Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Guinea is a fragile, resource-rich state in West Africa that has been plagued by political uncertainty since the death of its longtime President, Lansana Conte, in December 2008. Much of this upheaval can be attributed to the fact that the President, in his 25 long years of rule, left little room for governance reform. His autocratic legacy included abusive security forces, a collapsed economy, a divided civil society, and a squabbling opposition. As a result, there was no clear successor and no viable path forward. President Conte's commitment to democracy was cosmetic, at best, and easily trumped by his dictatorial tendencies and unwillingness to relinquish power. As many Guinea watchers expected, the day after President Conte, died, a military junta calling itself the National Council for Democracy and Development, CNDD, seized power and dissolved the constitution and legislature. Given the deteriorated state of governance and widespread impunity, the junta was initially hailed by many as a safeguard against the endemic problems of corruption, insecurity, and rampant drug trafficking--all of which contribute to the lack of legitimate governance. Furthermore, the fact that the CNDD appointed a civilian prime minister and promised to hold Presidential and legislative elections gave many Guineans hope that the country was on the verge of a legitimate political transition. But those elections were repeatedly postponed, despite repeated claims by the junta that a transition to civilian rule would occur. As the months passed, a number of signs, including the appointment of military officers to key government posts, indicated that CNDD was in fact not planning to relinquish power and was certainly not ready--or willing--to oversee an election process. In fact, over the next few months the CNDD sought to tighten its hold on power severely, including an attempt in September 2009 by security forces to brutally crush a peaceful, prodemocracy rally. I joined many in the international community at that time in condemning such blatant and violent repression. A U.N. Commission was sent to investigate the atrocities while the CNDD crackdown cast a dark shadow on Guinea's prospects for peace and stability. During this period, I was pleased to see the Obama administration engage proactively to help reverse Guinea's political crisis-- particularly in the aftermath of the shooting of CNDD leader Captain Dadis Camara. In those fragile moments of uncertainty, the consistent diplomacy undertaken by our senior officials played an important role. Working with key regional actors and organizations, the State Department helped to broker an important political agreement, known as the Ouagadougou Declaration, which was widely welcomed as an end to the protracted political vacuum that had existed. The signing of this agreement ushered in a transitional united government that, while imperfect, has been actively supported by the Obama administration. Unquestionably Guinea remains on delicate ground but the upcoming Presidential elections scheduled for June 27 create an opportunity for Guinea--and our bilateral relationship--to progress forward. Undoubtedly the process will be chaotic and messy, but there is a good chance we could see this beleaguered country bounce back from decades of mismanagement. Of course, in order for Guinea to truly progress, these elections must be the beginning of serious and sustained reform-- a process which must also include accountability for the abuses committed in September 2009. Elections are only one component of the democratic process, but still they are a significant one and may give the people of Guinea their long deserved chance to finally turn the page on their troubled political history. While there are plenty of factors that could lead to another election postponement including the will of the transitional government and the capacity and efficiency of the election commission, I remain optimistic that this will not occur. Certainly there are real challenges to fostering democracy given Guinea's history, but the recent commitment from the Acting President and Chief of the Army to remain neutral and ensure the elections are free, credible, and transparent should not go without notice. I have long said that promoting and supporting democratic institutions should be a key tenet of our engagement with Africa, as institution building is essential to Africa's stability and its prosperity. In the case of Guinea--a nation that has great potential to flourish and thrive--credible elections are an important first step on the road to better governance.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was a tragedy for the workers killed and their families. It has also become an economic disaster for the people of the gulf coast and an unparalleled environmental disaster for our Nation. As we work to stop and clean up the spill, we also need to end the coziness between big oil and the Federal agencies that regulate the industry. That chummy relationship has shielded big oil from being held accountable for years, and it is high time we make sure that government is cracking down on, not cozying up to, the oil companies. As I discussed a few days ago at a Judiciary Committee hearing examining liability issues related to the BP oilspill, Congress should take action right away to deter wrongdoing and encourage the kind of responsible, careful drilling we need. One way to do that is to eliminate big oil's liability cap for natural resources and economic damage caused by oilspills, such as the loss of travel and tourism revenue that businesses across the gulf are experiencing. I am a cosponsor of Senator Menendez's legislation to do just that. The oilspill in the gulf has made it painfully clear that this liability cap is far too low. The existing $75 million liability cap is less than 1 day's worth of profits for BP, which earned almost $6 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year. But that must be just the beginning of a comprehensive effort to change the way government approaches big oil. For far too long, the oil industry has gotten special treatment, in large part because it is one of the wealthiest, most powerful special interests in Washington. The oil and gas industry gave $35 million in political donations in the last Presidential election cycle, and $\1/4\ billion in donations over the last 20 years. One of the reasons I have worked to curb the influence of money in politics for so many years is because of the undue influence of big oil. Those donations have contributed to the oil industry's access to Congress and to the agencies that are supposed to regulate oil exploration and production. It is no coincidence that the oil industry has received unjustified tax breaks and other favorable treatment for years. That has to change, and we can start by getting rid of taxpayer- funded giveaways for the oil and gas industry, as I have proposed in my Control Spending Now Act, legislation to cut the deficit by about $\1/ 2\ trillion over 10 years. Part of that bill would end a taxpayer subsidy for the processing of oil company permits. I also support efforts to repeal over $35 billion in oil and gas tax breaks targeted by President Obama for elimination. As we seek to rein in record deficits, it is time to end these unjustified giveaways to an industry that doesn't need taxpayer support. Congress must also make sure that regulators aren't simply acting as rubberstamps for whatever the oil industry wants. Unfortunately, too often the Federal Government ends up listening more to the powerful industries it is supposed to be regulating than to the consumers it is supposed to be protecting. Whether it is Wall Street or big oil that is calling the shots, the result is rarely good for my constituents in Wisconsin. Another critical way to hold big oil accountable is to pass my ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation to ensure oil companies are diligently exploring the Federal leases they currently have, and not sitting on those leases in an effort to drive up gas prices. We should also restore the Clean Water Act, CWA, to its full strength. The CWA is the main statute used to prosecute polluters who dump oil into waters of the United States, and it is never been more important to ensure that polluters are held accountable for the damage they do to our economy and our environment. Congress has the responsibility to look ahead and do what it takes to prevent a disaster like the one in the gulf from happening again. We have to come at this issue from all sides to make sure that BP is held accountable for the current spill, that we work to prevent future spills with proper regulations, and that we upend the culture that provides tax breaks and special treatment for big oil in the first place. Working to stop and clean up the spill in the gulf is not enough. Congress has to clean up the cozy Washington culture that favors big corporations over the needs of American people, and over the protection of our economy and our air and water.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4302, as Modified

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and others in introducing the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a bill which effectively gives the President a line item veto to cancel wasteful spending. Based on President Obama's proposal, our measure would permit the President to get expedited consideration in both the House and Senate of a package of proposed spending cuts within larger spending bills Congress sends to the President. The President would have 45 days from when the initial spending measure was enacted to submit his proposed cuts, and once that package of cuts is sent to the Hill, Congress would have less than a month to act on them. Any savings produced if Congress enacts these spending cut packages would go directly to reduce the deficit. Just a few weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee at which this proposal and similar proposals were reviewed, and I am pleased to say that the consensus of that hearing is that the bill we are introducing today is clearly constitutional. When he took office, President Obama was handed perhaps the worst economic and fiscal mess facing any administration since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited poses a gigantic challenge. There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems. Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and that can sustain the progress we make. A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the constitutionally central role Congress plays, as this legislation is, can help us get back on track. As I noted before, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by a number of colleagues, but most notably by Senator Carper and Senator McCain. I have been privileged to work on a number of critical budget reforms with Senator Carper. He has long been an advocate of this kind of expedited rescission or line item veto authority, and was the lead author of a similarly structured measure when he served in the other body. I have also been pleased to work with Senator McCain on budget matters. He and I have worked together for the past two decades to oppose wasteful earmark spending, and more recently I have been pleased to work with him on line item veto proposals, including this one. I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, for working with me on this issue for several years now. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan raised this issue with President Obama at a meeting in Baltimore, and I thank him for his efforts to advance this issue. The bill we introduce today is a significant step forward in our joint efforts to provide the President with the kind of authority needed to cut wasteful spending. As I noted earlier, this legislation is essentially the bill President Obama proposed just a few weeks ago. It provides the President the ability to get quick and definitive congressional action on cuts to individual programs in large spending bills. Currently, the President must choose between vetoing a bill in its entirety, or signing it and possibly enacting billions of dollars of wasteful spending. With this bill, the President will have a third option-- signing a spending bill, but then submitting a package of proposed cuts from that spending bill to Congress for quick review. The package of cuts proposed by the President will get an up or down vote in the House and, if it passes there, an up or down vote in the Senate. Our line item veto bill covers earmark discretionary spending as well as broader non-entitlement spending accounts. The measure excludes entitlement spending and tax expenditures from the expedited rescission approach. Spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures make up an enormous amount of the total spending done by the Federal Government. However, unlike the programmatic spending done in discretionary programs, where cuts can be made by zeroing out or reducing a number for a specific account, reducing spending in entitlements or tax expenditures often requires a change in the underlying policy. Indeed, Congress already has a fast-track procedure designed specifically for considering legislation that reduces spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures. It is called reconciliation, and it was used effectively in the 1990s to reduce the deficit. As I mentioned, a key target of this new line item veto bill is the unauthorized earmark spending that too often finds its way into large appropriations bills. Earmark spending was what Congressman Ryan and I targeted in our line item veto proposal, and it is the example every line-item veto proponent cites when promoting their legislation. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority. Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. We won't solve our budget problems just by addressing earmarks, but if we are to get our fiscal house in order, eliminating earmarks has to be part of the solution. For all the lip service Congress pays to this issue, there are still thousands of earmarked spending provisions enacted every year. Just last year, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 passed in March of 2009 contained more than 8,000 earmarks costing $7 billion, and the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 passed in December of 2009 included nearly 5,000 earmarks, costing $3.7 billion. There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year. And given the unwillingness of Congress to discipline itself in this regard, it is appropriate to provide the President some additional authority to seek an up or down vote in Congress on proposed cuts in this area of spending. This is not a cure-all. We will not balance the budget just by passing a line item veto-like authority for the President. Nor will we balance the budget just by eliminating wasteful earmark spending. But we can make real progress in getting our fiscal house in order, and in changing the culture of Washington which over the last 2 decades has seen an explosion of spending done through unauthorized earmarks that circumvent regular congressional review and the scrutiny of the competitive grant process. Like the measure Congressman Ryan and I introduced, under this proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that is what this legislation promotes. President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks. I am delighted he has stepped forward to propose a new line item veto-like authority, and I am especially pleased to be introducing that proposal with my colleagues today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and others in introducing the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a bill which effectively gives the President a line item veto to cancel wasteful spending. Based on President Obama's proposal, our measure would permit the President to get expedited consideration in both the House and Senate of a package of proposed spending cuts within larger spending bills Congress sends to the President. The President would have 45 days from when the initial spending measure was enacted to submit his proposed cuts, and once that package of cuts is sent to the Hill, Congress would have less than a month to act on them. Any savings produced if Congress enacts these spending cut packages would go directly to reduce the deficit. Just a few weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee at which this proposal and similar proposals were reviewed, and I am pleased to say that the consensus of that hearing is that the bill we are introducing today is clearly constitutional. When he took office, President Obama was handed perhaps the worst economic and fiscal mess facing any administration since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited poses a gigantic challenge. There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems. Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and that can sustain the progress we make. A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the constitutionally central role Congress plays, as this legislation is, can help us get back on track. As I noted before, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by a number of colleagues, but most notably by Senator Carper and Senator McCain. I have been privileged to work on a number of critical budget reforms with Senator Carper. He has long been an advocate of this kind of expedited rescission or line item veto authority, and was the lead author of a similarly structured measure when he served in the other body. I have also been pleased to work with Senator McCain on budget matters. He and I have worked together for the past two decades to oppose wasteful earmark spending, and more recently I have been pleased to work with him on line item veto proposals, including this one. I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, for working with me on this issue for several years now. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan raised this issue with President Obama at a meeting in Baltimore, and I thank him for his efforts to advance this issue. The bill we introduce today is a significant step forward in our joint efforts to provide the President with the kind of authority needed to cut wasteful spending. As I noted earlier, this legislation is essentially the bill President Obama proposed just a few weeks ago. It provides the President the ability to get quick and definitive congressional action on cuts to individual programs in large spending bills. Currently, the President must choose between vetoing a bill in its entirety, or signing it and possibly enacting billions of dollars of wasteful spending. With this bill, the President will have a third option-- signing a spending bill, but then submitting a package of proposed cuts from that spending bill to Congress for quick review. The package of cuts proposed by the President will get an up or down vote in the House and, if it passes there, an up or down vote in the Senate. Our line item veto bill covers earmark discretionary spending as well as broader non-entitlement spending accounts. The measure excludes entitlement spending and tax expenditures from the expedited rescission approach. Spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures make up an enormous amount of the total spending done by the Federal Government. However, unlike the programmatic spending done in discretionary programs, where cuts can be made by zeroing out or reducing a number for a specific account, reducing spending in entitlements or tax expenditures often requires a change in the underlying policy. Indeed, Congress already has a fast-track procedure designed specifically for considering legislation that reduces spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures. It is called reconciliation, and it was used effectively in the 1990s to reduce the deficit. As I mentioned, a key target of this new line item veto bill is the unauthorized earmark spending that too often finds its way into large appropriations bills. Earmark spending was what Congressman Ryan and I targeted in our line item veto proposal, and it is the example every line-item veto proponent cites when promoting their legislation. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority. Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. We won't solve our budget problems just by addressing earmarks, but if we are to get our fiscal house in order, eliminating earmarks has to be part of the solution. For all the lip service Congress pays to this issue, there are still thousands of earmarked spending provisions enacted every year. Just last year, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 passed in March of 2009 contained more than 8,000 earmarks costing $7 billion, and the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 passed in December of 2009 included nearly 5,000 earmarks, costing $3.7 billion. There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year. And given the unwillingness of Congress to discipline itself in this regard, it is appropriate to provide the President some additional authority to seek an up or down vote in Congress on proposed cuts in this area of spending. This is not a cure-all. We will not balance the budget just by passing a line item veto-like authority for the President. Nor will we balance the budget just by eliminating wasteful earmark spending. But we can make real progress in getting our fiscal house in order, and in changing the culture of Washington which over the last 2 decades has seen an explosion of spending done through unauthorized earmarks that circumvent regular congressional review and the scrutiny of the competitive grant process. Like the measure Congressman Ryan and I introduced, under this proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that is what this legislation promotes. President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks. I am delighted he has stepped forward to propose a new line item veto-like authority, and I am especially pleased to be introducing that proposal with my colleagues today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, once again, I wish to express my concern about the situation in Somalia. To put it frankly, the situation is appalling. Since the start of fighting in 2007, at least 21,000 people have been killed and more than 1.5 million have been displaced. Thousands of refugees continue to pour into overcrowded camps in Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and elsewhere. For those who remain in Somalia, the United Nations refugee and food agencies are unable to reach many of them because of the insecurity and threats to humanitarian staff. The terrorist group al Shebaab and other armed groups continue to wage war against the Transitional Federal Government, the TFG, in Mogadishu as well as against one another in an effort to expand their territorial control. Al Shebaab has resorted to using suicide bombings, most recently in an attack inside a mosque in Mogadishu, which killed dozens of civilians. Meanwhile, al Shebaab is employing increasingly brutal tactics to maintain its control over certain areas--carrying out executions, chopping off hands and legs, and forcibly conscripting youth. Mr. President, we should be appalled at this situation, but we should also be concerned because of the direct ramifications for our national security. Al Shebaab's leadership has links to al-Qaida, and it has indicated, through public statements, that it intends to provide support to al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen. Even more disconcerting, it has recruited a number of Americans to travel to the region and fight with it. In October 2008, a Somali-American blew himself up in Somalia as part of a coordinated attack by al Shebaab, reportedly becoming the first known suicide bomber with U.S. citizenship. The Justice Department has since brought terrorist charges against over a dozen people for recruiting and raising funds for Americans to fight with al Shebaab. Last September, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, testified that ``the potential for al-Qaida operatives in Somalia to commission Americans to return to the United States and launch attacks against the Homeland remains of significant concern.'' Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that an American from Alabama, Omar Hammami, has become a key figure in al Shebaab. Just this past weekend, two other Americans, neither with family ties in Somalia, were arrested in New Jersey for allegedly planning to fight in Somalia with al Shebaab. This is very troublesome news and brings home the implications of Somalia's ongoing crisis. The Obama administration has been right to refocus attention on Somalia--and to consider regional dynamics at the same time. I am also pleased that the administration has been clear in its support for the Djibouti peace process. I am, however, concerned that this process--as currently constituted--is not sufficient to unite Somalis and mitigate the ongoing crisis. As the situation there turns more dreadful, I worry that the process is becoming increasingly detached from events on the ground. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that while the administration continues to provide assistance--both materiel and diplomatic--to the TFG, we still do not have an overarching strategy for Somalia that ties our programs and policies together. As a result, we appear to be grasping at straws to ``do something'' while our national security increasingly hangs in the balance. Under the previous administration, our approach toward Somalia lacked coherence and was shortsighted. This discord gave rise to conflicting agendas that undermined each other and our credibility. Without clear policy guidance, the current administration's efforts--however well intentioned--may fall into the same trap. There is great risk that by focusing too narrowly on tactical decisions we will continue to operate without a larger strategy. Now, I understand in the early months of the administration there was an interagency effort to review our policy toward Somalia and the Horn of Africa. However, it is also my understanding that no overarching policy was established. Now is the time to renew such an effort, and as part of this initiative, we need some way to measure whether we are making progress. The administration has rightly pressed the TFG to broaden its appeal and strength, but we have seen no major improvement on that front. With the exception of its agreement with Ahlu Sunna wal Jama, the TFG has done little to expand its reach and undercut its opposition. The TFG has not become more inclusive, and it has not projected an attractive political vision to counter that of armed opposition groups. As a result, it is not becoming more legitimate in the eyes of Somalis. Going forward, we need clear guidance on what we expect to achieve with our support for the TFG, the Djibouti Process, and our efforts to weaken al Shebaab and provide humanitarian assistance. Without such a coordinated and measurable approach, we run the risk of continuing to fund the same initiatives with little progress made. Such an assessment is important not only so that American taxpayers know their money is being well spent, but also so we know our safety and security are being enhanced. There are some thoughtful observers who believe that the best option for the United States might be to just disengage altogether and let this crisis play out. The stakes are too high to do that. However, these observers are right that a continuation of the status quo will only further entrench the crisis. The current efforts by the United States and the international community are insufficient to change the fundamental dynamics of the situation. We need to go back to the drawing board and develop a strategy with measurable goals and a clear plan of how we will reach them. We also need to consider whether appointing a Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, to help create and drive policy, is once again appropriate. For years I have called for the creation of such a position--at a very senior level--but to no avail. I do believe that now is the time for this position to be considered particularly because of the direct national security implications, but also because the crisis in Somalia requires a regional approach. We need a senior official to regularly connect the dots between a number of countries in the region including Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, and Yemen in order to develop an effective strategy. In addition, having a senior envoy focused on addressing this crisis can help show the people of Somalia that we are finally serious about helping their efforts to achieve a future free of terror and conflict. In thinking about how we fit counterterrorism concerns into a broader strategy, we must be practical. Mr. President, tactical operations against individuals and networks may be justified in some cases, especially if the targets have clear ties to al-Qaida and pose a direct threat to the United States. But we need to think hard about the strategic implications and potential risks of these operations because at the same time we need to reach out to, work with, and support all Somalis who seek a more stable and secure country. The perception that the United States is only interested in tactical counterterrorism operations in Somalia has generated suspicion among Somalis and fueled anti-Americanism. Not taking that into account when planning or authorizing any tactical operations is counter-productive. Equally as important to our counterterrorism goals is the need to continue pressing for an inclusive and functional system of governance that can enforce the rule of law and provide security. In addition to supporting the TFG, we should look for creative ways to work with other governments and nongovernmental actors to encourage political consensus and reconciliation among different groups in Somalia. We need to look at the grassroots and local level and see how they can be bolstered and expanded. Helping Somalis to come together around a shared political vision and to translate that vision into a political system that makes a tangible difference in people's lives is the surest way to address our national security concerns over the long term. Achieving stability and restoring the rule of law in Somalia will not be easy or quick--nearly two decades of dysfunction have made sure of that--but we must have a strategy in place if we are to proceed. We cannot respond in an uncoordinated and ad hoc manner to the conditions that breed and empower terrorist organizations and we cannot address them on the cheap. Our national security, the fate of Somalia's people, and the region's stability demand nothing less.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has been more than 4 months since an earthquake struck Haiti, devastating not only its citizens, but also the support infrastructure--government, NGO and international--that is critical in responding to such emergencies. The U.S. and the international community rallied to Haiti's aid. Americans put their concerns to action, whether by writing to elected officials in support of greater assistance to Haiti, as so many of my constituents have done, or by contributing their own time and resources. Although it might seem to the people of Haiti, that along with the original flurry of media attention, the support of the American people has now dissipated, this is not the case. I continue to hear regularly from the people of Wisconsin, who write not only to express their thoughts and prayers for the Haitian people, but who also request that their government do everything in its power to provide continuously needed relief and to encourage close collaboration with the Haitian people to support long-term recovery and rebuilding efforts. I was pleased to support Senator Kerry's Haiti Empowerment, Assistance, and Rebuilding Act of 2010, as amended, out of committee earlier this week and appreciate the signal it sends about our ongoing dedication to helping the people of Haiti get back on their feet in this time of great need. While we work towards recovery and reconstruction, we must not lose focus on the immediate needs of the Haitian people--who remain in a suspended state of normalcy. More than 1 million people reside in camps, both official and informal, for the displaced. Major challenges remain in the areas of drainage, sanitation, food distribution, water, and coordination. Communicable diseases such as tetanus, malaria, and typhoid are on the rise. I especially share the concerns my constituents have raised about physical security for vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, who have suffered unacceptably from sexual violence, as well as for the disabled. Such populations are often the most severely affected by a lack of security and difficulties in accessing resources. I am encouraged to see funding for many of these issues and areas in the supplemental request, but, as always, the devil is in the details. We must make sure our effort to provide timely and expedited assistance is not done at the expense of doing it right. We must make sure we are coordinating with all actors working in Haiti, including the Haitian government, international donors and organizations and the people of Haiti themselves. We can better understand the needs of the Haitian people and ensure we are addressing them effectively if we make sure to incorporate their voices into the planning process. To overlook the voices of the very individuals who are experiencing such devastation would be a severe injustice and yet it appears we may be doing just that. I am troubled by reports from Haitian civil society of the obstacles to their full participation. We must not ignore the invaluable experience and insight of leaders on the ground by favoring large international NGOs over smaller grassroots organizations. We must make sure all relevant actors are at the table as we seek to implement a pragmatic and efficient plan for recovery. As Senator Kerry's bill notes, ``when the people and other civil society actors in an affected country play a significant role in the design and execution of the rebuilding efforts, the efforts are often more sustainable and more in line with the needs and aspirations of local populations.'' We must therefore facilitate the participation of civil society and the Haitian people as well as their collaboration with the international community and their government as we continue relief and transition to recovery and rebuilding. The damage done by the January 12 earthquake was all the more destructive because Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, was still recovering from the devastating hurricane season of 2008, and still struggling with poverty and stability. Prior to the earthquake, the U.N. and the U.S. Government, along with many domestic and international partners, had been working alongside the Haitian people to strengthen their country. Now more than ever, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that priorities and needs do not go unmet and that in relief and recovery we give the Haitian people, and through them our own citizens and constituents, the biggest possible returns.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, we need to improve our border security, and I have worked to do just that by supporting efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels and to increase the number of Federal agents and Homeland Security personnel on the ground in the Southwest border region. Unfortunately, the three amendments the Senate considered today that were intended to enhance border security would have redirected funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It doesn't make sense to cut funding from a program CBO says boosted employment by as many as 2.8 million jobs in the first quarter of 2010, while raising GDP somewhere between 1.7 and 4.2 percent. We face serious fiscal challenges, and we need to cut wasteful spending, but the American people should not have to choose between saving jobs and protecting our border.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Durbin, Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Sanders, Udall of New Mexico, and Harkin, and would require the President to provide a flexible, nonbinding timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It does not set a specific date for the withdrawal of such troops. It does not require the President to actually redeploy troops. It does not place any restrictions on funding. The President has already indicated his surge strategy in Afghanistan is time limited and that he will begin redeploying troops in July 2011. All we are asking in this amendment is that the President provide further details on how long this redeployment is expected to take. Our brave servicemembers and the American taxpayers deserve to know what is being asked of them as they risk their lives and spend their money to continue this war. My amendment is not about whether we support the President or the troops. All of us support the troops, and I hope we all wish the President success in Afghanistan. Nor is it about whether we agree with the President's strategy. I, for one, happen to have serious doubts about the administration's approach. But in light of our deficit and domestic needs and in light of rising casualty rates in Afghanistan and in light of the growing al-Qaida threat around the world, an expensive, troop-intensive, nation-building campaign doesn't add up for me. We should be focusing on Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other terrorist safe havens. Frankly, I am disappointed we are about to pass a bill providing tens of billions of dollars to keep this war going with so little public debate about whether this approach even makes any sense. But no matter how we feel about the President or his approach in Afghanistan, I hope we can agree on the need for an exit strategy as we approach the 9-year anniversary of a war that is showing no signs of winding down. That is all my amendment would require--a nonbinding plan to bring this war eventually to a close. We have lost 1,000 servicemembers in this war. We have spent $300 billion. I hope my colleagues will agree that the American people deserve an answer to the question: How much longer? I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Michigan, but I feel very strongly that my amendment has to be properly characterized. This is not a specific timetable. It merely asks the President to give us a vision of a timetable of when he intends for this to be over. The Senator from Michigan tries to reassure us that the President has announced a start date for us to get out of Afghanistan. Well, that doesn't work because how do we think the people of that area of the world will be reassured if we are going to only start to withdraw the troops in 2011? You take one troop out, that starts it. That is not a vision of when we intend to complete it. The Senator suggests that somehow this sends the wrong message in the region. Well, actually, the wrong message is that we intend to be there forever. We don't intend to be there forever. But you know what. After 9 years, people start wondering--9 years; 9 years with no vision of when we might depart. In fact, I think the absolute worst message in the region is an open-ended commitment. The worst thing we can do is not give some sense to the people of that region and to the American people and to our troops that there is some end to this thing. All we ask for in this amendment is some vision from the President about when he thinks we might complete this task. So when this amendment is properly characterized, it is actually a way to help us make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida and others do not win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people because they need to be reassured that we intend to make sure their country comes back to them and that it will not be occupied indefinitely. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds to respond to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I thought I had a little more. Madam President, the Senator is trying to read the amendment in a way that is simply not accurate. The amendment simply asks the President to provide his vision of a timetable by which he would intend to withdraw the troops. It is entirely nonbinding. Any suggestion that this is binding in any way on the President or the U.S. Government is completely false and a mischaracterization of the amendment. It is not binding. In fact, it allows the President specifically to identify variables that would cause him on his own to change the timetable. So how anyone can say this is a binding timetable in any way, shape, or form is beyond me. It is merely a request that the President give us his vision of when he might withdraw from Afghanistan. It is the only fair way to characterize this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, if the Senator from Hawaii consents to having the pending business set aside so that one of the speakers can offer an amendment, I assume that would be acceptable.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Then I have no objection.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, if I can respond to the Senator from Illinois, I will make my remarks, but I spoke to the Senator from Hawaii prior to this, and I believe there is no objection. If I could, I will proceed and then at the conclusion I will renew my request.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Then, Madam President, I renew my unanimous-consent request to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of calling up an amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It is amendment No. 4204, which is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, and Senator Merkley, that would require the President to provide a flexible timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment is based on legislation I have introduced in the Senate, as I mentioned, with Senator Boxer, and also that Representative McGovern and Representative Jones have introduced in the House. Our amendment would require the President to be clear about his timeframe in Afghanistan. The President has already indicated that his surge strategy in Afghanistan is time limited and he will begin redeploying troops in July 2011. All we are asking is that the President provide further details about how long he intends to leave our troops in Afghanistan, and about what variables could lead him to change his mind about this timetable. Before I go on, I want to explain what my amendment does not do. It does not set a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It does not require the President to actually redeploy troops. And it does not place any restrictions on funding. Rather, it simply requires the President to provide a timeline for the redeployment of U.S. troops. That timeline is not binding. In fact, the amendment directs the President to identify, as I said, what variables, if any, would warrant the alteration of that timeline. Secretary Clinton has already testified that she anticipates it will take 3 to 5 years to transition control to Afghan security forces. My bill would simply require the President to lay this out clearly and specifically, and to spell out what, if any, conditions would warrant a longer U.S. military presence. It allows him to provide some of this information in a classified annex, if that is appropriate. Congress needs information about expected troop levels in order to properly plan and pay for the war and to avoid future unpaid-for supplemental spending bills such as the one we are now considering. Frankly, I had hoped the days of budget-busting supplemental war spending bills were in the past. We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this war and hundreds of billions more on Iraq. At a time of massive deficits, economic upheaval, and major domestic needs going unfilled, that level of deficit spending is simply unsustainable. In fairness, unlike his predecessor, President Obama has attempted to provide realistic budget estimates for war costs in the current and next fiscal years. But beyond fiscal year 2011, the President's budget numbers are unrealistically low. It would likely cost the American taxpayer $300 billion to $500 billion to conduct the President's strategy over and above the $300 billion we have already spent in Afghanistan. I have serious concerns about this strategy, and I would be more than happy to discuss those concerns with my colleagues on the floor. It is about time we had a real debate in the Senate about this war. But I hope even those who support the administration's surge agree it should be paid for. We cannot continue to do what the last administration did and add this massive cost to the national credit card. Al-Qaida's stated goal is to bankrupt the United States of America. If we keep running up debt to pay for the war, al-Qaida may well achieve its goal. If Congress cannot provide the will to pay for this war, then we need to seriously ask ourselves, How much longer can we keep fighting it? By requiring the administration to provide its exit strategy, we can also help to provide our men and women in uniform with greater certainty about their deployments. After almost a decade of war, our servicemembers deserve to know how much longer our military operations in Afghanistan are expected to continue and, frankly, so do the American people. We have many priorities and many pressing needs, both domestically and abroad. The American people deserve more information about the administration's plans in Afghanistan so they can evaluate those plans and weigh them against other priorities, including and especially the need to target growing al-Qaida affiliates around the world. Moreover, a timetable will help make clear to our partners in Afghanistan that our support is not unconditional and that we will not continue to bear the burden of our current military deployment indefinitely. That is an important message that the current flawed Afghan leadership needs to hear. While I am disappointed by his decision to expand our military involvement in Afghanistan, I commend the President for setting a start date for redeployment, namely, July 2011. Our allies have stated that it has helped ``focus the minds'' of our partners in Afghanistan and around the world. Having a start date is essential, but alone it is insufficient. It should be accompanied by an end date too. The President should convey to the American and Afghan people how long he anticipates it will take to complete his military objectives. So long as our large-scale military presence remains open-ended, al- Qaida will have a valuable recruiting tool and our partners in Afghanistan will have an incentive to take a back seat, leaving U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers on the hook. Again, my amendment is not about whether one of us supports the President or the troops. All of us support the troops and hope and wish the President has success in Afghanistan. But no matter how we feel about the President or about his approach in Afghanistan, I hope we can agree on the need for an exit strategy, as we approach the 9-year anniversary of a war that is showing no signs of winding down. As I said before, I, for one, have serious doubts about the administration's approach. In light of our own domestic needs, rising casualty rates in Afghanistan, and the emergence of al-Qaida safe havens around the world, an expensive, troop-intensive, nation-building campaign just does not add up for me. But my amendment does not dictate a particular strategy for Afghanistan. All it does is require the President to inform Congress and the American people about how long his military strategy is expected to take. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that amendment for the purpose of calling up an amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fair Pricing for Prescription Drugs Act to help make prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. This legislation endorses the excellent work that my colleague Senator Dorgan of North Dakota has done to promote importing prescription drugs from other industrialized countries. And it includes companion language to Congressman Welch's bill to call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Here in the Senate, several of my colleagues, most recently Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, have tirelessly pushed the need for negotiation of drug prices. I am proud to have stood with my colleagues on these issues over the last decade--and feel strongly that Congress must move quickly to ensure that all Americans--whether they purchase private health insurance or are enrolled in Medicare--have fairly priced prescription drugs. Allowing for importation of prescription drugs and price negotiation for Medicare Part D are common sense policies, These are changes that Congress can make to drastically improve the affordability of prescription drugs for our constituents, save the government money, and further enhance the health reform law passed earlier this year. I was pleased to be a part of that historic effort, but the health reform law was not perfect and did not go as far as it could have to reduce prescription drug prices for consumers. I have heard from thousands of Wisconsinites about the need for health reform during my time in the Senate. The health reform law empowers consumers and small businesses for the first time in our history to demand more for their health care dollar. These changes will improve the affordability of health insurance and medical care for individuals and families. But I also continue to hear from Wisconsinites about the burden of rising prescription drug costs. They need our help. One of the fastest ways to reduce prescription drug costs is to allow for importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from other industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and European countries. Americans pay some of the highest prices for the same prescription drugs that are sold 33 to 55 percent less in other countries. Americans are now importing more than $1 billion in prescription drugs from Canada alone. In these tough economic times, and with equally safe but more affordable drugs just over the border, it is no wonder that Americans are going to such lengths to buy the prescriptions they need. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that allowing importation of prescription drugs would save consumers upwards of $50 billion. Just last year, the CBO reviewed their original estimate of government savings as a result of this policy, concluding that the government would nearly double its expected savings to over $19 billion. We do a lot of things in Congress that leave our constituents scratching their heads. Well, now we have a chance to show them we are listening to them, that we understand their concerns, and that we want to bring down Federal spending while ensuring the prescriptions drugs they need are more affordable. We can also do more to ensure affordable prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries by calling on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D enrollees. Mr. President, I opposed the legislation that created the Medicare Part D drug benefit because I did not believe the program would provide adequate financial relief for Medicare beneficiaries facing high prescription drug costs. This legislation actually included a provision which explicitly forbade the Secretary from negotiating with drug manufacturers on behalf of seniors' interests. We should have done better for our seniors. And they are living with the consequence of that decision today--with ever-rising prescription drug costs. The health reform law will provide some relief, particularly for the dreaded ``donut hole'' of Medicare Part D. But health reform does not speak to the other glaring shortfall of the Medicare Part D program-- that the government is prohibited from negotiating for better drug prices for beneficiaries. Negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries is hardly a radical idea, Mr. President. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, negotiates on drug prices and spends considerably less than the Medicare program on the same drugs. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare released a study that found that VA drug prices are, on average, 48 percent lower than Medicare Part D prices for the top 10 prescribed drugs. NCPSSM estimates that billions could be saved annually by requiring the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D. With the government on the hook for over $50 billion in drug costs for Part D alone, it is simply irresponsible to not aggressively seek new savings from negotiating prices. Focusing on lowering the price of prescription drugs rather than subsidizing insurance and pharmaceutical companies will not only provide relief for the sick, but will save taxpayer dollars. Changing how we purchase prescription drugs by allowing importation from industrialized countries and negotiation on pricing for Medicare Part D is a clear and simple way to reduce prescription drug costs, reduce government spending, and keep Americans healthier. I am thankful for the leadership that my colleagues have shown in introducing legislation on these topics, and add my voice, and my bill, to theirs in our combined effort to answer the demands of our constituents.