Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the repeal of the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell law will mean a stronger and more secure America. Discrimination has no place in American society, especially when it undermines our national security by hampering military readiness. While the repeal of this law is long overdue, ending this harmful policy does mark an important moment in the fight for equal rights for all Americans. I applaud all those who worked to overturn this policy, the many Americans who advocated for its repeal, and the patriotic men and women who will now be able to openly serve their country.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as I leave the Senate I want to take a moment to express my profound thanks to those who have served on my Federal staff over the last 18 years. I feel so fortunate to have had the honor of serving in this body, and the honor of working with these dedicated staff members. I am deeply proud of the work my staff has done, and the outstanding commitment they have shown to serving the people of Wisconsin. I ask that their names be printed in the Record. George R. Aldrich, Ed An, Anneka Anderson, Carol Anthony, Rebecca F. Austin, Jessica G. Bacalzo, Dean T. Baldukas, Mike Bare, Cyndi Bartel, Stephanie Batko, Amanda Beaumont, Jihan Bekiri, Brittany Benowitz, LaMarr Q. Billups, Laura A. Bishop, Yolanda T. Black, Dave Bolles, Patrick Bomhack, Lois M. Boos, Jon Bortin. Mary Bottari, Laura Bowman, Mark Bromley, Catrell Brown, Jeanne Bruce, Deanna M. Busalacchi, Shawn Campbell, Kevin C. Canan, Sarah Carlson-Wallrath, Aisha Carr, Dawnita S. Chandler, Brian Chelcun, Celine Clark, Nick Cornelisse, Katie Crawley, Kenneth M. Creighton, Jordan Cutler, Bill Dauster, Serena Davila, Hilary DeBlois. Robert B. Decheine, Danielle Decker, Margaret Della, Jennifer K. Dettmering, Greg L. Deuchars, Hope DeVougas, Cynthia L. Devroy, Steven Driscoll, Jennifer Eberhardt, Suzanne Endres, Erin Erlenborn, Meredith Fahey, John A. Fairbanks, Matthew Farrauto, Neil W. Fehrenbach, William M. Feitlinger, Lara Flint, Thomas E. Ford, Grey Frandsen, Jeri Gabrielson. Mirna Galic, Adrian G. Garcia, Jeanette Garza, Michelle Gavin, Ari Geller, Paul Geller, Max Gleischman, Kathleen Gohlke, Evan Gottesman, Tim Raducha Grace, Karen Graff, Ryshawnda E. Grant, Laura Grund, Ian A. Gustafson, Carl Hampton, Sean K. Hanley, James L. Hansen, Katie Hanson, Moira F. Harrington, Charlotte Harris-Benn. Jenny G. Hassemer, Kenneth C. Haugh, Ben Hawkinson, Robb Hecht, Trisha Helchinger, Alyson Herdeman, Elizabeth Hill, Russell A. Hinz, Rea Holmes, Heidi A. Holzhauer, Euphia Hsu- Smith, John B. Hwang, Michael Inners, Mary Irvine, Michael Jacob, Brad Jaffe, Gail C. Junemann, Christopher Kattenburg, David Kaufman, Jeannine M. Kenney. Maya Khan, Farhana Khera, Timothy P. Killian, Lance Kinne, Leesa Klepper, Katie Klimowicz, Casey Klofstat, Matthew Knopf, Ted Koehler, Joe Komisar, Rebecca Kratz, John Kraus, Chris M. Kujack, Andrew H. Kutler, Ruth E. LaRocque, Laura M. Langer, Peter S.Y. Lau, Savannah Lengsfelder, Robyn Lieberman. Cindy Liebman, Shannon Lightner, Christine Lindstrom, Todd S. Lipke, Sebastian Lombardi, Rebeca Lopez, Zach Lowe, Jessica Maher, Amy E. Maloney, Sarah Margon, Rheanna Martinez, Susanne M. Martinez, Jackie Martins, Sharmila Matugama, Greg C. May, Patti Jo McCann, Tom N. McCormick, Joy McGlaun, Anne T. McMahon, Molly McNab, Erin Meade. John M. Medinger, Jeff Miller, Karen R. Miller, Tom M. Miller, Trevor Miller, Nicci M. Millington, Nancy Mitchell, LaKindra Mohr, Bryan N. Mowry, Catherine S. Murphy, Michelle Murray, Jeffrey P. Neterval, John Neureuther, Matt Nikolay, Mustafa Nusraty, Tanya Oakes, Elizabeth M. O'Callahan, Chris Oechsli, Odalo J. Ohiku, Brian O'Leary. Michael P. O'Leary, Erik Opsal, Erika Pagel, Suzanne Brault Pagel, Mary Palmer, Peter P. Pedraza, Janet L. Piraino, Emily Plagman, Sarah Preis, Elizabeth Prestley, Shelly M. Principe, Emily Pritzkow, Lawanda A. Proctor, Peter Quaranto, Deborah G. Ragland, Caren Ramsey, Kristin L. Rech, Kelly Miller Reed, Jodi L. Reinke, Mary Frances Repko. Theresa Reuss, Thomas Reynolds, Mary Ann Richmond, Jay Robaidek, Francisco Rodriguez, Susan Rohol, Linda S. Rotblatt, Nick Rotchadl, Maurice A. Rouse, Katie Rowley, Rebecca Rubel, James M. Rudolf, Jacqueline Sadker, David J. Sandretti, Bob Schiff, Mike Schmidt, Darin C. Schroeder, Nicole Schultz, Bob Schweder, Will Sebern. Jennifer Francis Seeger, Nhora L. Serrano, Geoffrey M. Seymour, Michael J. Shmagin, Melissa F. Shusterman, Ravae Sinclair, Sumner Slichter, Asher Smith, Todd G. Smith, Cecilia Smith-Robertson, Victoria C. Solomon, Greg St. Arnold, Stacia Stanek, Julie E. Stansfield, Danice K. Stanton, Scott Stearns, Matt Steiner, Sara Steines, Jennifer H. Sterling, Chuck Stertz. Meritene Steward, Kimberly Stietz, Kristin L. Stommel, Karen R. Surrett, James S. Swiderski, Anthony J. Taylor, Laura E. Teelin, Jenny Thalheimer, Sara D. Thom, Kitty Thomas, Stacey R. Thompson, Jeremy Tollefson, Rene Torrado, Manuel Vasquez, Ken D. Velasco, James Verbick, Caroline Wadhams, Ala'a Wafa, Peter Waldman. Tom Walls, Adam Waskowski, Paul Weinberger, Stephanie A. Weix, Travis West, Heather White, Kirsten White, Margaret Whiting, Joel Wiginton, Michael Wilder, Jennifer J. Williams, Nathan Winn, Mike B. Wittenwyler, Cynthia Woolfolk, Bashaun D. Wray, Tom Wyler, Lisbeth Zeggane, Natale Zimmer, Graham Zorn.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I pay tribute to the memory of my friend Richard Holbrooke, who passed away earlier this week. Richard was a masterful diplomat who brought his extraordinary skills to bear on some of the thorniest issues in U.S. foreign policy. Every step of the way, from his tremendous accomplishments at the Dayton Accords to his work as U.S. Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, he showed his deep commitment to our country, and to serving the greater good the world over. I came to know Richard when we travelled to Africa together in 1999, when he was serving as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He had never been to Africa before, and yet on the trip he was able to thoroughly grasp the complex issues facing the continent immediately. His brilliance was apparent, and it enabled him to identify emerging issues quickly and push for critical action. On that trip our purpose was to focus on the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we also saw the incredible devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis firsthand. Richard called then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and told him that the Security Council needed to address AIDS directly. When the Secretary-General responded that the Security Council only addressed security issues, Richard replied that this was, indeed, a security issue. He was right, and the Security Council's subsequent discussion was a turning point as the world community began to understand the depth and severity of the crisis on the African continent. In the years since, Richard always made time to discuss foreign policy issues with me, and he always truly listened and wanted to understand my point of view, even when we disagreed. This was especially true of his work on Afghanistan and Pakistan. We didn't always see eye to eye about U.S. policy in the region, but he always reached out to me and solicited my views, and I was so appreciative of that. Those efforts on his part said volumes about him and his thoughtful approach to the complex issues he worked on with such commitment and such skill. We had breakfast the morning after one of his last trips. I could see the toll his work was taking on him, but he was terrific to be with as usual. He was completely engaging and interested in my perspective, yet still managed to work the whole room, multitasking as always. Richard Holbrooke was an extraordinary man of many talents who spent his life building a better, more just world for us all. His many accomplishments will live on as a testament to his profound commitment to our nation and to a life of public service. But for me, I will simply miss him as a friend.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, while this proposal contains a number of provisions I support, including an extension of desperately needed unemployment benefits as well as a 2-year extension of the middle-class tax cuts, it fails in at least one critical respect. Rather than include a combination of responsible spending cuts and revenue increases to offset its projected cost of nearly $900 billion, the proposal instead just adds its cost to our already massive national debt. This measure adds more to our national debt than either the stimulus bill, which I supported, or the Wall Street bailout, which I opposed. There may be good arguments to postpone fully paying for these tax cuts or, alternatively, for offsetting their cost over a number of years to avoid undermining the fragile economic recovery. But, like the Baucus and Schumer proposals I opposed earlier this month, the measure before us fails to make even the most modest effort to pay for these tax cuts. Instead, it heaps $900 billion onto an already mountainous level of debt that we are asking our children and grandchildren to bear. And much of this money will go toward unjustified tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly support the DISCLOSE Act and I believe the Senate should be allowed to consider it. I am pleased to see this bill get such strong support from my colleagues on the Democratic side, and I urge my Republican colleagues to think long and hard before again blocking it even from coming to the floor. I have a long history of bipartisan work on campaign finance issues. I am not interested in campaign finance legislation that has a partisan effect. This bill is fair and evenhanded. It deserves the support of Senators from both parties. As the name suggests, the central goal of this bill is disclosure. It aims to make sure that when faced with a barrage of election-related advertising funded by corporations, which the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case has made possible, the American people have the information they need to understand who is really behind those ads. That information is essential to being able to thoughtfully exercise the most important right in a democracy--the right to vote. It is no secret that the Senator Schumer and I, and all of the original cosponsors of the bill, were deeply disappointed by the Citizens United decision. We don't agree with the Court's theory that the first amendment rights of corporations, which can't vote or hold elected office, are equivalent to those of citizens. And we believe that the decision will harm our democracy. I, for one, very much hope that the Supreme Court will one day realize the mistake it made and overturn it. But the Supreme Court made the decision and we in the Senate, along with the country, have to live with it. The intent of the DISCLOSE Act is not to try to overturn that decision or challenge it. It is to address the consequences of the decision within the confines of the Court's holdings. Congress has a responsibility to survey the wreckage left or threatened by the Supreme Court's ruling and do whatever it can constitutionally to repair that damage or try to prevent it. In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations could not constitutionally be prohibited from engaging in campaign related speech. But, with only one dissenting Justice, the Court also specifically upheld applying disclosure requirements to corporations. The Court stated: "[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ``in the pocket'' of so- called moneyed interests. The Court also explained that disclosure is very much consistent with free speech: The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. The Court also made clear that corporate advertisers can be required to include disclaimers to identify themselves in their ads. It specifically reaffirmed the part of the McConnell v. FEC decision that held that such requirements are constitutional. The DISCLOSE Act simply builds on disclosure and disclaimer requirements that are already in the law and that the Court has said do not violate the first amendment. For years, opponents of campaign finance reform have argued that all that is needed is disclosure. Well, in a very short time we will find out whether they were serious, because that is what this bill is all about. If the Senate is allowed to proceed to the bill, there will be time to discuss its provisions in more detail, and perhaps to amend them. One amendment that obviously will need to be made is to the effective date. Any bill that passes at this point is not going to apply to the upcoming election, and we should amend the bill to make it applicable only to elections beginning in 2012. But I do want to comment on one provision that has caused controversy, which was added in the House-- the exception for large, longstanding groups, including the National Rifle Association. I am not a fan of exceptions to legislation of this kind. I would prefer a bill, like the one we introduced, that does not contain this exception. But the fact is that the kinds of groups that are covered by the exception are not the kinds of groups that this bill is mostly aimed at. Knowing the identity of individual large donors to the NRA when it runs its ads is not providing much useful information to the public. Everyone knows who the NRA is and what it stands for. You may like or dislike this group's message, but you don't need to know who its donors are to evaluate that message. The same cannot be said about new organizations that are forming as we speak to collect corporate donations and run attack ads against candidates. One example is a new group called American Crossroads. It has apparently pledged to raise $50 million to run ads in the upcoming election. Can any of my colleagues tell me what this group is and what it stands for? Don't the American people have a right to know that, and wouldn't the identity of the funders provide useful information about the group's agenda and what it hopes to accomplish by pumping so much money into elections? Even Citizens United, the group that brought the case that has led us to this point, is not known to most people. Why shouldn't the American people know who has bankrolled that group, if it is going to run ads and try to convince people to vote a certain way? Disclosure is the way we make this crucial information available to the public. But if a group is around for 10 years, has members in all 50 States, and receives only a small portion of its budget from corporations or unions, there is less reason for the kind of detailed information that the DISCLOSE Act requires. So while I would prefer that this exception wasn't in the bill, I understand why the House felt it was necessary, and I don't think it undermines the bill's purpose or makes it fundamentally unfair. Most of the complaints about the DISCLOSE Act are coming from interests that want to take advantage of one part of the Citizens United decision--the part that allows corporate spending on elections for the first time in over 100 years--and at the same time pretend that the other part of the decision--the part upholding disclosure requirements--doesn't exist. But the law doesn't work that way. As the old saying goes, ``you can't have your cake and eat it too.'' Once again, I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senator from New York and look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the motion for reconsideration and vote for cloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate should have the opportunity to debate and amend this important bill. While the bill has many provisions I support, it also includes billions of dollars of earmarks and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will dig us deeper into debt without advancing our national security. I have a number of amendments to improve the bill, including one to require that future war funding be paid for, so it doesn't add to the deficit. I look forward to the opportunity to offer those amendments.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties with the U.K. and Australia and their implementing legislation. These treaties would exempt these two countries--two of our most important allies--from our arms export licensing regime. Though I am confident our allies will use these treaties as intended, I am very concerned that these treaties may make it easier for arms dealers to divert weapons to illicit purposes. The Government Accountability Office has reported that diversion of weapons from the United States, including through the U.K. and Australia, is a major source of weapons for countries of concern to the U.S., including Iran. It has also documented how arms smugglers have relied on previous licensing exemption regimes as a cover for the diversion of arms. Finally, it has reported that U.S. officials charged with enforcing our arms export controls are concerned that licensing exemptions reduce the evidentiary trail they use to detect and prosecute the diversion of weapons. While this implementing legislation will enhance reporting to Congress, it does nothing to address the problem of not having an evidentiary trail. That is a mistake. I will carefully monitor the implementation of these treaties to ensure that they are not used by arms dealers as cover to divert weapons to illegal end users. If we have trouble prosecuting violations of the treaties, Congress may need to enact additional legislation requiring licenses in certain cases. In an age of terrorism, it is more important than ever that we control the proliferation of weapons that can be diverted to adversaries of the United States and feed regional conflicts around the world. Our licensing regime is a critical component of our effort to ensure that these weapons do not end up in the hands of our enemies. It should be strengthened, not weakened. Unfortunately, the administration appears to be moving in the opposite direction with a larger effort to decontrol the export of sensitive military equipment. In addition, I am concerned that these agreements were negotiated as treaties largely as a means to avoid congressional scrutiny. The House Foreign Affairs Committee has carefully investigated our arms export control regime and expressed concern about early attempts to provide a statutory waiver in these cases. In response to these concerns, the Bush administration sought to do an end run around the House of Representatives by negotiating the waivers as treaties. Further, it sought to limit Senate oversight by arguing that no implementation legislation was needed to ensure that these treaties are enforceable. I regret that the Obama administration took the same position. I was pleased that Senator Lugar took the time to carefully draft implementing legislation that will ensure some bicameral oversight of these treaties. However, while this addresses some of my concerns, it leaves many questions unanswered. This approach should not become the norm. I urge the administration to rely on the regular legislative process to address any future, perceived deficiencies in our arms export regime.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to vote for the motion to invoke cloture on Senator Bill Nelson's amendment to ease reporting requirements on small businesses, which are the engine of our economy. Unlike Senator Nelson's commonsense amendment, which was paid for by taking away a tax break from big oil, Senator Johanns's alternative proposal would deny health insurance for roughly 2 million Americans and raise insurance premiums for many more. We can and should help small businesses without making health insurance more expensive and less accessible.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will tighten restrictions on individuals who move between the public and private sector--the so-called revolving door. The legislation that I am introducing today aims to better protect the United States from conflicts of interest posed by this practice, particularly where it comes to senior government officials and employees going on to represent foreign entities--sometimes even the governments of the very foreign countries in which they had just finished representing the United States. There was a time when public service was held in high esteem, but the ever expanding revolving door between public and private employment has generated cynicism and frustration. By placing meaningful restrictions on how quickly former officials can access this door and where it will take them, we can reverse the trend of government employees going off to lobby for foreign entities by making clear they are not ``for sale.'' This legislation is an important reminder that public service should be treated as an honor and a privilege, and will help to ensure that government officials make decisions based on the best interests of the American people, and not on their future career prospects. Foreign governments and businesses have come to rely on U.S. lobbyists to advocate for their interests and interact with key policy makers. According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel earlier this year, data analyzed by watchdog groups found that ``[m]ore than 340 foreign entities--from governments to separatist groups to for-profit companies--spent at least $87 million on lobbying efforts in the United States between July 2007 and December 2008.'' Former senior government officials are in demand to represent or advise foreign entities after leaving office. Even from the limited data available, it appears at least four recent U.S. Ambassadors--the President's chief representatives abroad--have done this kind of work in recent years. It is not just ambassadors who go on to represent foreign entities, but also deputy secretaries, under secretaries, other categories of executive branch officials, and, of course, former members of Congress. The bill I am introducing today will strengthen the post-employment restrictions on foreign entity representation that are already in place by both length and scope. It will cover those officials, including in the legislative branch, that are already subject to revolving door restrictions, but expand the current 1-year restriction on representing, aiding or advising a foreign entity with intent to influence to 5 years. It will also expand the definition of prohibited entities to include foreign businesses as well as foreign governments and political parties. Revolving door restrictions are supposed to protect the U.S. Government and the people it serves from conflicts of interest and from Government officials appearing to cash in on their public service. They help ensure that people representing the United States at the most senior levels are not being influenced by the possibility of securing lucrative jobs from outside entities while still in Government and they help prevent inside knowledge and personal connections to colleagues still in Government from being used on behalf of private parties. These are clearly important and legitimate goals and the current 1-year prohibition on foreign entity representation is insufficient to secure them. Critics of tightening these restrictions may argue that former Government officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments can sometimes pursue very laudable aims for those governments, such as securing resources for public health needs. This is surely true. But for every such positive example envisioned, another can come to mind that is notably less constructive, such as lobbying on behalf of governments with reprehensible human rights records. Moreover, I question how healthy it is when a culture of lobbying becomes so prevalent that foreign governments seeking to advance their objectives in the United States may feel obliged to hire their own advocates in this country. We need to restore faith in government, and we can help to do that by ensuring those who serve at the highest levels do not turn around and use their influence and expertise gained during public service for personal profit and foreign interests. My legislation will help buttress the framework of restrictions that we as members of the Government impose on ourselves to ensure this broader good. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. First, I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and his staff for their efforts to make this confirmation process so thorough and transparent. The committee had the opportunity to review nearly 200,000 pages of internal memos and emails from Ms. Kagan's service as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall and as a White House aide during the Clinton administration--making the examination of her record one of the most thorough and searching in history. I appreciate that President Obama and President Clinton did not raise claims of executive privilege to try to stop the release of documents, which was a refreshing change and a practice that I hope future Presidents will follow in years to come. All but a tiny fraction of these documents were made available online, granting extraordinary access to the public. I said after last year's hearings for Justice Sotomayor that Chairman Leahy had set a new standard for transparency and public access to Supreme Court nomination hearings, and in these proceedings he did it again. I commend him and his staff for their tremendous work over the past few months. There is no question that Elena Kagan is eminently qualified for a position on the Supreme Court. She has an impressive education, she has worked at the highest levels of government, and she has served as dean of a top law school. During the hearings, she demonstrated a keen mind, thoughtful analysis, and a wide-ranging command of the law. She has developed a reputation as someone who can reach out to those with whom she may not agree and work together, and that skill should prove very valuable on the Court. I believe that because she has not previously been a judge, she will bring a different and important perspective to a Court that is otherwise entirely populated by former appellate judges. I appreciated Solicitor General Kagan's efforts to improve the confirmation process by being forthcoming in her answers. Fifteen years ago she quite fairly criticized the process in an article, arguing that the American people deserved more substantive discussions of the law. While I can't say that she quite lived up to the high standard that she set for nominees in 1995, I do believe that she tried to answer our questions as openly and comprehensively as she could, given what the confirmation process has become. I came away from the confirmation process convinced that Elena Kagan understands the appropriate relationship between the courts and Congress. As she explained at the Judiciary Committee hearing, her work with Congress during her time at the White House taught her a healthy respect for the political branches and how difficult it can be for Congress to pass legislation. I hope that she will keep this in mind before she votes to overturn a bill that Congress may have spent years drafting and debating. But while this deference is important, Solicitor General Kagan also demonstrated that she recognizes the critically important role of our judicial system in serving as a check on the other branches of government--in ``policing constitutional boundaries,'' as she put it. She spoke eloquently about the early experiences of Justice Marshall and his efforts to eradicate Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. She explained that what was so incredible about his struggle for equality was that ``the courts [took] seriously claims that were not taken seriously anyplace else. . . . In other words, it was the courts' role to make sure that even when people have no place else to go that they can come to the courts and the courts will hear their claims fairly.'' She said this was a miraculous thing about courts, and I agree with her. With regard to executive power, she emphasized that ``no person, however grand, however powerful, is above the law.'' She also talked about ``the importance of adhering to the law, no matter the temptations, no matter the pressures that one might be subject to in the course of one's career.'' These insights indicate that she will take seriously the Court's role in safeguarding individual rights and protecting the rule of law. In addition to informing the committee about the nominee, the hearings also taught us more about the Supreme Court. We have heard a lot in recent years about ``judicial activism.'' But I think the hearings helped underscore that activism is in the eye of the beholder. As Justice Souter explained in a recent speech, the truth is that the Supreme Court has to decide hard cases--cases in which a judge cannot simply read the words of the Constitution and objectively evaluate the facts. That is, a judge cannot simply act as an umpire. Judges often have to choose between positive values in the Constitution that are in tension with each other, he noted. Justice Souter reminded us that facts may look very different in different historical contexts. The quintessential example of this is the Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson--a case that by current standards would surely qualify as judicial activism but that is one of the most revered in our nation's history. What this shows us is that judging is not a ``robotic enterprise,'' as Solicitor General Kagan told the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. Judging is hard and it does, in fact, require judgment. But, Justice Souter explained, ``we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way [the Framers] must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.'' I believe Elena Kagan will fulfill that vision admirably. So I will vote to confirm Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I look forward to her confirmation as only the fourth woman in history to serve on our Nation's highest Court, and I expect she will serve with distinction--and with good humor, which she demonstrated throughout this arduous process--for many years to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will tighten restrictions on individuals who move between the public and private sector--the so-called revolving door. The legislation that I am introducing today aims to better protect the United States from conflicts of interest posed by this practice, particularly where it comes to senior government officials and employees going on to represent foreign entities--sometimes even the governments of the very foreign countries in which they had just finished representing the United States. There was a time when public service was held in high esteem, but the ever expanding revolving door between public and private employment has generated cynicism and frustration. By placing meaningful restrictions on how quickly former officials can access this door and where it will take them, we can reverse the trend of government employees going off to lobby for foreign entities by making clear they are not ``for sale.'' This legislation is an important reminder that public service should be treated as an honor and a privilege, and will help to ensure that government officials make decisions based on the best interests of the American people, and not on their future career prospects. Foreign governments and businesses have come to rely on U.S. lobbyists to advocate for their interests and interact with key policy makers. According to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel earlier this year, data analyzed by watchdog groups found that ``[m]ore than 340 foreign entities--from governments to separatist groups to for-profit companies--spent at least $87 million on lobbying efforts in the United States between July 2007 and December 2008.'' Former senior government officials are in demand to represent or advise foreign entities after leaving office. Even from the limited data available, it appears at least four recent U.S. Ambassadors--the President's chief representatives abroad--have done this kind of work in recent years. It is not just ambassadors who go on to represent foreign entities, but also deputy secretaries, under secretaries, other categories of executive branch officials, and, of course, former members of Congress. The bill I am introducing today will strengthen the post-employment restrictions on foreign entity representation that are already in place by both length and scope. It will cover those officials, including in the legislative branch, that are already subject to revolving door restrictions, but expand the current 1-year restriction on representing, aiding or advising a foreign entity with intent to influence to 5 years. It will also expand the definition of prohibited entities to include foreign businesses as well as foreign governments and political parties. Revolving door restrictions are supposed to protect the U.S. Government and the people it serves from conflicts of interest and from Government officials appearing to cash in on their public service. They help ensure that people representing the United States at the most senior levels are not being influenced by the possibility of securing lucrative jobs from outside entities while still in Government and they help prevent inside knowledge and personal connections to colleagues still in Government from being used on behalf of private parties. These are clearly important and legitimate goals and the current 1-year prohibition on foreign entity representation is insufficient to secure them. Critics of tightening these restrictions may argue that former Government officials lobbying on behalf of foreign governments can sometimes pursue very laudable aims for those governments, such as securing resources for public health needs. This is surely true. But for every such positive example envisioned, another can come to mind that is notably less constructive, such as lobbying on behalf of governments with reprehensible human rights records. Moreover, I question how healthy it is when a culture of lobbying becomes so prevalent that foreign governments seeking to advance their objectives in the United States may feel obliged to hire their own advocates in this country. We need to restore faith in government, and we can help to do that by ensuring those who serve at the highest levels do not turn around and use their influence and expertise gained during public service for personal profit and foreign interests. My legislation will help buttress the framework of restrictions that we as members of the Government impose on ourselves to ensure this broader good. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate just passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. This legislation makes historic investments in the health and nutrition of our Nation's children. In addition to increasing funding for a number of programs, without adding a penny to the deficit, it requires a long overdue update of the nutrition standards for the food in our schools. I commend the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lincoln, and its ranking member, Senator Chambliss, and their staffs for their hard work on this important legislation. I also thank our leadership for working to ensure this bill passed. I am particularly glad the bill includes provisions based on legislation, the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act, Senator Kohl and I introduced last year to improve school breakfast programs. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act will help schools invest in their breakfast programs. Many of my colleagues know that school breakfast programs face hurdles that reduce participation. This bill will help schools start new breakfast programs, as well as expand or improve existing programs. As I mentioned, this legislation also includes a provision to update school nutrition standards based on legislation introduced for the past several Congresses by Senator Harkin that I have cosponsored. I am pleased that these standards will be updated and expanded to foods sold outside of the cafeteria. I have long advocated programs and policies that ensure schools have access to fresh, local food. I worked with other Senators to ensure the 2008 farm bill removed barriers to local procurement and preference for our country's schools. Along those lines, I am glad that the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act provides funding for farm-to-school programs which help connect farmers to schools and provide children with a new perspective on nutrition and food. Many Americans are now generations removed from the farm, and these programs can provide valuable knowledge of where food comes from and how it is grown. They can also provide farmers with a new marketing opportunity and allow them to collaborate directly with local schools. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act also reauthorizes a number of important programs outside of schools, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, afterschool feeding programs and Summer Meals. These programs are all critical to ensuring that our children do not go hungry outside of the school environment as well. I am also glad that the bill includes provisions to streamline our nutrition programs, such as direct certification, categorical eligibility, and community eligibility. It also includes funding for pilot programs to improve methods of providing healthy food to our children, which will allow local schools to try programs that work for them and will likely generate creative new ideas to national problems. I commend Senators Lincoln and Chambliss for ensuring the full cost of this legislation is offset. Though I might have preferred different offsets, I am pleased that we are able to improve our child nutrition programs without passing the cost onto the very children these programs will help.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I voted in support of the confirmation of General Clapper to be Director of National Intelligence. He is clearly qualified for the position and his extensive experience at various intelligence agencies and at the Pentagon should give him a clear sense of the challenges ahead. Over the course of the confirmation process, General Clapper provided encouraging responses on a number of issues. He expressed clear support for the declassification of the top-line intelligence budget, which would allow for the establishment of a separate intelligence budget. This reform, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission and passed by the Senate, would improve transparency, accountability and oversight. He also agreed with the principle that the public should be made aware of secret interpretations of law. Finally, in a welcome shift from the previous DNI, General Clapper expressed openness to recommendations provided by an independent commission related to the integration of the intelligence community and those in the U.S. Government who collect information openly. Legislation to create this commission has also passed the Senate. On other issues, General Clapper's responses were less encouraging. He indicated that he would be a ``zealous advocate'' for full notification of the committee, and I have no reason to doubt that. But, when asked about statutory reporting requirements under the National Security Act, he cited an incorrect interpretation of the law, specifically the assertion that the ``Gang of Eight'' provision that appears only in the covert action section could apply to other intelligence activities. As DNI, General Clapper will be responsible for adhering to the law, regardless of the views of counsel. I am also concerned about his responses to questions on the PATRIOT Act, in which he described proposed safeguards on National Security Letter authorities as ``crippling.'' As he becomes familiar with these and other surveillance authorities, and the abuses associated with them, I hope that he will become more open to efforts to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. General Clapper has testified that the DNI already has sufficient authorities, and I agree that the ODNI should not be expanded for its own sake. But there are specific, identifiable problems with how the intelligence community spends taxpayer dollars which are addressed in provisions of the intelligence authorization bill and my Control Spending Now legislation. While I will continue to fight for those provisions, I have asked General Clapper to tackle these issues with or without new statutory authorities. I will also continue to seek greater access by the GAO to the intelligence community, an issue on which General Clapper has expressed some flexibility. Finally, General Clapper is in a unique position to address one of the great failings of intelligence reform thus far--the extent to which intelligence and intelligence-related activities are conducted by the military, away from the oversight of the congressional intelligence committees. In some cases, such as cybersecurity operations, I remain concerned about the division of authorities but have been kept reasonably informed. In other cases, specifically the Department of Defense's use of ``Section 1208'' authorities to assist foreign forces and irregular groups supporting counterterrorism operations around the world, I have generally been stonewalled. General Clapper has stated that, as DNI, these activities will not be his responsibility. But the DNI, particularly one with General Clapper's background, should be assertive in ensuring that the intelligence community and the military are operating in a coordinated fashion under coherent and consistent policies, and that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully informed of all relevant programs and operations.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am voting to end a filibuster that is blocking critical funding for Wisconsin. Passage of this bill, as amended, would help prevent major cuts to education and health care funding as my State, and other States, continue to struggle to make up budget shortfalls due to the biggest recession since the Great Depression. While I do not agree with all of the offsets in the bill, I am pleased that it is fully offset. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the budget deficit by $1.4 billion over the next decade. Supporting this fiscally responsible funding is the right thing to do for our children and for the many Wisconsinites who depend on BadgerCare.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to discuss the important relationship that our country has with the East African nation of Uganda. Last month, Uganda was targeted by horrific bombings that killed 76 people and wounded scores more. We all continue to mourn for the victims of this cowardly attack and sympathize with the people and government of Uganda. The Somali terrorist group, al Shebaab, whose leaders have links to al- Qaida, has claimed responsibility and likely targeted Uganda because of its role in AMISOM, the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia. Uganda has contributed a large part of the troops for this difficult but important mission, and its commitment has not yielded in the aftermath of this attack. The United States has long had a strong friendship and partnership with Uganda that has deepened in recent years, especially as Uganda has become more of a regional leader. We have worked closely with Uganda to address the crisis in Somalia, through bolstering AMISOM and supporting the fragile transitional government in Mogadishu. We have also supported the Ugandan army's operations across central Africa to dismantle the Lord's Resistance Army and end their horrific atrocities. Meanwhile, as a nonpermanent member of the U.N. Security Council since 2009, Uganda has worked with us on many important initiatives. And finally, we have long provided support for the Ugandan government's efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, improve access to education, and more. This has been a fruitful relationship for both countries and it is in both of our interests to continue to collaborate in order to address pressing regional and domestic challenges. That is why I believe we must encourage and work with Uganda's leaders to ensure that their elections next February are peaceful, fair and free. Uganda's past elections have been marred by reports of fraud, intimidation, and politically motivated prosecutions of opposition candidates, causing international outcry. If these upcoming elections follow that same pattern or worse, it will put the United States and our relationship with Kampala in a very difficult position. We might have to consider restrictions to our assistance and limiting our engagement with Uganda's security forces. Unfortunately, initial signs are worrying. In his annual testimony to Congress in February, the then-Director of National Intelligence said that the Ugandan government ``is not undertaking democratic reforms in advance of the elections scheduled for 2011.'' Also, the State Department reported to Congress in April that the Ugandan government had taken no actions to further the independence of the Electoral Commission or to establish an accurate and verifiable voter registry. In that same report, State noted that the government continues to restrict opposition parties' freedom of movement and assembly and to impose restrictions on local media. Credible experts and human rights organizations have documented the government's efforts to stifle free and independent political journalism, especially in rural areas. These developments are disturbing not only in terms of Uganda's political space and democratic institutions, but also when we consider the country's stability. Riots in Buganda last September showed that regional and ethnic divisions remain strong in many parts of the country and that violence can erupt suddenly. Since Uganda gained independence in 1962, political leaders have pitted groups against one another and used force to access and control power. This legacy endures, even though Uganda transitioned to a multiparty democracy 5 years ago. Until there is a genuine effort to address these divisions, achieve national reconciliation and consolidate democracy, Uganda continues to be at risk of instability--a risk that will be heightened during the electoral period. In the aftermath of the July 11 bombings, the Ugandan government will understandably need to address security issues, and we should offer our assistance in this regard. But at the same time, it is equally important that the government reinvigorate its efforts to promote national unity and reconciliation. Divisions and upheaval surrounding this February's elections could undermine the country's unity and potentially its stability. It could also weaken the government's international reputation and partnerships. Therefore, it is critical that the government take steps now to build public trust in the election process and the country's democratic institutions. As a true friend to the Ugandan government and people, we should press them to take these steps and provide support as appropriate. The stakes are too high to ignore these issues.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2010 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2011, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election. It is important to note that the cost of this bill is completely offset by reforms to the federal irrigation subsidy program. Friends of the Earth in its 2003 Green Scissors report estimated that these provisions would save at least $4.4 billion over 10 years, which is more than sufficient to cover the estimated cost of this bill--$1.1 billion over 4 years. The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Until the 2008 election, every major party nominee for President since 1976 had participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election as well. In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee, John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant. In 2008, several of the leading candidates for President, including President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain and Governors Huckabee and Romney, did not participate in the primary system. While Senator McCain accepted the public grant for the general election, President Obama became the first major party candidate not to participate in the general election public funding system. It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse. In the post-Citizens United world, the likelihood of general election candidates participating in the system if it is not changed is greatly reduced as well. The current system completely prohibits private fundraising, requiring candidates to fund their campaigns solely with the general election grant, which was $84.1 million in 2008. Senator McCain, who accepted the grant, raised approximately $220 million for the primaries in 2008. President Obama, who did not participate in either the primary or general election public funding system, raised a total of approximately $746 million for the entire 2008 campaign. The public funding system is clearly not keeping pace with the current cost of campaigns or the ability of candidates to raise private money. This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates all spending limits in the law for both the primary and the general elections. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates. It increases the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1 and provides up to $100 million in matching funds for a participating candidate in the primaries and $200 million in total grants for the general election. In exchange for the much more generous public grants provided by the bill, participating candidates are required to focus their fundraising on small donors. First, they must agree to accept contributions of only up to $1,000 in the primaries. The current individual contribution limit, established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is $2,400. In addition, only contributors of $200 or less can have their contributions matched. Since each $200 contribution will yield $800 in matching funds, there will be a great incentive for candidates to seek out small donors. The 2008 campaign saw an explosion of small donations to the campaigns of both parties. This bill should help promote and extend this trend, which is a positive development for our democracy. Under the bill, for the first time, matching funds will also be part of the general election system. In addition to a $50 million grant, general election candidates can receive up to $150 million in matching funds, again based on a 4:1 match of contributions of $200 or less. General election candidates can also raise contributions of up to $500 from other donors whose contributions will not be matched. General election candidates, therefore, will be able to spend up to $200 million in public funds plus whatever they can raise in contributions of $500 or less. Even in light of the specter of corporate spending permitted by Citizens United, these should be adequate resources for a campaign that lasts only a few months. One very important provision of the bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. By eliminating spending limits in the primaries, the bill makes sure that candidates can continue raising and spending the money they need to remain competitive. In addition, the political parties will be permitted to spend up to $50 million coordinated with their candidates, an increase from the current limit of $15 million. Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law. The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting six months before the date of the first primary or caucus, which is approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election-- the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart. The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and lobbying reform legislation enacted in 2007. It requires presidential candidates to disclosure all bundlers of $50,000 or more. Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement. The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. The current President raised and spent more money than any other candidate in history. But he has a history of supporting the presidential public funding system, and he recognizes the importance of reforming and updating the current system. I am optimistic that he will endorse this bill, and will participate in the system if he runs for reelection. Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money. The total cost of the system, based on data from the 2008 elections, is projected to be around $1.1 billion over the 4-year election cycle. Though this is a large number, it is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2010 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2011, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election. It is important to note that the cost of this bill is completely offset by reforms to the federal irrigation subsidy program. Friends of the Earth in its 2003 Green Scissors report estimated that these provisions would save at least $4.4 billion over 10 years, which is more than sufficient to cover the estimated cost of this bill--$1.1 billion over 4 years. The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Until the 2008 election, every major party nominee for President since 1976 had participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election as well. In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee, John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant. In 2008, several of the leading candidates for President, including President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain and Governors Huckabee and Romney, did not participate in the primary system. While Senator McCain accepted the public grant for the general election, President Obama became the first major party candidate not to participate in the general election public funding system. It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse. In the post-Citizens United world, the likelihood of general election candidates participating in the system if it is not changed is greatly reduced as well. The current system completely prohibits private fundraising, requiring candidates to fund their campaigns solely with the general election grant, which was $84.1 million in 2008. Senator McCain, who accepted the grant, raised approximately $220 million for the primaries in 2008. President Obama, who did not participate in either the primary or general election public funding system, raised a total of approximately $746 million for the entire 2008 campaign. The public funding system is clearly not keeping pace with the current cost of campaigns or the ability of candidates to raise private money. This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates all spending limits in the law for both the primary and the general elections. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates. It increases the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1 and provides up to $100 million in matching funds for a participating candidate in the primaries and $200 million in total grants for the general election. In exchange for the much more generous public grants provided by the bill, participating candidates are required to focus their fundraising on small donors. First, they must agree to accept contributions of only up to $1,000 in the primaries. The current individual contribution limit, established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is $2,400. In addition, only contributors of $200 or less can have their contributions matched. Since each $200 contribution will yield $800 in matching funds, there will be a great incentive for candidates to seek out small donors. The 2008 campaign saw an explosion of small donations to the campaigns of both parties. This bill should help promote and extend this trend, which is a positive development for our democracy. Under the bill, for the first time, matching funds will also be part of the general election system. In addition to a $50 million grant, general election candidates can receive up to $150 million in matching funds, again based on a 4:1 match of contributions of $200 or less. General election candidates can also raise contributions of up to $500 from other donors whose contributions will not be matched. General election candidates, therefore, will be able to spend up to $200 million in public funds plus whatever they can raise in contributions of $500 or less. Even in light of the specter of corporate spending permitted by Citizens United, these should be adequate resources for a campaign that lasts only a few months. One very important provision of the bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. By eliminating spending limits in the primaries, the bill makes sure that candidates can continue raising and spending the money they need to remain competitive. In addition, the political parties will be permitted to spend up to $50 million coordinated with their candidates, an increase from the current limit of $15 million. Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law. The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting six months before the date of the first primary or caucus, which is approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election-- the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart. The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and lobbying reform legislation enacted in 2007. It requires presidential candidates to disclosure all bundlers of $50,000 or more. Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement. The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. The current President raised and spent more money than any other candidate in history. But he has a history of supporting the presidential public funding system, and he recognizes the importance of reforming and updating the current system. I am optimistic that he will endorse this bill, and will participate in the system if he runs for reelection. Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money. The total cost of the system, based on data from the 2008 elections, is projected to be around $1.1 billion over the 4-year election cycle. Though this is a large number, it is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to support the efforts of my colleagues to call attention to the refusal of Republicans in the Senate to allow confirmation votes on judicial nominees. We have all heard the numbers only 9 circuit and 27 district judges confirmed so far in this Congress, 7 circuit and 14 district judges now awaiting floor action, with 15 of those nominees having been reported by the Judiciary Committee before the end of May. This is an inexcusable blockade of justice in America for wholly political reasons, and it needs to stop. I am pleased also to join the senior Senator from my State, Mr. Kohl, in specifically seeking consent to debate and vote on Justice Louis Butler's nomination to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin. Justice Butler, who was the first African American to serve on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, was first reported by the Judiciary Committee on December 3, 2009. He has essentially been waiting for the full Senate to take up his nomination for more than 7 months. Justice Butler is the product of a system for picking Federal judges and U.S. attorneys in our State that has been used since the late 1970s. A nominating commission interviews and considers applicants and presents a slate of candidates to the Senators. We then send our recommendations to the President drawn solely from the commission- approved slate. This process has yielded highly qualified nominees under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and the nominees have had the support of both Republican and Democratic Senators. Justice Butler clearly has the experience and the qualifications needed to serve with distinction as a U.S. District Court judge. First, he has experience as a judge on both the trial court and appellate court levels in Wisconsin. He understands the difference between following precedent and making precedent. Handling criminal trials is probably the biggest job of a Federal trial judge, and Justice Butler has a great deal of criminal experience both as a judge and as a public defender in his early days as a practicing lawyer. He is well versed in Wisconsin law, which as we know is often applied in diversity jurisdiction cases in the Federal courts. Justice Butler is widely admired for his intellect and his judicial temperament. In 1997, Milwaukee Magazine named him the top municipal judge in the city. He has been a law professor. In short, he has a depth of experience that is unusual for a nominee to the district court. Justice Butler has been a trailblazer in our State. As I mentioned, he was the first African American to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and he would be the first African American to be a judge on the Western District. He is a man of great distinction and achievement. Justice Butler is a thoughtful and conscientious judge. I know I will not agree with every decision he makes, just as I do not necessarily agree with everything he has said or done thus far. But I know he will be conscious of the judicial role, and that he will make his decisions based on the facts and the law and do his very best to carry out his responsibilities with dignity and care, as he has done throughout his career. Now I understand that Justice Butler's nomination is opposed by some Members of the Senate and a number of outside organizations. The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted against the nomination. They have every right to do so, and I respect their positions. I believe the arguments against him are misguided and unfair. But I am prepared to have that debate on the Senate floor and live with the result, if only the Republicans will allow the debate to take place. It is time for the delay of Justice Butler's nomination and the other nominations that have been pending for months to end. Let's have a debate and a vote. I thank Mr. Kohl and my other colleagues for shining a spotlight on this issue, and I hope we can look forward to debating and voting on the pending judicial nominations soon. Such delay, particularly for a district court nominee, is unprecedented. I urge my colleagues to consider Justice Butler's nomination forthwith. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly support the DISCLOSE Act and I believe the Senate should be allowed to consider it. I am pleased to see this bill get such strong support from my colleagues on the Democratic side, and I urge my Republican colleagues to think long and hard before blocking it even from coming to the floor. I have a long history of bipartisan work on campaign finance issues. I am not interested in campaign finance legislation that has a partisan effect. This bill is fair and evenhanded. It deserves the support of Senators from both parties. As the name suggests, the central goal of this bill is disclosure. It aims to make sure that when faced with a barrage of election-related advertising funded by corporations, which the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case has made possible, the American people have the information they need to understand who is really behind those ads. That information is essential to being able to thoughtfully exercise the most important right in a democracy--the right to vote. It is no secret that Senator Schumer and I, and all of the original cosponsors of the bill, were deeply disappointed by the Citizens United decision. We don't agree with the Court's theory that the first amendment rights of corporations, which can't vote or hold elected office, are equivalent to those of citizens. And we believe that the decision will harm our democracy. I, for one, very much hope that the Supreme Court will one day realize the mistake it made and overturn it. But the Supreme Court made the decision and we in the Senate, along with the country, have to live with it. The intent of the DISCLOSE Act is not to try to overturn that decision or challenge it. It is to address the consequences of the decision within the confines of the Court's holdings. Congress has a responsibility to survey the wreckage left or threatened by the Supreme Court's ruling and do whatever it can constitutionally to repair that damage or try to prevent it. In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations could not constitutionally be prohibited from engaging in campaign related speech. But, with only one dissenting Justice, the Court also specifically upheld applying disclosure requirements to corporations. The Court stated: [P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ``in the pocket'' of so- called moneyed interests. The Court also explained that disclosure is very much consistent with free speech: The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. The Court also made clear that corporate advertisers can be required to include disclaimers to identify themselves in their ads. It specifically reaffirmed the part of the McConnell v. FEC decision that held that such requirements are constitutional. The DISCLOSE Act simply builds on disclosure and disclaimer requirements that are already in the law and that the Court has said do not violate the first amendment. For years, opponents of campaign finance reform have argued that all that is needed is disclosure. Well, in a very short time we will find out whether they were serious, because that is what this bill is all about. If the Senate is allowed to proceed to the bill, there will be time to discuss its provisions in more detail, but let me comment on one provision that has caused controversy, which was added in the House-- the exception for large, longstanding groups, including the National Rifle Association. I am not a fan of exceptions to legislation of this kind. I would prefer a bill, like the one we introduced, that does not contain this exception. But the fact is that the kinds of groups that are covered by the exception are not the kinds of groups that this bill is mostly aimed at. Knowing the identity of individual large donors to the NRA when it runs its ads is not providing much useful information to the public. Everyone knows who the NRA is and what it stands for. You may like or dislike this group's message, but you don't need to know who its donors are to evaluate that message. The same cannot be said about new organizations that are forming as we speak to collect corporate donations and run attack ads against candidates. One example is a new group called American Crossroads. It has apparently pledged to raise $50 million to run ads in the upcoming election. Can any of my colleagues tell me what this group is and what it stands for? Don't the American people have a right to know that, and wouldn't the identity of the funders provide useful information about the group's agenda and what it hopes to accomplish by pumping so much money into elections? Even Citizens United, the group that brought the case that has led us to this point, is not known to most people. Why shouldn't the American people know who has bankrolled that group, if it's going to run ads and try to convince people to vote a certain way? Disclosure is the way we make this crucial information available to the public. But if a group is around for 10 years, has members in all 50 States, and receives only a small portion of its budget from corporations or unions, there is less reason for the kind of detailed information that the DISCLOSE Act requires. So while I would prefer that this exception wasn't in the bill, I understand why the House felt it was necessary, and I don't think it undermines the bill's purpose or makes it fundamentally unfair. Most of the complaints about the DISCLOSE Act are coming from interests that want to take advantage of one part of the Citizens United decision--the part that allows corporate spending on elections for the first time in over 100 years--and at the same time pretend that the other part of the decision--the part upholding disclosure requirements--doesn't exist. But the law doesn't work that way. As the old saying goes, ``you can't have your cake and eat it too.'' Once again, I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senator from New York and look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted to end debate on the House amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill because that amendment addresses important domestic priorities for Wisconsin and this country without adding a penny to the deficit. The amendment provides $10 billion to help school districts around the country facing funding shortfalls due to the ongoing recession, all of it paid for. It also provides almost $5 billion in fully offset funding to help ensure that the millions of low income students who receive Pell grants do not see reductions in their awards. The House amendment also includes a provision to give public safety employees, like firefighters and police officers, collective bargaining rights. While Wisconsin and other States already protect public safety employees' collective bargaining rights, there are still several States that do not. Police officers, firefighters, and other public safety officers are on the front lines of protecting our communities and we should ensure that these hard working professionals have the ability to bargain for better wages and working conditions. However, I continue to oppose funding for a massive, open-ended war in Afghanistan. This war funding will add tens of billions to our deficit without contributing to our national security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to express my concern about the future of the Kimberley Process, the global voluntary initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds. Last week, key members of the Kimberley Process, including governments, industry representatives, and civil society groups, met in St. Petersburg to break the deadlock over whether Zimbabwe should be certified to export its diamonds. A year ago, a review mission of the Kimberley Process traveled to Zimbabwe and documented extensive smuggling of diamonds and abuses against civilians by police and army forces at diamond sites. This rightly led to Zimbabwe's suspension from the process. However, Zimbabwe has threatened to continue with its exports regardless, and there has been a push by some Kimberley Process members to reinstate its certification. Last week's meeting resulted in an agreement allowing Zimbabwe to export a limited number of diamonds on the condition that a new Kimberley Process Review Mission is permitted to return to the country and monitor conditions. This may be a workable agreement on paper, but it can only succeed with the good faith efforts of all parties, not least the Government of Zimbabwe. I am disappointed that members of the Kimberley Process did not take a stronger stand against certifying Zimbabwe's diamonds for export. Without proof that the government in question has changed the conditions that resulted in suspension, granting certification may be undermining the core components of the process. The onus should be on a government to prove such change has occurred before it is reinstated, not after. Now if this agreement is not implemented, I worry that it will be a significant blow to the credibility of the process. Zimbabwe is not the only country raising issues that threaten the credibility of the Kimberley Process. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that there continue to be abuses and killings by soldiers and private security guards in Angola around diamond mines. Angola is reportedly the world's fifth-largest diamond producer in terms of overall value. Meanwhile, the United Nations Expert Group on Cote D'Ivoire has reported for years on how groups in northern Cote D'Ivoire continue to extract and smuggle diamonds through neighboring countries in violation of UN sanctions. Diamond smuggling is also reportedly rampant in Venezuela, while the government there continues to evade the Kimberley Process. Across these countries and many others, weak government controls and limited enforcement options are enabling illicit diamonds to continue to enter the legitimate trade. The inability of the Kimberley Process to effectively address these problems has exposed significant loopholes within the process. To begin with, the Kimberley Process defines ``conflict diamonds'' as ``rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments.'' While this definition may have made sense in light of the civil wars in countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia, it does not capture abuses and violence perpetrated today by government forces in diamond-producing areas around the world. In addition, the process lacks a clear, agreed-upon approach for dealing with cases of noncompliance like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. As we move into the 10th year of Kimberley's existence, we need to take a serious look at how we can best ensure the certification scheme has real power to investigate, monitor, and curb the illegal flow of diamonds, including ensuring serious consequences when a country does not live up to its commitments. Since its inception, I have strongly supported the Kimberley Process as a vehicle to stop the trade in conflict diamonds and protect consumers and legitimate diamond producers from unwittingly participating in abuses. And the Kimberley Process has achieved a great deal in this respect, despite being a voluntary process and thereby having obvious limitations. But now I strongly believe we need to see the Kimberley Process recommit to its human rights agenda at the same time that it deals with the technical and procedural challenges that hamper its effectiveness. We still have a long way to go in curbing the flow of conflict diamonds and ensuring they do not make their way into our markets. For these reasons, I believe we must look seriously at the effectiveness of the Kimberley Process and consider revamping its framework so it has real teeth. Doing so will require strong leadership, and I believe the United States as the world's largest consumer of diamonds and a key player in the creation of the process is well positioned to provide that leadership. Senator Leahy and I have urged the Obama administration to put the United States forward to be vice-chair of the Kimberley Process for 2011 and thus chair in 2012. It is in our national interest to have a strong Kimberley Process, and it is a critical moment for the United States to exhibit leadership to that end.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and people around the world in condemning the horrific bombings in Uganda last Sunday. These attacks killed scores of innocent people and wounded many others who had peacefully gathered to watch the World Cup final. I was particularly saddened to learn that Nate Henn, an American who worked as a volunteer with Invisible Children to help children affected by war in Uganda's northern region, was among those murdered in this cowardly act. I have worked closely with members of the Invisible Children team to bring attention to the atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army, and I know their passion and dedication. I offer my deepest condolences to the Henn family and the whole Invisible Children family, as well as to all the other victims and their families. The United States has close ties and a strong working partnership with the people and Government of Uganda, and we stand with them in this difficult moment. I strongly support efforts by the U.S. Government to assist Ugandan authorities to investigate these attacks and bring the perpetrators to justice. And given the news of another attempted attack on Tuesday, we should also help the government take enhanced security measures. At the same time though, we should encourage the government to avoid any actions that could be seen as broadly targeting Somalis or the Muslim community more generally in Uganda. These communities in Uganda have not been known for violent or extremist activity in the past, and it would be counterproductive to alienate them. They should be allies in seeking to identify and apprehend those individuals behind these heinous attacks. Al Shebaab, the Somali terrorist group whose leaders have links to al-Qaida, has claimed responsibility for this attack. Al Shebaab has been threatening for months to carry out attacks in Kenya, Uganda, and Burundi, and if their claim is true, this would be the first time that they have carried out a major attack outside Somalia's borders. It would underscore the threat that this terrorist group poses not only to neighboring countries but throughout Africa and potentially even to the United States. For years, I have drawn attention to the continuing conflict in Somalia and its direct ramifications for our national security. As I mentioned, al Shebaab's leadership has links to al-Qaida and has indicated a desire to work with al-Qaida affiliates worldwide, particularly al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula in Yemen. In addition and perhaps even more disconcerting, al Shebaab has recruited a number of Americans to travel to the region and fight. In October 2008, a Somali- American blew himself up in Somalia as part of a coordinated attack by al Shebaab. The Justice Department has since brought terrorist charges against more than a dozen people for recruiting and raising funds for Americans to fight with al Shebaab. These developments have not gone unnoticed by our national security leaders, and the Obama administration has rightly put greater focus on Somalia. But our policy toward the country still lacks a strategic, long-term vision, and sufficient resources. The Obama administration is providing some support to the Transitional Federal Government and to the AU peacekeeping force in Mogadishu, but this support has done little to change the fundamental dynamics of the situation. We need to go back to the drawing board and develop a strategy that directly targets the conflicts and conditions that are bolstering al Shebaab and, by extension, al-Qaida. That strategy may entail greater support for the TFG and AMISOM, but we may also need to explore alternative options. To carry out such a strategy, we need a diplomatic effort equal to the challenges we face in Somalia. We need an increased, strengthened team with the necessary resources, access, and mandate to engage with actors in Somalia and across the wider region. I have called on the President and Secretary of State to appoint a senior envoy to help oversee such a diplomatic effort toward Somalia. Such an envoy could also advance much needed public diplomacy efforts to address the high level of suspicion and resentment with which many Somalis continue to view the United States. And finally, this person could help ensure that we are connecting the dots among all the other countries affected by the Somalia crisis and al Shebaab. Mr. President, there are no easy or quick solutions to Somalia's troubles, and attempts by external actors to impose solutions have failed. But as the tragic events in Uganda this week should make clear, the current situation in Somalia is intolerable--for the region and the international community, not to mention the Somali people who continue to suffer one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. We cannot afford to just continue with our current halfhearted efforts and hope for the best. Working with our regional partners and others in the international community, we need to get serious about a new push for peace and stability in Somalia.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose the conference version of the Dodd-Frank bill. While it includes some positive provisions, it fails its most important mission, namely to ensure that taxpayers, consumers, businesses, and workers won't be victims of another financial crisis like the one which a few years ago triggered the worst recession our Nation has experienced since the Great Depression. The measure certainly contains many good things, but those positive provisions do not outweigh the bill's serious failings. Of the several significant flaws in the bill, I will focus on two--the failure to reinstate the well- proven protections first established by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that were repealed a decade ago, and the failure to firmly and finally address the essential problem posed by too-big-to-fail financial institutions. Earlier this year I was pleased to cosponsor a bill introduced by the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, to restore the safeguards that were enacted as part of the famous Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. And I was also pleased to cosponsor her amendment to the Financial Regulatory Reform bill, which was based on that legislation. It went to the very core of what the underlying bill we are considering seeks to address. Unlike some other proposals we considered, that amendment had a track record we can review, because the economic history of this country can be divided into three eras--the time before Glass-Steagall, the Glass- Steagall era, and the most recent post-Glass-Steagall era. In the first era--the time before the enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933--financial panics were frequent and devastating. Even before the market crash in 1929, the panics of 1857, 1873, 1893, 1901, and 1907 wrecked our economy, putting thousands of firms out of business, and leaving family breadwinners across the country without jobs. In the wake of the 1929 crash--the last great panic of that first era--4,000 commercial banks and 1,700 savings and loans failed in this country, triggering the Great Depression that eliminated jobs for a quarter of the workforce. It was that last financial crisis that spurred enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which marks the beginning of the second of our financial history's three eras. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 put a stop to financial panics. It stabilized our banking system by implementing two key reforms. First, it established an insurance system for deposits, reassuring bank customers that their deposits were safe and thus forestalling bank runs. And second, it erected a firewall between securities underwriting and commercial banking. Financial firms had to choose which business to be in; they couldn't do both. That wall between Main Street commercial banking and Wall Street investment financing was a crucial part of establishing the deposit insurance safety net because it prevented banks that accepted FDIC- insured deposits from making speculative investment bets with that insured money. The Glass-Steagall Act was an enormous success. It helped prevent any major financial crisis in this country for most of the 20th century, and that financial market stability helped foster the economic growth we enjoyed for decades. And that brings us to the last of the three eras--the post-Glass- Steagall era. All that wonderful financial market stability that we had enjoyed for decades began to unravel when, in the 1980s, Wall Street lobbyists spurred regulators to undermine financial regulations, including the very firewall between Main Street banking and Wall Street investing that Glass-Steagall had established, and that had worked so well. That firewall was completely torn down when Wall Street lobbyists convinced Congress to pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. We have seen the disastrous results of that ill-considered policy. It's a major part of the reason the financial regulatory reform bill was considered by this body. I voted against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the Glass-Steagall protections. The financial and economic record of that bill has been disastrous. If the financial regulatory reform bill before us did nothing else, it should have fixed the problems created by that ill-advised act. Just a few weeks ago, at one of the listening sessions I hold in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year, a community banker from northwestern Wisconsin urged me to support restoring the Glass-Steagall protections. He rightly pointed out how the lack of those protections led directly to the Great Depression. And he argued that the bill we are currently debating doesn't go far enough in this respect. That community banker was absolutely right. The bill before us tries to make up for the lack of a Glass-Steagall firewall by establishing some new limitations on the activities of banks, and gives greater power and responsibility to regulators. All of that is well intentioned, but we all know just how creative financial firms can be at eluding these kinds of limits and regulatory oversight when so much profit is at stake. No amount of oversight is an effective substitute for the legal firewall established by Glass-Steagall. The era in our financial history in which the Glass-Steagall protections were in force was notable for the lack of instability and turmoil that had been a regular feature of our financial markets prior to Glass-Steagall, and that helped bring our economy to the brink after Glass-Steagall safeguards were repealed. Congress should have restored those time-tested protections, and reestablished the stability that brought our Nation half a century of remarkable economic growth. We could have achieved that by adopting the Cantwell amendment. But, as we know, the Cantwell amendment was not even permitted a vote, such was the opposition to that commonsense reform by those who were guiding this legislation. So our financial markets will continue to remain adrift in the brief but ruinous post-Glass-Steagall era. The other flaw I will highlight is the measure's failure to directly address what in many ways is the reason we are here today, namely the problem of too big to fail. During the Senate's consideration of the measure, several amendments were offered that sought to confront that problem. Two of them, one offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and one offered by the Senators from Ohio, Mr. Brown, and Delaware, Mr. Kaufman, took the problem on directly. Only one of those amendments even got a vote, and that proposal, from Senators Brown and Kaufman, was strongly opposed, and ultimately defeated, by those who were shepherding the bill through the Senate. As I noted, the problem of too big to fail is the reason we are considering financial regulatory reform legislation. It was the threat of the failure of the Nation's largest financial institutions that spurred the Wall Street bailout. I opposed that measure as well, in part because it was not tied to fundamental reforms of our financial system that would prevent a future crisis and the need for another bailout. There can be no doubt that we could have had a much tougher reform package if the bailout had been tied to such a measure. Nor should there be any doubt about the role Congress has played in aggravating the problem of too big to fail. Fifteen years ago, the six largest U.S. banks had assets equal to 17 percent of our GDP. Today, after the enactment of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching bill and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, the six largest U.S. banks have assets equal to more than 60 percent of our GDP. Years ago, a former Senator from Wisconsin, William Proxmire, noted that as banking assets become more concentrated, the banking system itself becomes less stable, as there is greater potential for system wide failures. Sadly, Senator Proxmire was absolutely right, as recent events have proved. Even beyond the issue of systemic stability, the trend toward further concentration of economic power and economic decisionmaking, especially in the financial sector, simply is not healthy for the Nation's economy. Historically, banks have had a very special role in our free market system: They are rationers of capital. While in recent decades we have seen changes in the capital markets that provide the largest corporations with other options to access needed capital, small businesses still remain dependent on the traditional banking system for the capital that is essential to them. So when fewer and fewer banks are making the critical decisions about where capital is allocated, there is an increased risk that many worthy enterprises will not receive the capital needed to grow and flourish. For years, a strength of the American banking system was the strong community and local nature of that system. Locally made decisions made by locally owned financial institutions--institutions whose economic prospects were tied to the financial health of the communities they served--have long played a critical role in the economic development of our Nation and especially for our smaller communities and rural areas. But we have moved away from that system. Directly as a result of policy changes made by Congress and regulators, banking assets are controlled by fewer and fewer institutions, and the diminishment of that locally owned and controlled capital has not benefited either businesses or consumers. Beyond the problems to our capital markets created by this development, there is Senator Proxmire's warning about the increased risk of system wide failure. Taxpayers across the country must now realize that Senator Proxmire's warning about the concentration of banking assets proved to be all too prescient when President Bush and Congress decided to bail out those mammoth financial institutions rather than allowing them to fail. Some may argue that instead of imposing clear limits on the size of these financial behemoths, the bill before us seeks to limit their risk of failing by tightening the rules that should govern their behavior. And, they might add, the measure also permits regulators to address these matters more directly than ever before. But we have seen how Wall Street interests can maneuver around inconvenient regulations. Moreover, the track record of the regulators themselves has been troubling at best, and yet this bill relies on that same system to protect taxpayers and the economy from another financial market meltdown. Today, the 10 largest banks have more than $10 trillion in assets. That is the equivalent of more than three-quarters of our Nation's GDP. And no one believes that, if one or more of those financial institutions were to get into trouble, they would be allowed to simply fail. The risk to the financial markets and the economy is seen as too great. They are literally too big to fail. And that is the problem. As economist Dean Baker has noted, too big to fail implies two things: First, knowing the government will stand behind the debt-of- too-big to fail institutions, creditors will view those institutions as better credit risks and lower the cost of credit to them; and second, too-big-to-fail firms are able to engage in riskier behavior than other firms because creditors know the government will stand behind a too- big-to-fail firm if it gets in trouble, they will keep the money flowing when they otherwise might have closed it off. Baker is exactly right when he says that this is a recipe for many more bailouts. Too big to fail has been a growing problem for more than a decade. Yet nothing in the Dodd-Frank bill requires that those enormous financial firms be whittled down to a size that would permit them to fail without disastrous consequences for financial markets or the economy. In fact, as Peter Eavis noted in the Wall Street Journal, the bill actually ``enshrines the bailout architecture, and thus the `too- big-to-fail' distortions in the economy.'' And those distortions are not limited to the kind of massive, systemic collapse of the financial markets, which we just experienced. Too-big-to-fail distortions occur daily. They happen whenever a smaller community bank is competing with an enormous too-big-to-fail bank. Dean Baker calculated that the credit advantage the very biggest banks have over smaller institutions because of too-big-to-fail distortions is worth possibly $34 billion a year. Those who doubt such a distortion need only talk to a community banker for a few minutes to understand just how real it is. Some suggest we should pass this bill because, despite the failings I have just described, it contains some positive reforms and that we should enact those improvements and then work to achieve the critically needed reforms that remain. That analysis assumes there will be some second great reform effort which will build on the work begun in this legislation, and that simply isn't going to happen. This is the bill. In the wake of the financial crisis and bailout, Congress essentially gets one shot to correct things and prevent a future crisis and bailout. There will be no financial regulatory reform, part two. Nobody seriously thinks the White House is planning a second reform package to go after too big to fail and to reinstate Glass-Steagall protections. Nor does anyone believe the Senate Banking Committee or the House Banking Committee is drafting a followup bill to deal with those issues. For that matter, I know of no advocacy groups that are seriously planning a followup reform effort to go after too big to fail or to reinstate the Glass-Steagall firewalls between commercial banking and Wall Street investment firms. It is not happening, because this is the moment and this is bill. To minimize the failings of this bill by suggesting there will be another one coming down the pike is at best misleading and at worst dishonest. Mr. President, in this case, we have to get it right--completely right, not just make a good start. This bill fails the key test of preventing another crisis, and I will oppose it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join all Americans in mourning the passing of Senator Robert C. Byrd. For more than five decades, Senator Robert Byrd served his home State, his beloved West Virginia, with a dedication that is unsurpassed in our Nation's history. Senator Byrd was legendary for that commitment to his State, for his outstanding service as both the Senate's majority and minority leader, and for his staunch defense of the U.S. Constitution throughout his many years of public service. When I arrived in the Senate, Senator Byrd was in the midst of his sixth term, President pro tempore of the Senate, chairman of the Appropriations Committee and already a giant of the institution. It was an honor to work beside him in this body. Senator Byrd was the longest serving Member of Congress in our Nation's history, elected to an unprecedented ninth term in the Senate in 2006. It was a long road from his humble beginnings in rural West Virginia to his long and distinguished service here. Along the way, Senator Byrd's life was characterized by hard work and a steely determination. And of all the things he was determined to do, perhaps the most significant was his determination to get an education. Senator Byrd prized education, and fought to get one for himself despite difficult odds. That long effort culminated in Senator Byrd earning his law degree, after 10 years of night classes as he served in Congress by day. He was 46 years old when he graduated, and President John F. Kennedy presented him with the diploma. He shared that love of learning as a champion of continuing education, and through the establishment of the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program, which provides scholarships to high school seniors who show promise of continued excellence in postsecondary education. Senator Byrd was dedicated to the Senate and served an invaluable role as a historian of the institution. He wrote a distinguished multivolume history of the Senate, and also authored several other books. In fact when I drafted my proposed constitutional amendment on Senate vacancies, I consulted one of his volumes on Senate history. He had written a chapter on the 17th amendment to the Constitution that was very helpful in putting the issue of Senate vacancies in a historical context. As a student of Senate history, both the U.S. Senate and the Roman Senate, he was also a passionate defender of the powers of the legislative branch. One would expect no less of a man so devoted to our Constitution. Senator Byrd was eloquent as he spoke about the need to stand up for our Constitution and its principles here in the Senate, and faithfully carried a copy of the Constitution with him every day. He was very proud of his efforts to encourage students to learn more about this document and our great democracy. In Senator Byrd's lifetime of leadership, he worked on so many important issues. As the Senate's majority leader, he helped to lead the fight against the undue influence of money in politics in an effort with then-Senator David Boren of Oklahoma. Together they sponsored campaign finance legislation and worked to pass it in what has been described as ``one of the most extraordinary exhibitions of perseverance on the Senate floor, as Byrd led the Senate through eight unsuccessful votes to end a filibuster.'' While that legislation stalled, it was one of the efforts that paved the way for later reforms, and I am grateful for his efforts. I respected him for that, and for so many of the principled stands he took during our service together, including his opposition to the Iraq war. He brought tremendous wisdom and insight to our work here and I know how much those gifts will be missed. Robert C. Byrd was a man who sought to learn every day of his life, and in turn taught all of us a great deal. He taught us about our nation's history, about the people he represented, and about the institution of the Senate he loved. While Senator Byrd's passing is a loss for the nation, his legacy of innumerable achievements will live on for many, many years to come. My thoughts are with his family and many friends today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the National Security Strategy released last month rightly states: [d]ue to increased economic growth and political stability, individual nations are increasingly taking on powerful regional and global roles and changing the landscapes of international cooperation. To achieve a just and sustainable order that advances our shared security and prosperity, we are, therefore, deepening our partnerships with emerging powers and encouraging them to play a greater role in strengthening international norms and advancing shared interests. The strategy goes on to note that expanding our partnerships with emerging powers includes a number of African nations, specifically South Africa. Indeed, I have great respect for South Africa's leadership on the continent and internationally and am glad that we are seeking to deepen our bilateral relationship. From peace and security to climate change to nuclear nonproliferation, we should continue to look for areas where we can team up with the South Africans. I would also like to highlight another emerging power in Sub-Saharan Africa that we should not ignore: Angola. Many of my colleagues will recall the brutal civil war that devastated Angola. In my first trip as a Senator to Africa, in 1994, I traveled with Senator Reid and Senator Paul Simon to Angola to observe the tragic consequences of this conflict. Decades of war left an estimated 1 million people dead, a third of the country's population displaced, and millions of landmines littered throughout the countryside. Yet since the war ended in 2002, Angolans have made tremendous strides to secure the peace and rebuild their country. According to a recent UNICEF study, since 2002 the percentage of children attending primary school has increased from 56 to 76 percent and infant mortality has fallen by 22 percent. At the same time, Angola's economy has registered double-digit GDP growth over recent years, mostly driven by increasing oil production. Angola's future growth prospects, however, are more diverse than just oil. According to the September 15, 2009, New York Times article, ``Angola is poised to become a hub of liquefied natural gas and diamond exports.'' With its economic growth and stability, Angola is also poised to play a greater role on regional, continental, and international issues. It has already become a major player in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, and although it is not a member of the G-20, President Dos Santos has been invited to some G-20 meetings. Angola has also become involved in critical issues relating to the Gulf of Guinea, which sits to its north. It supported the launch of the Gulf of Guinea Commission in 2006 to resolve maritime disputes and ensure regional cooperation and hosted a summit for heads of the state of the commission in 2008. Finally, Angola has the potential to play a much more active future role on issues facing the Southern African Development Community, SADC. For all these reasons, the United States has a strong interest in deepening and broadening our relationship with Angola. Secretary Clinton's visit to the country last year--in which she became the first U.S. Secretary of State to stay overnight in the country--was a major step to that end. She committed to developing a ``comprehensive strategic partnership'' with Angola and to expanding our engagement in the areas of trade, agriculture, health, and education. To follow through on this commitment, we now need to ensure that our Embassy in Luanda has the necessary programs and tools to pursue such a partnership. We need to ensure there are sufficient incentives and encouragement to attract Foreign Service officers to Angola given the inordinately high cost of living and other hardships. And we should try to ensure that we have the right staff, including representatives from other agencies that can bring expertise on issues of commerce and agriculture. But expanding our engagement with Angola should not mean ignoring or downplaying troubling issues of human rights and governance. In fact, it should be quite the opposite; we need to actively encourage reform in these important areas if we are going to pursue a truly comprehensive and long-term partnership with Angola. According to the State Department's 2009 Human Rights Report for Angola, ``The government's human rights record remained poor, and there were numerous, serious problems.'' Last weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that there continue to be abuses and killings by soldiers and private security guards around diamond mines in Angola. The international community should investigate these reports and ensure that Angola is fully living up to its commitments in the Kimberley Process. If it is not, there should be serious consequences. More broadly, we should also consider whether certain gaps in the Kimberley Process, such as promoting greater protection for human rights, can be incorporated into the oversight procedures of participating countries. We need to be realistic about what is possible with a voluntary organization, but we cannot allow ongoing human rights abuses involving diamonds to be ignored. Issues of governance are also especially important for Angola's development prospects. While the country has seen tremendous overall economic growth in recent years, most Angolans have seen little, if any, direct benefit. Corruption remains a serious and deep-seated problem in Angola, including in the oil sector. For 2009, Transparency International ranked Angola 162nd out of 180 countries in its annual Corruption Perceptions Index. A report released in February by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations documented how certain Angolan officials have sought to use U.S. banks and financial institutions to conceal funds acquired through corruption. The Angolan Government has acknowledged that it needs to improve its fiscal management and practices, and President Dos Santos has called for a ``zero tolerance'' policy against corruption. I am pleased that the President has said this, and we should look for ways to help the government give real meaning to such a policy. At the same time, we should explore ways that we and our international partners can put pressure on corrupt officials in Angola to cease their illicit actions, including travel bans and assets freezes, and more. In terms of governance, it is also important that the Angolan Government create the space for a strong civil society to develop--one that allows for the free flow of information and includes independent watchdog institutions that can demand accountability and transparency. We should seek to expand our engagement with civil society organizations and, as is appropriate, to help strengthen their capacity and amplify their voices in policy debates. Within the government, Angola's National Assembly has the potential to play a strong oversight role, and I am pleased that Secretary Clinton met directly with the National Assembly during her visit to Luanda last year. We should look for ways, such as technical assistance and parliamentary exchanges, that we can support and strengthen the National Assembly's oversight roles. Mr. President, none of this will be easy. Some in the Angolan Government are still unwelcoming toward the United States because of positions we took during their civil war. Many Angolans are also skeptical about whether we genuinely have interests beyond accessing oil. We need to take these perspectives seriously. But I believe we can break through the suspicion and mistrust by demonstrating--through greater resources and a more visible presence--that we seek a mutually beneficial, long-term partnership with the people of Angola. In the months and years ahead, I look forward to working with the administration to that end.