of other states. My amendment simply makes clear that the United States is actually abiding by its international commitments. It does not require the President to guarantee what India will do; he simply must certify that he is satisfied the agreement will not contribute to India's nuclear weapons program. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I remain deeply concerned about rising instability and growing tension in Somalia. It is becoming clear that efforts to date have failed to sufficiently address the stand off between the Islamic courts and the transitional federal government, TFG, and now new tension between Ethiopia and Eritrea is threatening to engulf the entire region in a costly and devastating conflict. Unfortunately, rising instability in Somalia is having a direct effect on stability throughout the region and, if left unchecked, will have a significant impact on our national security and the security of our friends and allies. As I have said many times before, it is imperative that the U.S. Government begin playing a leadership role in helping to stabilize Somalia and the region and that it do so immediately. We need a comprehensive approach to engaging with regional actors, the international community, and the U.N. to find a permanent solution to this crisis. Such an approach will contribute to stability throughout the Horn of Africa and to our national security. We can't do this successfully, of course, unless we create a comprehensive approach and apply sufficient resources and attention to this growing problem. I was pleased when the Senate passed an amendment I offered to the Defense authorization bill a few months ago that calls for a comprehensive strategy for establishing long-term stability in Somalia. I believe, as do a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that the United States must develop a comprehensive strategy for Somalia that utilizes all facets of its power and capability and must ramp up its diplomatic efforts throughout the region and the international community to bring this crisis to an end. Unfortunately, the administration has yet to appoint a senior coordinator for Somalia to pull together a strategy and to engage fulltime with international and regional partners in addressing this crisis. There also appears to be a reluctance to put in place additional personnel and resources needed to help execute this strategy and to contribute to international efforts to bring about a lasting peace throughout the region. Frustratingly, there has been reluctance among administration officials to work closely with Congress to identify what additional resources are needed to address changing conditions in Somalia. I have asked repeatedly for a description of needed resources and support that we in the U.S. Congress can provide to help address instability in Somalia and have yet to receive a sufficient response. Meanwhile, conditions in Somalia are becoming more complex and more troubling. According to a new United Nations report released this week, both the ICU and the TFG are obtaining support from a range of outside actors. If this is true, it signals a dangerous mix of regional and international meddling that could ignite the entire region into a devastating conflict. Recent statements by leaders throughout the region, too, suggest that specific countries may be prepared to intervene outside of the context of a political solution or coordinated international intervention. Our objectives must not be too lofty: we cannot hope to turn Somalia into a peaceful and established democracy overnight. But we do need to establish realistic goals and objectives and address this problem with aggressive diplomacy and engagement--in Somalia, Nairobi, Addis Ababa, New York, Brussels, Asmara, and throughout the Middle East. We must work diligently to establish a robust political framework within which both Somalia-specific and regional concerns can be addressed, and that will help facilitate a broader arrangement that takes into account the range of actors involved in this crisis. This framework must be supported by the international community and key regional actors. It must also take into consideration the very real security concerns of Somalia's neighbors. Unfortunately, we have very little time. Conditions continue to deteriorate, and we can't count on weak diplomatic efforts to get us what we need. Instability in Somalia has very real national security implications for our country. Somalia remains what it has been for years: a haven for known al-Qaida operatives and terrorist networks and criminal networks that threaten U.S. interests. As we learned in Afghanistan, we cannot ignore the conditions that breed and empower extremist and terrorist organizations. Accordingly, it is essential that we treat instability in Somalia like the true threat that it is. We need to act quickly and decisively and as if American lives depend on it. They do.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also providing over $3 billion in deficit reduction. Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and secure housing is about more than just providing families with somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that families have to undertake in order to afford housing. Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more, available in the United States. Research shows that the number of families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families spends more than thirty percent of their earnings on housing costs. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities, towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans. Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe and affordable housing. Congress has created effective affordable housing and community development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing. The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in 1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized. Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for twenty four hours and received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not accepted new applications for Section 8 in over three years and reports that hundreds of families are on the waiting list. Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country. According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8 vouchers than currently exist. While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section 8 program costs less than it would through other federal housing programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost- effective, and successful in its mission.'' The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for 100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually by Congress. My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000 incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2007. I have identified enough funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000 vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program. According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased funding for Section 8 vouchers. We should examine doing more than just providing more money for Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program. Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to address these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more effective, more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the country. But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990 to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low income Americans throughout the country. According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23 billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and States around the country are able to report numerous success stories in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002. Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9 billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than $1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in need. But Mr. President, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs to be done to assist extremely low income families. My legislation seeks to target additional resources to the Americans most in need by using the HOME structure to distribute new funding to participating jurisdictions with the requirement that these participating jurisdictions use these set-aside dollars to produce, rehab, or preserve affordable housing for extremely low income families, or people at 30 percent of area median income or below. As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low income owner households are severely burdened by affordability concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter households and the number of units available to them with acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families. Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program; local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities. Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the needs of the extremely low income families in their respective communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify that this funding is going to extremely low income households and must report on how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds are intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure participating jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also require that the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this new funding for extremely low income households in no way excuses such jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing for the most vulnerable Americans. My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant program: the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program, formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program has not been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired in 2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200 million per year for five years for this program. After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest, violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their tenants. Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the country. In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year, dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and sales, and other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the Housing Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs through the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site agencies, providing youths and others living in public housing with a variety of educational, job training and life skill programs. When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee-- have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of their crime reduction programs. It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants. Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants. But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with grant money. The Federal government also needs to provide more resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program. It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R) to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and issue a report within six months identifying effective programs, providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant program that have not previously been subject to that type of evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the program going forward. As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used inappropriately. My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry, Senator Reed, and others for all their work on advancing the cause of a National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look forward to working with them and others in the 110th to push for the creation of such a trust fund. I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next 10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters the creation of healthy and sustainable communities. Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and states throughout the country, including recently in the city of Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe and affordable housing to all Americans. This bill is the third of four proposals I am introducing this year to address some of the domestic issues that have been raised with me over the years by my constituents, some of them at the listening sessions I hold annually in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties. Previous proposals addressed health care reform and the trade deficit. This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and, unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families. This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head, however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs, better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans. Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the next Congress to advance my bill and other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the goal of affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also providing over $3 billion in deficit reduction. Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and secure housing is about more than just providing families with somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that families have to undertake in order to afford housing. Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more, available in the United States. Research shows that the number of families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families spends more than thirty percent of their earnings on housing costs. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities, towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans. Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe and affordable housing. Congress has created effective affordable housing and community development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing. The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in 1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized. Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for twenty four hours and received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not accepted new applications for Section 8 in over three years and reports that hundreds of families are on the waiting list. Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country. According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8 vouchers than currently exist. While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section 8 program costs less than it would through other federal housing programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost- effective, and successful in its mission.'' The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for 100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually by Congress. My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000 incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2007. I have identified enough funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000 vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program. According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased funding for Section 8 vouchers. We should examine doing more than just providing more money for Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program. Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to address these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more effective, more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the country. But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990 to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low income Americans throughout the country. According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23 billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and States around the country are able to report numerous success stories in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002. Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9 billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than $1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in need. But Mr. President, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs to be done to assist extremely low income families. My legislation seeks to target additional resources to the Americans most in need by using the HOME structure to distribute new funding to participating jurisdictions with the requirement that these participating jurisdictions use these set-aside dollars to produce, rehab, or preserve affordable housing for extremely low income families, or people at 30 percent of area median income or below. As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low income owner households are severely burdened by affordability concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter households and the number of units available to them with acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families. Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program; local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities. Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the needs of the extremely low income families in their respective communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify that this funding is going to extremely low income households and must report on how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds are intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure participating jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also require that the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this new funding for extremely low income households in no way excuses such jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing for the most vulnerable Americans. My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant program: the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program, formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program has not been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired in 2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200 million per year for five years for this program. After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest, violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their tenants. Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the country. In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year, dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and sales, and other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the Housing Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs through the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site agencies, providing youths and others living in public housing with a variety of educational, job training and life skill programs. When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee-- have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of their crime reduction programs. It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants. Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants. But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with grant money. The Federal government also needs to provide more resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program. It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R) to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and issue a report within six months identifying effective programs, providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant program that have not previously been subject to that type of evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the program going forward. As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used inappropriately. My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry, Senator Reed, and others for all their work on advancing the cause of a National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look forward to working with them and others in the 110th to push for the creation of such a trust fund. I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next 10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters the creation of healthy and sustainable communities. Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and states throughout the country, including recently in the city of Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe and affordable housing to all Americans. This bill is the third of four proposals I am introducing this year to address some of the domestic issues that have been raised with me over the years by my constituents, some of them at the listening sessions I hold annually in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties. Previous proposals addressed health care reform and the trade deficit. This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and, unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families. This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head, however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs, better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans. Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the next Congress to advance my bill and other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the goal of affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has been a wonderful leader on this issue. It is always a pleasure to work with her. I am also pleased to be working with Senator Lieberman and a number of other distinguished Members on this effort as well. It is truly the kind of bipartisan work not only the American people have called for with these elections but the American people deserve, and I hope it is a sign of things to come. As Senator Collins noted, this is an important bill. I have worked hard with a few of my colleagues to create the SIGIR several years ago and I am very proud of what we have accomplished. To go back to how this started, this is all the way back to October 2003. We all remember the famous $87 billion bill that became famous for other reasons. But included in the bill was the creation of the original inspector general as a part of the Coalition Provisional Authority. I was pleased we got it in there, but I obviously wasn't certain it would work out and that it would be done well, but in fact that is exactly what happened. Regardless of your view of the wisdom of the Iraq war, we were able to come together and say: In any event, the taxpayers' dollars for reconstruction should be monitored and evaluated; there should be accountability. Well, thanks to the appointment of Stuart Bowen, who is the inspector general, that is exactly what has happened. The agency has worked extremely well. As Senator Collins indicated, they go out into the field in Iraq in a way that other agencies have not done to do very effective reports. Now, these reports are troubling, many of them. They indicate things aren't working well in a lot of places and a whole lot of money has to be spent on security rather than on reconstruction. Nonetheless, they are doing the taxpayers a service. We have run into a problem because the Iraq war, of course, has been far less successful than people expected, and this whole situation has continued much longer than was originally anticipated. So not only did we create it in October 2003, I had offered an amendment in June 2004 to extend it, and then again in 2005 with the help of Senator Collins and then again this year in 2006. And unfortunately, after we had agreed to extend it because not all of the dollars had been expended, a provision was added in the House in conference that basically cuts this off artificially. It goes against the whole assumption, which is that this agency should continue to do its work until 80 percent--10 months after 80 percent of the funds have been expended. That is the formula. We now estimate that work cannot be done until approximately the end of 2009, given how long it is going to take to expend this money. To cut this off prematurely in October of 2007 is to simply undo the good work of this agency. So I am pleased Senator Collins and I were able to add an amendment to the recent Defense authorization bill that expanded oversight authority. We actually expanded its jurisdiction so it could monitor and audit United States taxpayers' dollars being used for Iraq reconstruction regardless of the type of account. So that actually involves another $11 billion in accounts that need to be evaluated and the taxpayers are going to get what they deserve. This is the problem with the provision that cuts this off prematurely. This is no time to terminate the office that has done so much to protect taxpayer dollars in Iraq. Our work on the Defense authorization bill provided the Senate with an estimated additional $11 billion in oversight responsibility and that makes SIGIR's total oversight responsibility approximately $32 billion. Now, for people listening, what kind of money is $32 billion? I understand that roughly the entire foreign aid that we give to all of the countries in the world in one year is only $20 billion. This is $32 billion, just for reconstruction in Iraq. Surely there needs to be accountability for this, and we need to give this important office the time to do its work and to make sure the money isn't subject to waste, fraud, or abuse. I am delighted we are working together, Senator Collins and I and others, and I do hope we can simply reverse this unfortunate error in the House version of the conference report and that we can restore this office to its full form. I yield the floor.