Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to recognize a man whose work has touched so many people in Africa and beyond, and whose life has demonstrated the power of transformation. Tomorrow, former South African President Nelson Mandela will celebrate his 90th birthday and I would like to send him my very best wishes. As I have traveled across Africa, I have witnessed the respect Mandela commands and the pride he evokes in all Africans, across borders and boundaries. It is nearly unmatched. He is a symbol of the enduring truth that even the most intractable systems of repression and violence can be overcome with courage and persistence. The lessons of Mandela's leadership are made that much more remarkable when juxtaposed with another African liberation leader, Robert Mugabe. Upon being released from jail after 27 years, Mandela chose to pursue a path of reconciliation rather than retaliation. When he became President in 1994, he continued that approach and worked to unite the country around his vision of a ``rainbow nation.'' After one term, he stepped aside as President, realizing that institutions must take precedence over individuals in building a stable democracy. Though South Africa certainly had its share of problems since--including a skyrocketing rate of HIV, increasing political turmoil and a recent wave of xenophobic attacks against immigrants--Mandela continues to be a voice for peace and stability, a voice of and for all people of South Africa. The contrast with the continued bloodshed and repression in neighboring, Zimbabwe is stark. President Mandela's vision for South Africa not only sought peace within its borders, but also beyond them. In 1993, he famously said that human rights would be ``the light that guides our foreign affairs.'' After leaving office, Mandela continued to embody that vision in South Africa and across the continent as he focused on building support for this critical principle--whether with civil society groups or government officials. He has been actively involved in peace processes around the world and a leading advocate for global action to address HIV/AIDS. His willingness to speak out against injustice wherever it festers has inspired and challenged all of us. I am gravely concerned that the current South African leadership is moving away from this vision. Its unwillingness to publicly criticize recent abuses in Zimbabwe or allow for an expanded mediation is undermining pressure on the Mugabe regime to accept a transitional government. In addition, the announcement by the South African Government that it will oppose the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudanese President Al-Bashir is deeply disappointing. I have deep respect for the leadership South Africa demonstrates on the continent and that is precisely why I challenge its leaders to play a more active and constructive role in efforts to promote peace, security, and democracy. Mandela's legacy challenges not only South Africa, but all of us who care about the future of Africa. There is a tendency to look for easy answers or quick fixes to the challenges facing the continent today. Mandela's life is testament to the reality that sustainable peace and democracy require continued investment and long-term vision. They are not static and cannot be taken for granted. As we celebrate his 90th birthday tomorrow, I hope we will take seriously that challenge and commit ourselves to the hard work of standing up for freedom and justice. For the people of Sudan, Zimbabwe and so many other parts of the world, the stakes have never been higher.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. Although we have made significant headway over the last 5 years, the HIV/AIDS pandemic remains one of the world's worst public health crises, with millions of people infected around the globe and millions more who have already perished. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Africa, and because of the disease's disproportionate impact on sub-Saharan Africa, I would like to focus my remarks today on that region to illustrate just how critical--and urgent--it is that we pass this bill. Despite some progress, AIDS remains a severe public health concern in Africa. Indeed, HIV continues to spread, with many countries on the continent experiencing unprecedented drops in population, economic decline, decimation of militaries, and the creation of an entire generation of orphans who know no other life but that of the streets. These societal disruptions have profound consequences for the continent's future and security; already, they are impeding development in the part of the world least able to contain the epidemic or treat its victims. In December 2007, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS-- UNAIDS--reported that worldwide, approximately 35 million people live with HIV/AIDS. Similar organizations report that at the current rate, by 2015 more than 62 million people could become newly infected. Currently, over two-thirds of HIV cases are in Africa, which means there are somewhere between 20 million and 24 million adults and children in that continent who are HIV-positive. And these are just the cases we know of--these are just the reported and documented cases. As a point of comparison, the region with the next highest infection rate is Southeast Asia--with some 4 million individuals living with HIV. Since 2003 there has been a significant bipartisan effort to address this crisis with the creation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS--or PEPFAR as it is more commonly known. PEPFAR authorized some $19 billion over 5 years for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and yet in 2007 alone, 2.5 million people around the globe were infected with HIV--or the equivalent of some 6,800 per day, 4,600 of whom live in Africa. And while 4,600 Africans are being infected every day, some 6,000 Africans are dying from AIDS-related illness--many without ever realizing they were HIV-positive or, if they did know, without ever having access to any treatment for their illness. In other words, despite a ground-breaking initiative to raise the profile of the disease, to work with local communities and national health systems, and to coordinate among the international community, Africa's future remains in peril. HIV/AIDS is spreading in African countries that are already hard hit by a range of other problems including rampant poverty, political instability and a lack of basic services and education. The result is decreased state capacity and an undermining of the development of civil society. HIV does not discriminate, and it is hitting members of Africa's political leadership, its college-trained professionals, and its skilled labor forces. And as it takes its toll on these groups, it is having a devastating effect on entire generations. I saw this firsthand just under a decade ago when I traveled to Zimbabwe, and I have seen it since in other trips to Africa. At that time, reports were noting that life expectancy had dropped from 65 to 39 because of the epidemic. As I walked past the parliament building in Harare, I asked how old one had to be to become a legislator. The answer? Forty. And now, even as it copes with a new, devastating political and humanitarian crisis, Zimbabwe is experiencing even lower life expectancy rates--37 for men and just 34 for women-- even lower than the minimum age to be elected a member of Parliament in that country. Despite the critical assistance of the United States, the cold hard facts--the numbers of those infected and dying--show that even more help is needed from the international community. Last August, on a trip to Uganda, I met with a number of health experts--from government health workers to civil society representatives--to discuss how the United States can build on the good work that began with PEFPAR, and provide a more vigorous response to the disease. We discussed what had worked and what had not, and they told me very clearly that in order to put a dent in the devastating impact of this pandemic, we need to focus not only on treatment but equally, if not more, on prevention. They shared examples of why, in order to help those most vulnerable, HIV/AIDS efforts need to include programs that address gender inequity, family planning, food and nutrition, and social stigma. And they were unequivocally clear that we need to work closely with national governments and local communities to help build strong, sustainable health infrastructures that can provide assistance to their own citizens. I mention Uganda because it has been a rare example of success on the continent. The government's early recognition of the crisis and its initial comprehensive policies--including a well-organized public education campaign--are credited with helping to bring adult HIV prevalence down from around 15 percent in the early 1990s to just over 5 percent in 2001. Unfortunately by 2006, scientists were suggesting that Uganda's HIV prevalence rates were once again rising. Indeed, I heard that same concern from most, if not all, of the people I met there, as well as from the President of Uganda himself. The underlying message was that focusing on treatment is not enough. In the case of Uganda, given the rising infection rates--as with many other parts of the world--the emphasis on treatment fails to address the factors driving the epidemic. Don't get me wrong--Ugandans are grateful for U.S. HIV/AIDS funding--but they made it clear that future support would be more effective if it were more comprehensive, and corresponded more closely to national needs, conditions, and initiatives. It has become a common refrain that we cannot treat our way out of this global pandemic and I continue to believe that is the case. As long as infection rates are rising, treatment and care costs will increase, as will the disease's burden on key vulnerable populations as well as their families, communities, and countries. Scientific evidence supports the anecdotal evidence I heard from many in Uganda. It confirms there is much to be gained by integrating the treatment and care of other diseases--particularly tuberculosis but also more common, preventable ailments--with HIV programs and expanded informational awareness campaigns that encourage health knowledge and capacities. Part of the challenge of addressing HIV/AIDS is that the disease does not sit easily within any particular policy area and although there are important domestic components related to health and human services, these are also clearly questions of foreign policy and international assistance. All of these need to be integrated into a harmonious whole. And that is why today I encourage my colleagues to support The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria Reauthorization Act and to reject any amendments that would undermine this bipartisan legislation. This bill is not perfect but, if passed, it will put global AIDS programs on the road to greater sustainability and will significantly increase our commitment to reversing the crisis. We all know there can be no quick fix or shortcut to success, but we have before us now legislation that maintains and expands the United States' response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Passing this bill will ensure the continuation of U.S. leadership to prevent, contain, and combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in a way that advances a broader range of global health and development objectives. To do anything less would not only be bad policy, it would be short-sighted and counter-productive.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the Housing and Economic Recovery Act because it contains a number of provisions that will assist communities in Wisconsin and around the country as they continue to respond to the foreclosure crisis. Many housing analysts say that the foreclosure crisis and its drain on our economy could get worse before it gets better. With more than 2 million American families facing foreclosure, Congress must act both to help those Americans going through foreclosure now as well as to help prevent Americans from facing foreclosure in the future. While not perfect, this bill contains both reactive and proactive provisions that should help States, local communities, and American families as they deal with the foreclosure crisis and its effects on our Nation. Last month, the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University released its annual report, ``The State of the Nation's Housing.'' This report looks at a variety of housing statistics, including figures related to affordability issues and foreclosures. The report indicates just how grim the housing situation in our country is right now. According to the report, ``the number of homes in foreclosure proceedings nearly doubled by almost one million by the end of 2007.'' While the foreclosure rate in my State of Wisconsin is not as high as in other parts of the country, Wisconsin's foreclosure rate also continues to grow. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has compared foreclosure rates in 2008 and 2007 and reported that for the first half of this year, the foreclosure rate in Milwaukee County increased by over 40 percent when contrasted with 2007's foreclosure rate. Additionally, the Capital Times recently reported about the substantial increase in foreclosures throughout Wisconsin over the past few years, noting that ``foreclosures have more than doubled from 2005 to 2008.'' I also continue to hear from housing advocates about the individual families' stories behind these foreclosure statistics and about the rising number of foreclosures in urban, rural, and suburban parts of Wisconsin. With foreclosures continuing to rise, Congress has a duty to act. Although there are provisions in this bill that I have serious concerns about and hope to see changed, on balance, this housing package represents a step in the right direction. Last month's report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard also highlights the problem of affordability of housing and notes that there are over 17 million families whose housing costs consume more than half their income. I continue to hear about the lack of affordable housing, both for renters and homeowners throughout Wisconsin. Some housing analysts have also said that the lack of affordable housing helped to contribute to the growth in subprime lending and nontraditional mortgage products in recent years as families increasingly struggled to meet rising housing costs. I am pleased that this Senate bill addresses the lack of affordable housing in this country by creating a housing trust fund financed by resources from the Government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Over the past few years, I have heard from a number of housing advocates throughout the State of Wisconsin about the need to create a national affordable housing trust fund to supplement the affordable housing work that is going on at the local, city, and State level. Hundreds of affordable housing trust funds have been created throughout the country, including in the city of Milwaukee, and help finance the rehabilitation, production, and preservation of affordable housing. These trust funds not only create affordable housing, but they can also create good-paying jobs and help bring stability to our communities. In the fall of 2006, I introduced the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act, which among other things called on Congress to create a national affordable housing trust fund with the goal of supplying affordable housing units and sufficient income targeting to address the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low-income and very low-income families. I am pleased this legislation we are considering takes the first steps toward the creation of a national housing trust fund and contains deep income targeting to benefit extremely low-income and very low-income families. Research shows that these families often face the most severe housing cost burdens and have a difficult time finding affordable housing whether they live in urban, suburban, or rural communities. I commend Senators Reed and Dodd for working to ensure this provision was included in the legislation and I hope that the final housing package sent to the President will retain this provision. I have also heard from advocates in Wisconsin in strong support of the nearly $4 billion that is included in CDBG funding to States and local communities hard hit by the housing crisis. These funds can be used to buy and redevelop foreclosed upon homes with the intention to sell, rent, or redevelop these homes. This provision was also included in the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act that this body passed in April of this year and, at that time, I noted that the flexibility of the CDBG program will allow States and local communities to use this funding in a way that best fits the indiviaual needs of their States and communities. I am pleased that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act retains the requirement that 25 percent of the CDBG funds included in this bill be used to redevelop foreclosed homes for families or individuals whose income is at 50 percent of the area median income or less. This targeting will help ensure that those most in need are not left out of the Federal assistance provided in this legislation. I am disappointed that the President has issued a veto threat over this provision of the legislation given its broad support from housing advocates and State and local governments. This provision would provide much needed assistance for a number of States, including Wisconsin. According to the Center for American Progress, the CDBG funds in the bill will bring Wisconsin $57.2 million in direct funds for housing assistance and restore over 1,815 properties. The Senate has designated this funding as emergency funding, and while I would prefer to see this CDBG funding fully offset, this critical funding is needed in our communities now. The Senate will soon be sending this bill back to the House of Representatives, and I urge my colleagues in the other body to offset this CDBG funding rather than strike it out of this package entirely. I also support the provisions in this bill providing increased funding for mortgage counseling programs as well as provisions that enhance mortgage disclosure requirements. These provisions were also included as part of the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act that this body passed in April, and I am pleased the provisions were kept in as part of this current package. Reports indicate that the mortgage counseling dollars are a cost-effective use of Federal dollars and increased funding will provide even more families with the necessary assistance to try to reach workable solutions with their lenders in order to remain in their homes. The enhanced mortgage disclosure requirements included in this legislation will help future borrowers who are taking out their first mortgage or refinancing their existing mortgages better understand the terms of their loans and how much they can expect to pay every month. There are a number of reports indicating that some borrowers were misled into troublesome loan products and these enhanced disclosures will help to prevent some of these egregious practices from happening in the future. This legislation also contains a regulatory overhaul of the Government Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Congress has been working to overhaul the regulatory structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years in response to the accounting scandals at the two GSEs in 2003 and 2004. This legislation creates a single regulator for the GSEs that will help to oversee the stability of the GSEs, including setting up management standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. More effective oversight of the GSEs is needed and should this legislation be enacted, Congress must closely follow the implementation of these substantial GSE reforms to ensure the reforms are effective. This comprehensive housing package includes the FHA Modernization Act which has already passed the Senate twice--once as a stand-alone bill in December of last year and earlier this year as part of the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act. The Federal Housing Administration is an important Federal agency providing expanded access to the housing market for homeowners by offering mortgage insurance to families throughout the country. There is bipartisan support for modernizing the FHA to help the agency better assist homeowners in today's housing market. As with the GSE reforms contained in this bill, I will monitor the implementation of the FHA reforms to ensure that these reforms truly benefit low-income and middle-income homeowners who are the very homeowners the FHA and the GSEs are supposed to serve as part of their affordability missions. Another piece of this legislation is the Hope for Homeowners Act, which will establish a new Federal Housing Administration program that will allow homeowners facing foreclosure to refinance their mortgages into an FHA-insured mortgage. It is important to note that this voluntary program is not permanent and contains a sunset ending the program in 2011. While this program is certainly not perfect, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the program could help 400,000 of the over 2 million homeowners facing foreclosure stay in their homes. This program should be given a chance to work with careful oversight from Congress, the FHA, and HUD to ensure that borrowers and lenders are not taking advantage of the program. The Hope for Homeowners program contains a number of provisions to help ensure that the program is targeted to borrowers facing foreclosure, rather than speculators who gambled on the housing market. For example, the borrower has to certify to the Federal Government that he or she has not defaulted on his or her mortgage intentionally or provided untrue information to obtain a mortgage. The legislation also specifies that the Hope for Homeowners program is only available to mortgages that cover an owner-occupied primary residence, and not speculators who own multiple homes. Lenders will also have to agree to write down the value of the existing mortgages to be no more than 90 percent of the current value of the property. Finally, the borrowers will have to share any future equity and appreciation in their homes with the Federal Government if the borrower decides to sell his or her home or refinance his or her mortgage. This bill is not perfect. I have some concerns related to certain provisions in the bill that I hope can be addressed in ongoing negotiations with the House of Representatives. For example, I am disappointed that this bill does not include Senator Durbin's legislation which would have removed a provision in bankruptcy law that prevents mortgages on primary residences from being modified during bankruptcy. According to advocates, the Durbin legislation could help approximately 600,000 individuals or families remain in their homes. We tried to pass this legislation as an amendment to the Senate Foreclosure Prevention Act in April, but, unfortunately, the amendment met with stiff resistance in the lending community. Due to the complex nature of the foreclosure problem, we need to enact a wide range of legislative proposals to help families facing foreclosure, and the Durbin legislation is an important part of any legislative response. I voted for Senator Durbin's stand-alone legislation in the Judiciary Committee, and I hope the Senate can move this proposal forward in the coming weeks and months. We also need to address predatory lending practices that have taken place around the country and ensure that such abuses are not repeated. Senator Dodd has introduced a predatory lending bill that should serve as the foundation for comprehensive predatory lending legislation. Predatory lending practices and abusive subprime lending practices have contributed to one of the most significant challenges to our national economy in years and in order to more effectively address these challenges, Congress should pass predatory lending legislation this year. As foreclosure rates continue to grow in Wisconsin and around the country, Congress must address the problems associated with increased foreclosures. Subprime lending and rising foreclosure rates are complicated issues to unravel and any response, whether legislative or regulatory, will bring with it a set of consequences, some intended and some unintended. As this legislation moves forward, Congress and the relevant Federal agencies must monitor its effects and consider whether modifications are necessary. This package of reforms and new programs will likely not correct all of the subprime and foreclosure problems our country continues to face. But a number of the provisions in this bill will provide some help for families, local communities, and States as our country continues to respond to these serious housing issues, and I hope the House will pass and the President will sign this bill into law quickly.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to talk about the strong concerns I am hearing back home about gas and diesel prices and about a bill I am introducing today in response to those concerns. We all know that over the past 12 months, the price of a gallon of gas has risen over a dollar, from around $3 last year to over $4 today. Diesel has increased from $2.91 a year ago to $4.72 per gallon today. At the listening sessions I hold in every county of my State each year, Wisconsinites are, of course, talking about how those soaring oil prices are hurting their pocketbooks. And it is not just at the pump. They are feeling the pain also at the grocery store, on the farm, and at the ticket counter. Those high fuel prices are having a rippling effect throughout our entire economy. Wisconsinites, like Americans all around the country, are feeling squeezed. With no relief in sight, the anxiety and tension keep building. Americans are emotionally, physically, and financially drained. My colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, had it right when she stated that Americans are running on empty. Here is what I am hearing from Wisconsinites. One constituent told me: I have done everything I can to use as little gas as possible, even before prices got so high. My two-parent family (with two children) has only one car. I ride my bicycle or walk to work and use the car as little as possible. However, the rising cost of fuel is causing higher prices for food and other necessities which are becoming more difficult for my family and others. From another parent: I have an adorable child I am trying to raise on a budget that no longer reaches from paycheck to paycheck. I currently work an hour away from where I live as the jobs are not available in [my] area. Between the rising price of gas, electric/heat and food, my husband and I can barely pay our mortgage. I have heard from many others who are struggling as they care for elderly parents. One lady has a mother in a nursing home, and she used to visit her three times a week. However, with the nursing home 20 miles away and high fuel prices, now she can only afford to visit her mother once a week. That, to me, is a very poignant example--one of so many examples--of the real human impact these gas prices have. Even those who have managed their money well and have saved are struggling. One constituent commented that he had planned to put extra money toward retirement and pay down debt. With the high fuel prices, he does not have any extra money and is worried that he will end up on government assistance at the age of 57. There are more letters and more e-mails and more phone calls. The high cost of driving affects all kinds of people and livelihoods. It affects kids whose parents cannot drive them across town to a friend's house or to soccer practice because they have to conserve gas to get to work. It affects young students and senior citizens who are on fixed incomes. Small businesses are finding they need to increase prices to cover increased transportation costs. Farmers are, of course, feeling the pinch in one way or another, whether it be fertilizer or fuel or transportation or feed for livestock and dairy farmers. All over the country, people have resorted to alternative forms of transportation in an effort to escape these costs. There is a range of positive proposals to improve systems in Wisconsin from the Kenosha- Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail, extending Amtrak to Madison, or just adding buses or routes. While I strongly support long-term plans to invest in mass transit, I also recognize that at least for the time being in many parts of Wisconsin and in this country, it is unrealistic for many to rely on mass transportation. Commuting to work, be it across a large city or between two towns, is a gas- and dollar-guzzling task that many people cannot avoid or, increasingly, afford. For the large number of Americans living in predominantly rural areas, this is especially challenging due to the typically longer trips and fewer transportation options. So Wisconsinites want to know: When is the Federal Government going to provide some relief? With my support, Congress has made some progress. Last December we enacted energy legislation, H.R. 6, that raises corporate average fuel economy standards for vehicles while protecting American jobs. It also increases the requirement for alternative fuels from 8.5 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022. I also recently cosponsored an amendment to make the Federal Government stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 97 percent full. Fortunately, Congress passed this legislation, and the administration finally agreed to stop taking oil off the market to store it underground. The bill, H.R. 6022, was signed into law in May. We also made some progress in preventing market manipulation. I cosponsored the Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act, S. 577, which would help ensure that the previously unregulated trading commodities are subject to greater Federal oversight by requiring the reporting of trades, and then a similar provision was included in the final version of the farm bill which was recently enacted. These are positive steps, but much more needs to be done. So today I am introducing legislation that seeks to answer a question more and more Americans are asking, which is: Why aren't the oil companies developing 66 million acres of land that they are already leasing from the U.S. Government? Those same companies, and some of my colleagues, say we need to open more Federal lands to drilling. Well, I guess I would like to know then why the oil companies are not producing on most of the Federal lands they already have under lease. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I actually had the chance to ask the top five oil executives in the country just that question, and it was incredible. They couldn't come up with any good explanation at all. In fact, one of the executives told me they have the manpower and the infrastructure to put all of their existing leases of Federal lands into oil production. I find this troubling. No one is talking about pulling oil out of a hat, but with 75 percent of currently leased Federal lands and waters not producing oil and gas, Congress needs to insist on some accountability on this point. This is why today I am introducing the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act. This bill says if oil and gas companies want to lease additional lands, they must either be producing or diligently developing their existing Federal leases, or they have to give up those leases. This way, if a company makes the business decision to terminate or not pursue exploration, then the lease will be made available to other companies who might actually drill or figure out a way to get some oil out of this land. This is a responsible way to increase production and keep the private sector accountable for production. So with over 100 billion barrels of oil under Federal lands and waters that are being leased or are available for leasing, Congress must properly encourage their development, and oil companies should use the land they already have before coming to Congress, hat in hand, asking for more land. This bill is similar to legislation introduced by Representative Rahall which the House considered last month. I will work to make sure the Senate follows their lead. I am also cosponsoring a bill introduced by my colleague who is on the Senate floor, my good friend Senator Dodd, that encourages oil companies to utilize the land they have been granted by making them pay fees on land under lease but not in production. There are a number of other steps Congress should take, including addressing the role of excess speculation in the energy futures market and clamping down on OPEC's price fixing. I am a cosponsor of S. 879, which would authorize the Justice Department and the FTC to sue foreign countries under U.S. antitrust law for limiting the supply or fixing the price of oil. Also, of course, we need to aggressively pursue alternative fuels, efficiency, and renewable energy because the facts show that even if we drilled every corner of the country, and offshore too, that wouldn't solve our energy problems. In the long term, the Government's Energy Information Administration reports that opening more Outer Continental Shelf regions to drilling ``would not have a significant impact on domestic crude and natural oil gas production or prices before 2030,'' nor will it significantly affect prices after 2030, the agency reports, ``because oil prices are determined on the international market.'' In short, the facts are telling us that we simply cannot just drill our way out of this, and more drilling does not necessarily mean lower prices at the pump. Unfortunately, a minority of Senators have repeatedly blocked efforts to expand renewables and address price gouging and excess energy market speculation. I sincerely hope we can get beyond this partisan bickering. My constituents don't want finger-pointing or name calling; they want some relief, and they deserve it. They also deserve to know that we are pressing forward on plans that embrace a new energy future. Thirty years ago, our Nation was rattled by our reliance on oil. If I am still here in 30 years, for the sake of my constituents, I hope we will have succeeded at diversifying our energy uses and oil does not still have a stranglehold over our citizens and the economy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is generally my policy to defer to Presidents on executive branch nominations. Accordingly, I voted to confirm the nominations of General Petraeus and Lieutenant General Odierno. However, I am concerned that General Petraeus has not always been forthright in his congressional testimony about matters such as the limitations of the Iraqi Security Forces and Iran's influence over the Iraqi government. I am also concerned that General Petraeus, as CENTCOM Commander, would continue to prioritize deployments to Iraq over Afghanistan, despite al-Qaida's safe haven along the Afghanistan border in Pakistan and its support for a resurgent Taliban. I look forward to a new administration that recognizes that the Iraq war is a distraction from our top national security priority--the global fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to talk about the strong concerns I am hearing back home about gas and diesel prices and about a bill I am introducing today in response to those concerns. We all know that over the past 12 months, the price of a gallon of gas has risen over a dollar, from around $3 last year to over $4 today. Diesel has increased from $2.91 a year ago to $4.72 per gallon today. At the listening sessions I hold in every county of my State each year, Wisconsinites are, of course, talking about how those soaring oil prices are hurting their pocketbooks. And it is not just at the pump. They are feeling the pain also at the grocery store, on the farm, and at the ticket counter. Those high fuel prices are having a rippling effect throughout our entire economy. Wisconsinites, like Americans all around the country, are feeling squeezed. With no relief in sight, the anxiety and tension keep building. Americans are emotionally, physically, and financially drained. My colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, had it right when she stated that Americans are running on empty. Here is what I am hearing from Wisconsinites. One constituent told me: I have done everything I can to use as little gas as possible, even before prices got so high. My two-parent family (with two children) has only one car. I ride my bicycle or walk to work and use the car as little as possible. However, the rising cost of fuel is causing higher prices for food and other necessities which are becoming more difficult for my family and others. From another parent: I have an adorable child I am trying to raise on a budget that no longer reaches from paycheck to paycheck. I currently work an hour away from where I live as the jobs are not available in [my] area. Between the rising price of gas, electric/heat and food, my husband and I can barely pay our mortgage. I have heard from many others who are struggling as they care for elderly parents. One lady has a mother in a nursing home, and she used to visit her three times a week. However, with the nursing home 20 miles away and high fuel prices, now she can only afford to visit her mother once a week. That, to me, is a very poignant example--one of so many examples--of the real human impact these gas prices have. Even those who have managed their money well and have saved are struggling. One constituent commented that he had planned to put extra money toward retirement and pay down debt. With the high fuel prices, he does not have any extra money and is worried that he will end up on government assistance at the age of 57. There are more letters and more e-mails and more phone calls. The high cost of driving affects all kinds of people and livelihoods. It affects kids whose parents cannot drive them across town to a friend's house or to soccer practice because they have to conserve gas to get to work. It affects young students and senior citizens who are on fixed incomes. Small businesses are finding they need to increase prices to cover increased transportation costs. Farmers are, of course, feeling the pinch in one way or another, whether it be fertilizer or fuel or transportation or feed for livestock and dairy farmers. All over the country, people have resorted to alternative forms of transportation in an effort to escape these costs. There is a range of positive proposals to improve systems in Wisconsin from the Kenosha- Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail, extending Amtrak to Madison, or just adding buses or routes. While I strongly support long-term plans to invest in mass transit, I also recognize that at least for the time being in many parts of Wisconsin and in this country, it is unrealistic for many to rely on mass transportation. Commuting to work, be it across a large city or between two towns, is a gas- and dollar-guzzling task that many people cannot avoid or, increasingly, afford. For the large number of Americans living in predominantly rural areas, this is especially challenging due to the typically longer trips and fewer transportation options. So Wisconsinites want to know: When is the Federal Government going to provide some relief? With my support, Congress has made some progress. Last December we enacted energy legislation, H.R. 6, that raises corporate average fuel economy standards for vehicles while protecting American jobs. It also increases the requirement for alternative fuels from 8.5 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022. I also recently cosponsored an amendment to make the Federal Government stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 97 percent full. Fortunately, Congress passed this legislation, and the administration finally agreed to stop taking oil off the market to store it underground. The bill, H.R. 6022, was signed into law in May. We also made some progress in preventing market manipulation. I cosponsored the Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act, S. 577, which would help ensure that the previously unregulated trading commodities are subject to greater Federal oversight by requiring the reporting of trades, and then a similar provision was included in the final version of the farm bill which was recently enacted. These are positive steps, but much more needs to be done. So today I am introducing legislation that seeks to answer a question more and more Americans are asking, which is: Why aren't the oil companies developing 66 million acres of land that they are already leasing from the U.S. Government? Those same companies, and some of my colleagues, say we need to open more Federal lands to drilling. Well, I guess I would like to know then why the oil companies are not producing on most of the Federal lands they already have under lease. At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I actually had the chance to ask the top five oil executives in the country just that question, and it was incredible. They couldn't come up with any good explanation at all. In fact, one of the executives told me they have the manpower and the infrastructure to put all of their existing leases of Federal lands into oil production. I find this troubling. No one is talking about pulling oil out of a hat, but with 75 percent of currently leased Federal lands and waters not producing oil and gas, Congress needs to insist on some accountability on this point. This is why today I am introducing the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act. This bill says if oil and gas companies want to lease additional lands, they must either be producing or diligently developing their existing Federal leases, or they have to give up those leases. This way, if a company makes the business decision to terminate or not pursue exploration, then the lease will be made available to other companies who might actually drill or figure out a way to get some oil out of this land. This is a responsible way to increase production and keep the private sector accountable for production. So with over 100 billion barrels of oil under Federal lands and waters that are being leased or are available for leasing, Congress must properly encourage their development, and oil companies should use the land they already have before coming to Congress, hat in hand, asking for more land. This bill is similar to legislation introduced by Representative Rahall which the House considered last month. I will work to make sure the Senate follows their lead. I am also cosponsoring a bill introduced by my colleague who is on the Senate floor, my good friend Senator Dodd, that encourages oil companies to utilize the land they have been granted by making them pay fees on land under lease but not in production. There are a number of other steps Congress should take, including addressing the role of excess speculation in the energy futures market and clamping down on OPEC's price fixing. I am a cosponsor of S. 879, which would authorize the Justice Department and the FTC to sue foreign countries under U.S. antitrust law for limiting the supply or fixing the price of oil. Also, of course, we need to aggressively pursue alternative fuels, efficiency, and renewable energy because the facts show that even if we drilled every corner of the country, and offshore too, that wouldn't solve our energy problems. In the long term, the Government's Energy Information Administration reports that opening more Outer Continental Shelf regions to drilling ``would not have a significant impact on domestic crude and natural oil gas production or prices before 2030,'' nor will it significantly affect prices after 2030, the agency reports, ``because oil prices are determined on the international market.'' In short, the facts are telling us that we simply cannot just drill our way out of this, and more drilling does not necessarily mean lower prices at the pump. Unfortunately, a minority of Senators have repeatedly blocked efforts to expand renewables and address price gouging and excess energy market speculation. I sincerely hope we can get beyond this partisan bickering. My constituents don't want finger-pointing or name calling; they want some relief, and they deserve it. They also deserve to know that we are pressing forward on plans that embrace a new energy future. Thirty years ago, our Nation was rattled by our reliance on oil. If I am still here in 30 years, for the sake of my constituents, I hope we will have succeeded at diversifying our energy uses and oil does not still have a stranglehold over our citizens and the economy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy be recognized following my remarks, to be followed by Senator Specter for 10 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I get into my formal remarks, let me react a bit to the remarks of the Senator from Utah. He is a great colleague, a very cordial man. I have enjoyed the 16 years I have served with him, especially on the Judiciary Committee. But I will use an unsenatorial word for one of the arguments he made. The word is ``wow.'' The notion that roughly 70 Senators would not be briefed on something we are voting on and the notion that the briefing of the Intelligence Committee, which, of course, I am a member of and which I support, is a justification for having 70 Senators not knowing what they are voting on is a very bizarre interpretation of why the Intelligence Committee was created. It was not created as a replacement for the Senate when it comes to voting on the laws governing the fundamental rights of the American people. If that is the best they can come up with, when 70 Senators don't even know the fundamentals of the program that this immunity issue is addressing, it is incredible. Let me get into the merits, but first I should also address that we have apparently been lumped in as part of the black helicopter crowd. I assure you the coalition in this country that has concerns about this bill is much broader than any such characterization. A number of Senators came to the floor prior to the Fourth of July recess to debate the FISA legislation, and more debate has occurred this week. We heard arguments for and against this legislation, and Senators have cited a variety of reasons for their positions. Several have defended the bill by arguing the legislation includes improvements compared to the Senate bill we passed earlier this year. Of course, I was not surprised to hear that line of argument. I agree, there are some improvements to the Senate bill contained in the legislation we are now considering. But Mr. President, those changes, as you well know, are not nearly enough to justify supporting the bill, as I will explain in a few moments. I was, however, surprised to hear several Senators still defending the legality of the President's warrantless wiretapping program and still arguing that Congress had somehow signed off on this program years ago because the so-called Gang of 8 group was notified. I thought we were well past these arguments. Two and a half years after this illegal program became public, I cannot believe we are still debating the legality of this program on the Senate floor and that anyone--anyone--seriously believes that merely notifying the Gang of 8--eight Senators and Congressmen--while keeping the full Intelligence Committees in the dark, somehow represents congressional approval. It could not be clearer that this program broke the law and that this President--this President--broke the law. Not only that, but this administration affirmatively misled the Congress and the American people about it for years before it finally became public. So if we are going to go back and discuss these issues that I thought had long since been put to rest, let's take a few minutes to cover the full history. Here is the part of this story that somehow seems to have been forgotten. In January 2005, 11 months before the New York Times broke the story of the illegal wiretapping program, I asked then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales at his confirmation hearing to be Attorney General whether the President had the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of the criminal law. Neither I nor the vast majority of my colleagues knew it then, but the President had authorized the NSA program 3 years before, and Mr. Gonzales was directly involved in that issue as White House Counsel. At his confirmation hearing, he first tried to dismiss my question-- if you can believe it--as ``hypothetical,'' though he knew exactly what was going on. He then testified: [I]t's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes. The President's wiretapping program was in direct contravention of our criminal statutes. Mr. Gonzales knew that, but he wanted the Senate and the American people to think the President had not acted on the extreme legal theory that the President has the power as Commander in Chief to disobey the criminal laws of this country. The President, too, misled the Congress and the American public. In 2004 and 2005, when Congress was considering the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, the President went out of his way--I remember this very clearly--to assure us that his administration was getting court orders for wiretaps, all the while knowing full well that his warrantless wiretapping program was ongoing. Here is what the President said on April 20, 2004: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about [a] wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. Those are the words of the President of the United States to the American people. Again, on July 14, 2004: The government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order. And listen to what the President said on June 9, 2005: Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S. So please, let's not pretend that the highly classified notification to the Gang of 8, delivered while the President himself was repeatedly presenting a completely different picture to the public, suggests that Congress somehow acquiesced to this program. As the Members of this body well know, several Members of the Gang of 8 at the time raised concerns when they were told about this, and several have since said they were not told the full story. And, of course, all of them--all of them--were instructed not to share what they had learned with a single other person. I also cannot leave unanswered the arguments mounted in defense of the legality of the NSA program. I will not spend much time on the argument that the authorization for use of military force that Congress passed on September 18, 2001, authorized this program. That argument has been thoroughly discredited. In the AUMF, Congress authorized the President to use military force against those who attacked us on 9/11, a necessary and justified response to the attacks. We did not authorize the President to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the judicial process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of spies and terrorists. Senators have also dragged out the same old, tired arguments about the President's supposed inherent Executive authority to violate the FISA statute. They argue that a law passed by Congress cannot trump the President's power under the Constitution. Now, that argument may sound good, but it assumes what it is trying to prove--that the Constitution gives the President the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps in certain cases. You cannot simply say that any claim of Executive power prevails over a statute--at least, not if you are serious about the rule of law and about how to interpret the Constitution. The real question is, when a claim of Executive power and a statute arguably conflict, how do you resolve that conflict? Fortunately, this is not something the Supreme Court has been silent about. The Supreme Court has told us how to answer that question. We are talking about the President acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power was, as Justice Jackson said in his famous and influential concurrence in the Steel Seizure cases half a century ago, ``at its lowest ebb.'' The Presidential power, Justice Jackson said, in that circumstance was ``at its lowest ebb.'' In other words, when a President argues that he has the power to violate a specific law, he is on shaky ground. That is, obviously, not just my opinion. It is what the Supreme Court has made clear. No less an authority than the current Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, repeatedly recognized in his confirmation hearings--over and over again--that Justice Jackson's three-part test is the appropriate framework for analyzing questions of Executive power. In early 2006, a distinguished group of law professors and former executive branch officials wrote a letter pointing out that ``every time''--every time--``the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief's authority, it has upheld the statute.'' It has upheld the act of Congress over the claims of Executive power that overreach and conflict with the power of this Congress to make the laws in this country. The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any preexisting inherent authority of the President. The 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated that FISA ``recognizes no inherent power of the President in this area'' and ``Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed Presidential power, controls.'' Contrary to what has been said on this floor, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA based on some theory of article II authority. The Truong case that is so often hauled out to make this argument was a Vietnam-era case based on surveillance that occurred before FISA was enacted, so it could not have decided this issue. And the issue before the FISA Court of Review in 2002 had nothing to do with inherent Presidential authorities. Yet these cases are repeatedly cited by supporters of the President, complete with large charts of the supposedly relevant quotations. But the fact is, not a single court--not the Supreme Court or any other court--has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless somehow has the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. In fact, as the Senator from Pennsylvania and I discussed on the Senate floor yesterday, just last week a Federal district court strongly indicated that were it to reach that issue, it would find that the President must in fact follow FISA. The court was considering whether the state secrets privilege applies to claims brought under the FISA civil liability provisions, and it found that it does not. Its reasoning was based on the conclusion, again, that Congress had spoken clearly that it intended FISA and the criminal wiretap laws to be the exclusive means--the exclusive means--by which electronic surveillance is conducted, and it fully occupied the field in this area, replacing any otherwise applicable common law. Now, here is what the court said: Congress appears clearly to have intended to--and did-- establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted. Whatever power the Executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities . . . And another court, a district court in Michigan, has also held that the President's wiretapping program was unconstitutional, although that decision was reversed on procedural grounds by the Sixth Circuit. So to the extent there is any case law that actually addresses this issue, it totally undercuts the administration's arguments. And, of course, it certainly does nothing to support those arguments. We have also heard that past American Presidents have cited Executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But, of course, those past Presidents--Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt are often cited--were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch can no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. So those examples are simply not relevant to this debate. In sum, the arguments that the President has inherent Executive authority to violate the law are baseless. It is not even a close case. And the repeated efforts in the Senate to pretend otherwise are very discouraging. It may seem that I am going over ancient history because this program is no longer operating outside the law. But this is directly relevant to the current debate. The bill the Senate is considering would actually grant retroactive immunity to any companies that cooperated with a blatantly illegal program that went on for more than 5 years and about which the administration repeatedly misled Congress. So if Congress short-circuits these lawsuits, we will have lost a prime opportunity to finally achieve accountability for these many years of lawbreaking. That is why the administration has been fighting so hard for this immunity. It knows that the cases that have been brought directly against the Government face much more difficult procedural barriers and are unlikely to result in rulings on the merits that would allow us to get to this direct question of the legality of the President's warrantless wiretapping program. These lawsuits involving the telephone companies may be the last chance to obtain a judicial ruling on the lawfulness of the warrantless wiretapping program. It is bad enough that Congress abdicated its responsibility to hold the President accountable for breaking the law. Now it is trying to absolve those who allegedly participated in his lawlessness. This body should be condemning this administration for its lawbreaking--not letting the companies that allegedly cooperated off the hook. This body certainly should not grant the Government new, overexpansive surveillance authorities, which brings me now to the part of the bill that in some ways concerns me even more than the immunity provision. Let me explain why I am so concerned about the new surveillance powers granted in this bill and why the modest improvements made to this part of the bill do not even come close to going far enough. First, the FISA Amendments Act would authorize the Government to collect all--all--communications between the United States and the rest of the world. Now, that could mean millions upon millions of communications between innocent Americans and their friends, families, or business associates overseas could be legally collected. Parents calling their kids studying abroad, e-mails to friends serving in Iraq--all these communications could be collected, with absolutely no suspicion of any wrongdoing at all, under this legislation. Second, like the earlier Senate version, this bill fails to effectively prohibit a practice known as reverse targeting; namely, wiretapping a person overseas when what the Government is really interested in doing is listening to an American here at home with whom the foreigner is communicating. This bill does have a provision that purports to address this issue. It prohibits intentionally targeting a person outside the United States without an individualized court order if ``the purpose'' is to target someone reasonably believed to be in the United States. But this does not do the job. At best, this prevents the Government from targeting a person overseas as a complete pretext for getting information on someone in the United States. But this language would allow a lot more. The language would permit intentional and possibly unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of an American so long as the Government has any interest--any interest at all--no matter how small, in the person overseas with whom the American is communicating. The bill does not include language that had the support of the House and the vast majority of the Senate's Democratic caucus that would have required the Government to obtain a court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance was to acquire the communications of an American in the United States. The administration's refusal to accept that reasonable restriction on its power is quite telling. Third, the bill before us imposes no meaningful consequences if the Government initiates surveillance using procedures that have not been approved by the FISA Court, and the FISA Court later finds that those procedures were unlawful. Say, for example, the FISA Court determines that the procedures were not even reasonably designed to wiretap foreigners outside the United States rather than Americans at home. Under this bill, all that illegally obtained information on Americans can be retained and used. Once again, as seems to recur over and over again in this sordid tale, there are no consequences for illegal behavior by the Government of the United States. That is just wrong. Unlike the Senate bill, this new bill does generally provide for FISA Court review of surveillance procedures before surveillance begins, and that is one of the changes that has been touted by supporters of the bill. But the bill also says if the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence certify they don't have time to get a court order, and that intelligence important to national security may be lost or not timely acquired, then they can go forward without traditional approval. This is a far cry from allowing an exception to FISA Court review in a true emergency because, arguably, all intelligence is important to national security and any delay at all might cause some intelligence to be lost. So I am concerned that this so-called ``exigency'' exception could very well swallow the rule and undermine any presumption at all of prior judicial approval. That could result in no prior court review. No prior judicial review. Let's just trust an administration--including this administration--rather than having the checks and balances that clearly the Founders of our country understood to be central in any situation such as this. Fourth, this bill doesn't protect the privacy of Americans whose communications will be collected in vast new quantities. The administration's mantra has been: Don't worry, we have minimization procedures. But minimization procedures are nothing more than unchecked executive branch decisions about what information on Americans constitutes ``foreign intelligence.'' That is why on the Senate floor I joined with Senator Webb and Senator Tester earlier this year to offer an amendment to provide real protections for the privacy of Americans, while also giving the Government the flexibility that it needs to wiretap terrorists overseas. This bill relies solely on inadequate minimization procedures to protect innocent Americans, and they are simply not enough. As I said at the outset, some supporters of this bill have pointed to improvements made since the Senate passed the bill earlier this year. I appreciate that some changes have been made, but those changes are either inadequate or they do not go to the core privacy issues raised by this bill. In fact, as the distinguished Senator from Missouri, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said just yesterday, the bill before us is ``basically the Senate bill all over again'' with only ``cosmetic fixes.'' That is what the Republican vice chairman of the committee said. Any Democrat who suggests that this is somehow a big change, I don't think they read the bill, because it doesn't do the job. For example, I am pleased the bill provides for FISA Court review of targeting minimization procedures, but as I mentioned, there is a potentially gaping loophole allowing the executive branch to go forward with surveillance without court review--an exception that could swallow the rule. The bill also now explicitly directs the FISA Court to consider whether the Government's procedures comply with the fourth amendment, but that is an authority it should have had anyway. The bill includes an inspector general review of the illegal program, which is a positive change, but that doesn't make up for the lawsuits that are going to be dismissed as a result of this legislation. I strongly support the strengthened exclusivity language which, perhaps, may defer a future administration from engaging in lawless behavior, but let's not lose sight of the fact that FISA, as originally enacted, clearly stated already that it and the criminal wiretap laws were the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance. This was confirmed in the strongest terms possible by a Federal district court just last week. The idea that we would simply trust this administration, especially, to follow this exclusivity language when they have taken such a dismissive attitude with respect to the current exclusivity language is absurd. Only under the unprecedented legal theories of this administration could that clear language be ignored, requiring Congress to pass language that effectively says: No, we really mean it. If this bill is enacted, I am by no means reassured that this administration, which repeatedly broke the law and misled the public over the past 7 years, will now respect the exclusivity of FISA. Now, the bill does contain a key protection for Americans traveling overseas. It says if the Government wants to intentionally target Americans while they are outside of the country, it has to get an individualized FISA Court order based on probable cause. That is a great victory, and it is one we should be proud of, but it does not override the greatly expanded authorities in this bill to collect other types of communications involving Americans. In sum, these improvements are obviously not enough. They are nowhere close. So I must strongly oppose this bill. When you consider how we got here, this legislation is particularly discouraging. We discovered in late 2005 that the President had authorized an illegal program in blatant violation of a statute and that Congress and the public had been misled in a variety of ways leading up to this public revelation. Congress, to its credit, held hearings on the program, but was largely stonewalled by the administration for many months until the administration grudgingly agreed to brief the intelligence committees and, more recently, the judiciary committees. Nonetheless, the vast majority in the House and Senate have never been told what happened. In 2006, when the Republicans tried to push through legislation to grant massive new surveillance authority to the executive branch, we stopped it. But now, in a Democratic-controlled Congress not only did we pass the Protect America Act, but we are now about to extend for more than 4 years these expansive surveillance powers, and we are about to grant immunity to companies that are alleged to have participated in the administration's lawlessness. I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. I am one of the few Members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. Based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the inspectors general report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, Members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about these activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of all Americans. If we grant these new powers to the Government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was. Of that, I am sure. So I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about their votes on this bill and consider how they and their constituents will feel about this vote 5, 10, or 20 years from now. I am confident that history will not judge this Senate kindly if it endorses this tragic retreat from the principles that have governed government conduct in this sensitive area for 30 years. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. As long as my 30 minutes is blocked.

Mr. FEINGOLD. As long as my 30 minutes is reserved so I can speak following the time of the Senator from Utah.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, everyone in this Chamber is saddened by the loss of our former colleague from North Carolina, Jesse Helms. Many of us served with him, and know how dedicated a public servant he was. I didn't always agree with him; in fact, we disagreed much of the time. But one of the many wonderful things about working in the Senate is finding ways to work together with colleagues who have very different beliefs and goals for the good of the country. Senator Helms and I shared a commitment to ensuring that the U.S. only entered into trade agreements that are fair to the hard-working men and women of this country. I appreciated his commitment to that issue, and I was pleased to work with him to support fair trade. I also served with Senator Helms as a member of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. He served as chairman for many years, and during that time we also found common ground on the issue of most favored nation, MFN, status for China. Senator Helms and I worked together in opposition to granting MFN status to a country with such gross human rights violations. Together, we led the fight against MFN because it ignored the appalling human rights abuses in China, and abdicated the Senate's responsibility to exert pressure on the Chinese government to improve its record on human rights. In the wake of Senator Helms' passing, people will remember him for the many different things he accomplished in his lifetime. I add these memories to those remembrances of Senator Helms, who led such a full life inside and outside of public service. My thoughts are with his family, and the people of North Carolina he served with such dedication for 30 years.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I consume be allocated to the Dodd amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Dodd's amendment to strike the immunity provision from this bill, and I especially thank the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. Both earlier this year, when the Senate first considered FISA legislation, and again this time around, he has demonstrated tremendous resolve on this issue, and I have been proud to work with him. Some have tried to suggest that the bill before us will leave it up to the courts to decide whether to give retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly participated in the President's illegal wiretapping program. But make no mistake, this bill will result in immunity being granted--it will--because it sets up a rigged process with only one possible outcome. Under the terms of this bill, a Federal district court would evaluate whether there is substantial evidence that a company received . . . a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. We already know, from the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that was issued last fall, that the companies received exactly such a request or directive. This is already public information. So under the terms of this proposal, the court's decision would actually be predetermined. As a practical matter, that means that regardless of how much information the court is permitted to review, what standard of review is employed, how open the proceedings are, and what role the plaintiffs are permitted to play, it won't matter. The court will essentially be required to grant immunity under this bill. Now, our proponents will argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the companies can participate in briefing to the court, and this is true. But they are not allowed any access to any classified information. Talk about fighting with both hands tied behind your back. The administration has restricted information about this illegal wiretapping program so much that roughly 70 Members of this Chamber don't even have access to the basic facts about what happened. Do you believe that? So let's not pretend that the plaintiffs will be able to participate in any meaningful way in these proceedings in which Congress has made sure their claims will be dismissed. This result is extremely disappointing. It is entirely unnecessary and unjustified, and it will profoundly undermine the rule of law in this country. I cannot comprehend why Congress would take this action in the waning months of an administration that has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law--perhaps most notably in the illegal warrantless wiretapping program it set up in secret. We hear people argue that the telecom companies should not be penalized for allegedly taking part in this illegal program. What you don't hear, though, is that current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the Government's request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act instructs the telephone company to refuse the Government's request, and it subjects them to liability if they instead decide to cooperate. When Congress passed FISA three decades ago, in the wake of the extensive, well-documented wiretapping abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, it decided that in the future, telephone companies should not simply assume that any Government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was appropriate. It was clear some checks needed to be in place to prevent future abuses of this incredibly intrusive power; that is, the power to listen in on people's personal conversations. At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone companies with the responsibility of determining whether the Government's request for assistance was legitimate. So Congress devised a good system. It devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which is still in place today, the company's legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the Government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and it is, in fact, immune from liability. If the proper documentation, however, has not been submitted, the company must refuse the Government's request or be subject to possible liability in the courts. This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate Government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications from illegitimate snooping. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program this new form of retroactive immunity in this bill undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuse that allegedly occurred here. Even worse, granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances will undermine any new laws we pass regarding Government surveillance. If we want companies to obey the law in the future, doesn't it send a terrible message, doesn't it set a terrible precedent, to give them a ``get out of jail free'' card for allegedly ignoring the law in the past? Last week, a key court decision on FISA undercut one of the most popular arguments in support of immunity; that is, that we need to let the companies off the hook because the State secrets privilege prevents them from defending themselves in court. A Federal Court has now held that the State secrets privilege does not apply to claims brought under FISA. Rather, more specific evidentiary rules in FISA govern in situations such as that. Shouldn't we at least let these cases proceed to see how they play out, rather than trying to solve a problem that may not even exist? That is not all. This immunity provision doesn't just allow telephone companies off the hook; it will also make it that much harder to get at the core issue I have been raising since December 2005, which is that the President broke the law and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this illegal program. On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when roughly 70 Members of the Senate still have not been briefed on the President's wiretapping program. The vast majority of this body still does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how any Senator can vote against this amendment without this information. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to strike the immunity provision from the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for asking the question. Yes, I referred to this decision in my brief comments about this amendment. I think it is obviously a significant decision. As I indicated, it deals with the State secrets issue. It says that FISA is in fact the exclusive means and that the evidentiary rules regarding FISA should control, rather than State secrets. That is an important finding. But even more important is what the Senator from Pennsylvania is alluding to, which is the broader issue that the judge didn't decide, but clearly he indicated where he would head on the question of whether the President's TSP program was illegal--and I have long believed that it was illegal. In fact, the Senator and I were the first Members to comment on the revelation of this program in December of 2005 on the floor of the Senate. I have examined it closely myself, as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee, and I feel even more strongly today than I did then that this program was illegal and there needs to be accountability for that illegality. That accountability can come in part from litigation of the kind that involved this district court decision, and it can come from other cases that are pending. But my concern, of course, is that if we jam this bill through, it may have an impact on the ability to pursue that underlying legal issue because of the effective granting of immunity to telephone companies. So this decision has significance, but I can't tell you that I know all the ramifications. Obviously, Members of the Senate, to answer your question, should review the opinion and have a chance to find out more about the opinion. But there are 70 Members of the Senate who haven't even had the benefit of what you and I have had, which is the briefing on the actual TSP and what happened from 2001 to 2007 with regard to wiretapping. I thank the Senator for making this important point about Senators being ready to grant this immunity without reviewing the litigation.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his comments and question. Really, the only appropriate answer is to say ``amen'' to everything he just said. Think about this: To vote on anything when 70 Members of the Senate haven't been briefed on it seems unbelievable, and then you add to it that it has to do with the most critical issue of our time: How can we best protect our country from those who attacked us while also observing the rule of law? That would be bad enough. But then you add to it, as the Senator from Pennsylvania has indicated, that this goes to the very core issue of the structure of the Constitution. Is it really true, as the administration puts forward in defense of the TSP program, that article II of the Constitution somehow allows the executive and Commander in Chief power to override an absolutely clear, exclusive authority adopted by Congress pursuant to Justice Jackson's third tier of the test set out in his Youngstown opinion? All of these levels are implicated by this. The Senator could not be more correct. This is an amazingly inappropriate use of legislative interference, pushed by this administration, and Senators should take a very hard look at whether they want to be associated with such an attack on the rule of law in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the Senate's consideration of the FISA Amendments Act, Beckett Jackson, Ross Schulman, and Alex Tausanovitch, interns in my Judiciary Committee office, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in the wake of 9/11, Congress developed a new program to provide financial assistance to allied countries as they joined us in combating al-Qaida. This program reimbursed partner countries for defense spending above and beyond their normal military budget. And of the 27 coalition partner countries who receive this assistance--also known as Coalition Support Funds--Pakistan has been by far the largest recipient, receiving more than $5.5 billion out of a total $7 billion allocated for this program. This program could have been an important part of our global fight against terrorists who pose a very real threat to our country. But a new Government Accountability Office report shows that, in fact, the outcome was just the opposite. Over the past 7 years, U.S. taxpayer dollars have continued to flow with only minimal oversight while we have still not found Osama bin Laden and his senior officials and while al-Qaida has developed a safe haven in Pakistan. The GAO report details numerous examples of this wasteful spending, including $20 million paid to the Pakistani Government for road construction and $15 million to build bunkers--with no evidence that either was ever built. Or what about the more than $200 million provided for air defense radars with no analysis into whether such technology was needed to fight al-Qaida--an organization not known to have air force capacity? Confronting the threat of al-Qaida and its affiliates must be our top national security priority, and this GAO report sends a strong signal that we need to seriously step up our oversight when providing U.S. taxpayer dollars to our partners in this fight. We can not give them a blank check and expect to them to take care of the job. The Defense Department's carelessness and negligence has led to a situation where billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars cannot be fully accounted for. With so many domestic programs here at home feeling the brunt of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this is simply unacceptable. And given the implications for our national security both here at home and abroad, it cannot continue.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the amendment to the emergency supplemental funding bill that provides needed assistance for Wisconsin and other flood-stricken Midwestern States, unemployed workers, and veterans. As a result of the horrifying floods that have ravaged the Midwest over the last 3 weeks, a number of people have lost their lives, including two residents of Wisconsin, and many more have lost homes or suffered other harm. I joined a number of my colleagues from affected States in asking that flood relief money be included in the supplemental, and I am very pleased to support the $2.65 billion in disaster relief in the amendment for States suffering from record flooding. I cannot emphasize enough how crucial this disaster relief is to the people of Wisconsin. Beginning on June 5, Wisconsin was struck by 7 to 9 inches of rain that fell over a 24-hour period, followed by destructive winds and tornadoes. So far, 28 counties in Wisconsin have been declared disaster areas and we expect that at least 2 more will be declared disasters shortly. This water is draining into the Mississippi as we speak and has inundated communities throughout Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and surrounding States. With damage assessments underway, over $400 million of damage has been identified in the State of Wisconsin alone. Over 15,000 residents have registered for individual assistance in the 22 declared Wisconsin counties. An estimated 4,000 wells have been contaminated. The damage to crops will be considerable. We have not seen devastation like this in my State since 1993. The assistance provided in this amendment will go a long way to help families and businesses get back on their feet, but additional funds may be needed down the road. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the Federal Government's response is prompt and complete. I am also pleased that this amendment provides thirteen weeks of extended unemployment insurance benefits to workers who have exhausted their regular unemployment insurance benefits. At this critical time in our Nation's economy, it is important that Congress do what it can for workers and families who are struggling. Earlier this month, the Department of Labor released its unemployment figures for the month of May showing a 1-month increase of half a percentage point in the unemployment rate to 5.5 percent, which was one of the biggest 1-month increases in over two decades. I joined a number of my Senate colleagues in requesting an extension of unemployment benefits as part of the stimulus package Congress passed earlier this year due to the fact that increasing unemployment benefits has a high stimulative effect on the economy. It is clear that an extension of unemployment benefits is needed in our States and local communities now. I strongly support the provisions of this amendment that update the GI bill to provide comprehensive educational benefits for this generation of veterans. This legislation will help thousands of servicemembers transition back to civilian life as they return from demanding tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will also benefit the entire Nation as veterans' contributions to the workforce are enhanced through higher education. While these provisions should have been paid for, passing them is the least we can do for a brave generation of Americans who have served their country honorably. There are other provisions in the amendment that I support, including a moratorium on six rules proposed by the administration that would undermine the Medicaid Program. I am disappointed, however, that the bill no longer includes vital funding for Byrne grants, LIHEAP and other domestic priorities. And I continue to be extremely disappointed at the willingness of too many of my colleagues to provide the President with funds to continue the misguided war in Iraq. While that funding is not included in the amendment we will vote on today, I will continue to oppose efforts to fund a war that is damaging our national security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask I be added after Senator Gregg.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly oppose H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I will vote against cloture on the motion to proceed. This legislation has been billed as a compromise between Republicans and Democrats. We are asked to support it because it is supposedly a reasonable accommodation of opposing views. Let me respond to that as clearly as possible. This bill is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. This bill will effectively and unjustifiably grant immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an illegal wiretapping program, a program that more than 70 Members of this body still know virtually nothing about. This bill will grant the Bush administration, the same administration that developed and operated this illegal program for more than 5 years, expansive new authorities to spy on Americans' international communications. If you don't believe me, here is what Senator Bond had to say about the bill: I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get. House minority whip Roy Blunt said: The lawsuits will be dismissed. There is simply no question that Democrats who had previously stood strong against immunity and in support of civil liberties were on the losing end of this backroom deal. The railroading of Congress began last summer when the administration rammed through the so-called Protect America Act, or PAA, vastly expanding the Government's ability to eavesdrop without a court- approved warrant. That legislation was rushed through this Chamber in a climate of fear--fear of terrorist attacks and fear of not appearing sufficiently strong on national security. There was very little understanding of what the legislation actually did. But the silver lining was that the law did have a 6-month sunset. So Congress quickly started working to fix the legislation. The House passed a bill last fall. The Senate passed its bill, one that I believed was deeply flawed, in February. As the PAA 6-month sunset approached in late February, the House faced enormous political pressure simply to pass the Senate bill before the sunset date, but the reality was that no orders under the PAA were actually going to expire in February. Fortunately, to their great credit, the House stood firm in its resolve not to pass the Senate bill with its unjustified immunity provisions. The House deserves enormous credit for not buckling in the face of the President's attempts to intimidate them. Ultimately, the House passed new legislation in March, setting up the negotiations that have led us here today. I think it is safe to say that even many who voted for the Protect America Act last year came to believe it was a mistake to pass that legislation. While the House deserves credit for refusing to pass the Senate bill in February and for securing the changes in this new bill, the bill is still a very serious mistake. The immunity provision is a key reason for that. It is a key reason for my opposition to the legislation and for that of so many of my colleagues and, frankly, so many Americans. No one should be fooled about the effect of this bill. Under its terms the companies that allegedly participated in the illegal wiretapping program will walk away from these lawsuits with immunity. They will get immunity. There is simply no question about it. Anyone who says this bill preserves a meaningful role for the courts to play in deciding these cases is just wrong. I am a little concerned that the focus on immunity has diverted attention away from the other very important issues at stake in this legislation. In the long run, I don't believe this bill will be actually remembered as the immunity bill. I think this bill is going to be remembered as the legislation in which Congress granted the executive branch the power to sweep up all of our international communications with very few controls or oversight. Here I am talking about title I of the bill, the title that makes substantive changes to the FISA statute. I would like to explain why I am so concerned about the new surveillance powers granted in this part of the bill, and why the modest improvements made to this part of the bill don't even come close to being sufficient. This bill has been sold to us as necessary to ensure that the Government can collect communications between persons overseas without a warrant and to ensure that the Government can collect the communications of terrorists, including their communications with people in the United States. No one disagrees that the Government should have this authority. But the bill goes much further, authorizing widespread surveillance involving innocent Americans at home and abroad. First, the FISA Amendments Act, like the Protect America Act, will authorize the Government to collect all communications between the United States and the rest of the world. That could mean millions upon millions of communications between innocent Americans and their friends, families, or business associates overseas could legally be collected. Parents calling their kids studying abroad, e-mails to friends `` serving in Iraq--all of these communications could be collected, with absolutely no suspicion of any wrongdoing, under this legislation. In fact, the DNI even testified that this type of ``bulk collection'' would be ``desirable.'' The bill's supporters like to say that the Government needs additional powers to target terrorists overseas. But under this bill, the Government is not limited to targeting foreigners outside the United States who are terrorists, or who are suspected of some wrongdoing, or who are members or agents of some foreign government or organization. In fact, the Government does not even need a specific purpose for wiretapping anyone overseas. All it needs to have is a general ``foreign intelligence'' purpose, which is a standard so broad that it basically covers all international communications. That is not just my opinion. The DNI has testified that, under the PAA, and presumably this bill, the Government could legally collect all communications between the United States and overseas. Let me repeat that. Under this bill, the Government can legally collect all communications--every last one--between Americans here at home at home and the rest of the world. I should note that one of the few bright spots in this bill is the inclusion of a provision from the Senate bill to prohibit the intentional targeting of an American overseas without a warrant. That is an important new protection. But that amendment does not prevent the indiscriminate vacuuming up of all international communications, which would allow the Government to collect the communications of Americans overseas, including with friends and family back home, without a warrant. I tried to address this issue of ``bulk collection'' several times, working in the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and ultimately on the Senate floor in February, when I offered an amendment that would have required that there be some foreign intelligence purpose for the collection of communications to or from particular targets. The vast majority of Democrats supported this effort, but, unfortunately, it was defeated. So the bill today we are considering does not address this serious problem. Second, like the earlier Senate version, this bill fails to effectively prohibit the practice of reverse targeting and this is; namely, wiretapping a person overseas when what the Government is really interested in is listening to an American here at home with whom the foreigner is communicating. The bill does have a provision that purports to address this issue. The bill prohibits intentionally targeting a person outside the United States without an individualized court order if ``the purpose'' is to target someone reasonably believed to be in the United States. But this language would permit intentional and possibly unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of an American so long as the Government has any interest in the person overseas with whom the American is communicating. And, if there was any doubt, the DNI has publicly said that the Senate bill--which contained identical language as the current bill--merely ``codifies'' the administration's position, which is that the Government can wiretap a person overseas indefinitely without a warrant, no matter how interested it may really be in the American with whom that person overseas is communicating. Supporters of this bill also will argue that it requires the executive branch to establish guidelines for implementing this new reverse targeting requirement. But the guidelines are not subject to any judicial review. And requiring guidelines to implement an ineffective limitation is not a particularly comforting safeguard. When the Senate considered the FISA bill earlier this year, I offered an amendment--one that had actually been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee--to make this prohibition on reverse targeting meaningful. My amendment, which again had the support of the vast majority of the Democratic caucus and was included in the bill passed by the House in March, would have required the Government to obtain a court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance is actually to acquire the communications of an American in the United States. This would have done a far better job of protecting the privacy of the international communications of innocent Americans. Unfortunately, it is not in this bill. Third, the bill before us imposes no meaningful consequences if the Government initiates surveillance using procedures that have not been approved by the FISA Court, and the FISA Court later finds that those procedures were unlawful. Say, for example, that the FISA Court determines that the procedures were not even reasonably designed to wiretap foreigners rather than Americans. Under the bill, all of that illegally obtained information on Americans can be retained and used anyway. Once again, there are no consequences for illegal behavior. Now, unlike the Senate bill, this new bill does generally provide for FISA Court review of surveillance procedures before surveillance begins. But it also says that if the Attorney General and the DNI certify that they don't have time to get a court order and that intelligence important to national security may be lost or not timely acquired, then they can go forward without this judicial approval. This is a far cry from allowing an exception to FISA Court review in a true emergency because arguably all intelligence is important to national security and any delay at all might cause some intelligence to be lost. So I am really concerned that this so-called exigency exception could very well swallow the rule and undermine any presumption of prior judicial approval. But whether the exception is applied broadly or narrowly, if the Government invokes it and ultimately engages in illegal surveillance, the court should be given at least some flexibility after the fact to determine whether the government should be allowed to keep the results of illegal surveillance if it involves Americans. That is what another one of my amendments on the Senate floor would have done, an amendment that actually garnered 40 votes. Yet this issue goes completely unaddressed in the so-called compromise. Fourth, this bill doesn't protect the privacy of Americans whose communications will be collected in vast new quantities. The administration's mantra has been: Don't worry, we have minimization procedures. Minimization procedures are nothing more than unchecked executive branch decisions about what information on Americans constitutes ``foreign intelligence.'' As recently declassified documents have again confirmed, the ability of Government officials to find out the identity of Americans and use that information is extremely broad. Moreover, even if the administration were correct that minimization procedures have worked in the past, they are certainly inadequate as a check against the vast amounts of Americans' private information that could be collected under this bill. That is why on the Senate floor joined with my colleagues, Senator Webb and Senator Tester, to offer an amendment to provide real protections for the privacy of Americans, j while also giving the Government the flexibility it needs to wiretap terrorists overseas. But this bill, like the Senate bill, relies solely on these inadequate minimization procedures. The broad surveillance powers involving international communications that are contained in this legislation are particularly troubling because we live in a world in which international communications are increasingly commonplace. Thirty years ago it was very expensive, and not very common, for most Americans to make an overseas call. Now, particularly with e-mail, such communications happen all the time. Millions of ordinary, and innocent, Americans communicate with people overseas for entirely legitimate personal and business reasons. Parents or children call family members overseas. Students e-mail friends they have met while studying abroad. Business people communicate with colleagues or clients overseas. Technological advancements combined with the ever more interconnected world economy have led to an explosion of international contacts. Supporters of the bill like to say that we just have to bring FISA up to date with new technology. But changes in technology should also cause us to take a close look at the need for greater protections of the privacy of our citizens. If we are going to give the Government broad new powers that will lead to the collection of much more information on innocent Americans, we have a duty to protect their privacy as much as we possibly can. And we can do that without sacrificing our ability to collect information that will help us protect our national security. This supposed compromise, unfortunately, fails that test. I don't mean to suggest that this bill does not contain some improvements over the bill that the Senate passed early this year. Clearly it does, and I appreciate that. Certainly, it is a good thing that this bill includes language making clear, once and for all, that Congress considers FISA and the criminal wiretap laws to be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance can be conducted in this country--a provision that Senator Feinstein fought so hard for. And it is a good thing that Congress is directing the relevant inspectors general to do a comprehensive report on the President's illegal wiretapping program--a report whose contents I hope will be made public to the greatest degree possible. And it is a good thing that the bill no longer redefines the critical FISA term ``electronic surveillance,'' which could have led to a lot of confusion and unintended consequences. All of those provisions are positive developments, and I am glad that the ultimate product seemingly destined to become law contains these improvements. But I just can't pretend somehow that these improvements are enough. They are nowhere close. When I offered my amendments on the Senate floor in February, the vast majority of the Democratic caucus supported me. While I did not have the votes to pass those amendments, I am confident that more and more Members of Congress will agree that changes to this legislation need to be made. If we can't make them this year, then Congress must return to this issue--and it must do so as soon as the new President takes office. These issues are far too important to wait until the sunset date, especially now that it is set in this bill for 2012, another presidential election year. But let me now turn to the grant of retroactive immunity that is contained in this bill because on that issue there is no question that any differences between this bill and the Senate bill are only cosmetic. Make no mistake: This bill will result in immunity. Under the terms of this bill, a Federal district court would evaluate whether there is substantial evidence that a company received ``a written request or directive . . . from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community . . . indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.'' But we already know from Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's committee report last fall that the companies received exactly these materials. That is already public information. So under the exact terms of this proposal, the court's evaluation would essentially be predetermined. Regardless of how much information the court is permitted to review, what standard of review is employed, how open the proceedings are, and what role the plaintiffs are permitted to play, the court will essentially be required to grant immunity under this bill. Now, proponents will argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the companies can participate in briefing to the court. This is true. But they are allowed to participate only to the extent it does not necessitate the disclosure of classified information. The administration has restricted information about this illegal program so much that, again, more than 70 Members of this Chamber alone don't even have access to the basic facts about what happened. So let's not pretend that the plaintiffs will be able to participate in any meaningful way. And even if they could participate fully, as I said before, immunity is a foregone conclusion under the bill. This result is extremely disappointing on many levels, perhaps most of all because granting retroactive immunity is unnecessary and unjustified. Doing this will profoundly undermine the rule of law in this country. For starters, current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the Government's request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, FISA instructs the telephone companies to refuse the Government's request, and subjects them to liability if they instead still decide to cooperate. Now, there is a reason for this. This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that act at the request of the Government while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications. Some supporters of retroactively expanding this already existing immunity provision argue that the telephone companies should not be penalized if they relied on a high-level Government assurance that the requested assistance was lawful. But as superficially appealing as that argument may sound, it completely ignores the history of the FISA law. Telephone companies have a long history of receiving requests for assistance from the Government. That is because telephone companies have access to a wealth of private information about Americans-- information that can be a very useful tool for law enforcement. But that very same access to private communications means that telephone companies are in a unique position of responsibility and public trust. And yet, before FISA, there were basically no rules at all to help these phone companies resolve the tension between the Government's requests for assistance in foreign intelligence investigations and the companies' responsibilities to their customers. So this legal vacuum resulted in serious governmental abuse and overreaching. The abuses that took place are well documented and quite shocking. With the willing cooperation of the telephone companies, the FBI conducted surveillance of peaceful antiwar protesters, journalists, steel company executives, and even Martin Luther King, Jr. So Congress decided to take action. Based on the history of, and potential for, Government abuses, Congress decided that it was not appropriate--not appropriate--for telephone companies to simply assume that any Government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was legal. Let me repeat that: A primary purpose of FISA was to make clear, once and for all, that the telephone companies should not blindly cooperate with Government requests for assistance. At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone companies with the responsibility of determining whether the Government's request for assistance was a lawful one. That approach would leave the companies in a permanent state of legal uncertainty about their obligations. So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it completely. Under that system, which was in place in 2001, and is still in place today, the companies' legal obligations and liability depend entirely on whether the Government has presented the company with a court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and will be immune from liability. If the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must refuse the Government's request, or be subject to possible liability in the courts. The telephone companies and the Government have been operating under this simple framework for 30 years. The companies have experienced, highly trained, and highly compensated lawyers who know this law inside and out. In view of this history, it is inconceivable that any telephone companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program did not know what their obligations were. It is just as implausible that those companies believed they were entitled to simply assume the lawfulness of a Government request for assistance. This whole effort to obtain retroactive immunity is based on an assumption that doesn't hold water. That brings me to another issue. I have been discussing why retroactive immunity is unnecessary and unjustified, but it goes beyond that. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program this new form of automatic, retroactive immunity undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of actions that allegedly occurred here. Remember, telephone companies already have absolute immunity if they complied with the applicable law. They have an affirmative defense if they believed in good faith that they were complying with that law. So the retroactive immunity provision we are debating here is necessary only if we want to extend immunity to companies that did not comply with the applicable law and did not even have a good faith belief that they were complying with it. So much for the rule of law. Even worse, granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances will undermine any new laws that we pass regarding Government surveillance. If we want companies to follow the law in the future, it sends a terrible message, and sets a terrible precedent, to give them a ``get out of jail free'' card for allegedly ignoring the law in the past. I find it particularly troubling when some of my colleagues argue that we should grant immunity in order to encourage the telephone companies to cooperate with Government in the future. They want Americans to think that not granting immunity will damage our national security. But if you take a close look at the argument, it does not hold up. The telephone companies are already legally obligated to cooperate with a court order, and as I have mentioned, they already have absolute immunity for cooperating with requests that are properly certified. So the only thing we would be encouraging by granting immunity here is cooperation with requests that violate the law. That is exactly the kind of cooperation that FISA was supposed to prevent. Let's remember why. These companies have access to our most private conversations, and Americans depend on them to respect and defend the privacy of these communications unless there is clear legal authority for sharing them. They depend on us to make sure the companies are held accountable for betrayals of that public trust. Instead, this immunity provision would invite the telephone companies to betray that trust by encouraging cooperation with illegal Government programs. But this immunity provision does not just allow telephone companies off the hook for breaking the law. It also will make it that much harder to get to the core issue that I have been raising since December 2005, which is that the President ran an illegal program and should be held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that much further away from an independent judicial review of this program. Since 9/11, I have heard it said many times that what separates us from our enemies is respect for the rule of law. Unfortunately, the rule of law has taken it on the chin from this administration. Over and over, the President and his advisers have claimed the right to ignore the will of Congress and the laws on the books if and when they see fit. Now they are claiming the same right for any entity that assists them in that effort, no matter how unreasonable that assistance might have been. On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when more than 70 members of the Senate still--still--have not been briefed on the President's wiretapping program. The majority of this body still does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for. In sum, I cannot support this legislation. I appreciate that changes were made to the Senate bill, but they are not enough. Nowhere near enough. We have other alternatives. We have options. We do not have to pass this law in the midst of a presidential election year, while George Bush remains President, in the worst possible political climate for constructive legislating in this area. If the concern is that orders issued under the PAA could expire as early as August, we could extend the PAA for another 6 months, 9 months, even a year. We could put a 1- year sunset on this bill, rather than having it sunset in the next Presidential election year when partisan politics will once again be at their worst. Or we could extend the effect of any current PAA orders for 6 months or a year. All of these options would address any immediate national security concerns. What we do not have to do and what we should not do is pass a law that will immunize illegal behavior and fundamentally alter our surveillance laws for years to come. I have spent a great deal of time over the past year--in the Senate Intelligence Committee, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on the Senate floor--discussing my concerns, offering amendments, and debating the possible effects of the fine print of various bills. But this is not simply about fine print. In the end, my opposition to this bill comes down to this: This bill is a tragic retreat from the principles that have governed Government conduct in this sensitive area for 30 years. It needlessly sacrifices the protection of the privacy of innocent Americans, and it is an abdication of this body's duty to stand up for the rule of law. I will vote no. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Ethiopia has increasingly been an active participant in the international community and a leader on the African continent--as a charter member of the United Nations, a cofounder of what are now the African Union and Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and a key partner in combating international terrorism. After decades, and some would say centuries of civil strife, the 1994 Constitution and election of the coalition Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, EPRDF, in 1995 seemed to herald the beginning of an era of peace, democracy, and development. Efforts to reform the economy and political dynamics, while slow, reversed the devastating impact of the Derg and gave the people of Ethiopia some hope that a robust democracy was really taking root. In fact, in the runup to the 2005 elections, there was a deliberate and significant opening of political space--which included broad media coverage of opposition parties, relatively unimpeded access for opposition candidates to their constituents, and live televised debates between opposition candidates and ruling party incumbents. But in the aftermath of that May 2005 election--which ended in a deeply flawed process and aggressive tactics against the opposition--the ruling party has ratcheted up its rhetoric while backtracking significantly on its commitment to democracy. A newly proposed bill, called the Charities and Societies Proclamation, is the most recent indication of this backsliding. Indeed, for years, the U.S. State Department has reported ``widespread human rights abuses'' in its annual country report on Ethiopia. Among the most consistent violations listed are the intimidation, beating, abuse, and arbitrary arrest and detention by Government security forces of journalists, opposition supporters, union leaders, and others who dare to challenge the ruling party. Some of the more egregious examples associated with the growing opposition began in 2005 and include the arrest and prosecution for capital offenses of 131 major opposition leaders and the arbitrary detention of 30,000 to 50,000 civilians without charge. The ruling party also forcibly closed opposition political offices that same year and kept them closed through the eve of local elections this past April. Such conduct is a clear violation of regional and international human rights laws, to which Ethiopia is a signatory, and directly contradicts the country's own Constitution, still only 12 years old. Over the past year, I have become increasingly concerned by reports coming out of the Ogadan region of Ethiopia regarding military attacks on civilians and Government blockades of essential humanitarian and commercial supplies. National and international aid organizations with field missions in the area describe security forces burning villages and Government officials ordering entire village populations to move to specific ``resettlement'' locations that lack sufficient food, water, medical services, and sanitation facilities. Despite the numerous credible reports coming out of the region, the Ethiopian Government has denied that such violations may be occurring and has refused to even investigate these allegations and/or permit independent assessments of conditions in the region. Such stonewalling only further undermines the rule of law and the Government's obligation to protect its civilian population. The aid organizations now struggling to keep these Ethiopian civilians alive, as well as national and international human rights defenders, democracy advocates, independent journalists, and humanitarian organizations seeking to consolidate and extend peace, democracy, and development in Ethiopia, are already facing cumbersome bureaucratic rules and sometime succumb to self-censorship to avoid Government reprisals. The Ethiopian Government's new law, if passed in its current format, would make it almost impossible for these groups and individuals to continue their important efforts. Under the Charities and Societies Proclamation, non-Ethiopian organizations would be prohibited from engaging in democracy, human rights, good governance, or conflict resolution activities, and national civil society groups would have to forgo foreign funding and submit to strict Government regulation. To reaffirm and facilitate Ethiopia's commitment to and progress towards democratic development, eliminating extremism, good governance, combating HIV/AIDS, improving agricultural productivity, and reducing chronic hunger, the U.S. Government has provided billions of dollars worth of assistance in recent years with more than $700 million already in fiscal year 2008. The majority of this support is delivered through U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations that offer essential services and supplies to civilians as well as valuable technical assistance and resources to strengthen Ethiopian institutions and infrastructure. The new restrictions and regulations would severely limit or even prohibit much of this assistance and should cause the United States as well as other international donors to reconsider whether contributions to Ethiopia can further democracy, development and accountability. The Ethiopian Government claims the new regulations are aimed at improving the accountability and transparency of civil society organizations operating in Ethiopia. But what the provisions would actually do is erode the Government's own accountability and transparency by impeding these organizations' ability to serve their essential watchdog functions. This is not the time or place for tighter controls. Instead, the Ethiopian Government should support improvements in the quality and capacity of these groups, which are vital to the country's continued political, economic, and social development. The United States needs to work with our partners--both on the continent and off it--and strongly oppose the imposition of this new proclamation to protect the gains Ethiopia has made in recent years and pave the way for further consolidation of growth and democracy. If passed in its current format, this bill would have a devastating impact on our foreign policy objectives and Ethiopia's development as a robust democracy. And, even if revised and amended, passage of this bill would still send a negative message, that of a government desperately seeking to hold on to power and dismantle any groups that might expose its failures or limitations. We must stand with the people of Ethiopia and with the principles that Americans hold dear.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, on World Refugee Day, we recognize the millions of innocent people who are living as refugees due to violence, unrest, and natural disasters. Each day, refugees struggle to survive in an unstable environment where they are often unable to further their education, make a living for themselves, or obtain adequate health care. The struggles refugees face are unimaginable. Being forced to flee your home, often to encounter precarious, crowded living conditions in a strange place, is particularly treacherous for women, given the pervasive problems of sexual abuse, beatings, and sometimes torture. Displaced people who make it to refugee camps have often already survived extremely difficult situations as they cling to the hope that they will one day be able to return to their homes. Protracted conflicts and humanitarian crises increase instability and negatively impact the livelihoods of refugees we have seen this in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, eastern Chad, Jordan, and Syria. In each of these countries and in many other places around the world, national and international nongovernmental organizations confront challenging circumstances to meet the basic needs of refugees and protect their human rights. The international community and host governments must make it a priority to ensure support and access for these groups so that they can serve vulnerable refugee populations. Every time a refugee dies from an easily preventable disease or from living in unsanitary conditions, we are failing to live up to our collective responsibility. But we cannot accept disaster response as the only option. We must be working harder to create systems that anticipate and prevent conflicts from arising so we can stop mass displacement before it even begins. We need to use all our resources to prevent such crises from occurring. As we recognize World Refugee Day, we acknowledge the strength and survival of refugees, and we commit not just today, but every day, to work towards creating a world where governments fulfill their basic responsibility to protect their citizens.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, although Somalia's 9 million people have suffered from violence, natural disasters, and lawlessness for decades, the humanitarian and human rights crisis they face seems to keep getting worse. On Monday, the United Nation's humanitarian coordinator for the Horn of Africa announced that due to fighting between rival militias, successive droughts, sharply rising food prices, and a collapse of the Somali currency, more than 3.5 million Somalis will need emergency food relief in the next 3 months. On June 9, the United Nations' Special Representative for Somalia, Mr. Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, announced the first piece of good news from Somalia in a long time. With support from the U.S.'s own Special Envoy for Somalia, Ambassador John Yates--as well as representatives from the UK, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, the African Union, the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Conference, and the European Union--Mr. Abdallah succeeded in brokering an agreement between Somalia's internationally recognized Transitional Federal Government, T.F.G., and a faction of the opposition Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia, A.R.S. We cannot be naive, however, because there have been numerous such agreements in the past in which ceasefires, political cooperation, and efforts to promote peace, justice, reconstruction, and reconciliation were promised. The outcome could be different this time, if the international community commits the political and material resources necessary to see it through. External actors were a critical driver behind the peace talks in Djibouti and the resulting agreement, which ends with a call for international support that was echoed in the signing statements of the two rival political leaders. At the same time, we must recognize that extremist groups like al Shabaab have not accepted this peace deal and intend to continue fighting. They should not be allowed to derail the recently signed agreement. Indeed, by bringing the ARS into the institutional fold and consolidating a legitimate peace, the international community is more likely to see al Shabaab marginalized and rendered ineffective. This is not to say the road forward will be smooth, but taking steps to encourage existing divisions between the ARS and al Shabaab may create a path for ARS moderates to press for dismantling al Shabaab. Mr. President, Mr. Abdallah should be commended for this achievement, but more than back-patting is in order. His success as a mediator--and indeed, the leverage and credibility of the United States and those who share our vision of a stable, peaceful Somalia--rests upon the steps taken in the next days and weeks to facilitate the implementation of this agreement. Immediate, adequate, and coordinated action is needed to ensure that this most recent agreement does not meet the fate of its predecessors, with potentially more devastating consequences. Last month, this body passed a resolution I introduced, which called on Somalia's rival factions to recommit to an inclusive political dialogue and pledged international support for sustainable peace and security in Somalia and across the Horn of Africa. Mr. Abdallah and others have done their part. Now it is time for the international community to make good on our word.