Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have expressed serious concerns about the war in Iraq. I would say now is the time to put those concerns into action. We have the power and the responsibility to end a war that is hurting our troops, our fiscal situation, and our national security. By voting for the Feingold-Reid amendment today, we can safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. I understand the bill's managers would rather not address Iraq on their bill. That is their decision. But I note this amendment has the strong support of the Democratic leadership. So I thank Senator Reid for his support and leadership. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid amendment. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment is very similar to the previous Feingold amendment relating to the Iraq war and using the power of the purse to terminate our involvement there. I believe there will be a unanimous consent request made to have an hour on each side for the debate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have no objection to deferring our consideration of the amendment so the Senator from Montana can speak for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that amendment and call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, without objection, I yield briefly to the Senator from Delaware.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me say quickly, before I turn to the Senator from Connecticut, how much I admire the Senator from Mississippi. We have worked closely. His response to our amendment is about the need to move on and pass the Defense appropriations bill. Obviously, this is not getting in the way of doing that. We immediately agreed to a 2-hour time agreement. This is perfectly reasonable in light of the fact that this is the biggest military situation we have had in decades in this country. So it seems like a very minor thing to spend 2 hours on this amendment. We have a time agreement, so in no way will this be preventing us from moving forward to passage of the Defense appropriations bill. I now turn to my colleague and very strong supporter on these efforts, the Senator from Connecticut, and yield him 10 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for engaging in debate in the respectful and substantive way he has done so. We agree on many issues but not on this one. Let me, in the very brief time I have, respond to a couple things he said. First, just an observation. He asked: How, under my amendment, are we going to determine who al-Qaida is in Iraq? Well, I guess I ask the question: How are we doing it now? Presumably, we are identifying our enemy and attacking them. We are not just attacking them indiscriminately. He said: How in the world are we going to determine who al-Qaida is? I certainly hope we have some kind of a way to do that now. I am very puzzled by that argument. But the broader point of this issue is this: The heart of the argument of the Senator from South Carolina is that somehow having a timetable and withdrawing from this mistake in Iraq is going to help both al-Qaida and Iran. I would say it is just the opposite. The situation in Iraq is ideal for al-Qaida. It is sapping our military strength in Iraq and throughout the world at the same time that al- Qaida, according to our own public National Intelligence Estimate, is reinvigorating itself in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and around the world. So it is just the opposite. Continuing this involvement in Iraq that we have right now completely plays into the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, the Senator from South Carolina poses the notion that somehow Iran would be pleased to see us leave Iraq. Well, I am sure that is true eventually. But at this point it is actually ideal for Iran. They are expanding their influence, and we are taking the hits. We are taking the hits in terms of casualties, we are taking the hits financially, and they do not have to go in and invade or try to control Iraq. So actually it is the status quo that benefits Iran. It is perfect for them, and they are showing it every day. So it is just the opposite. Two of the most problematic enemies we have--Iran, in the form of a country that is very difficult for us, and al-Qaida, in terms of a terrorist organization--they benefit from our mistake of indefinitely continuing this involvement in Iraq. I believe that is the national security analysis that is most appropriate. That is why I offer this amendment in the spirit of national security, not simply in the spirit of trying to bring our troops out of Iraq. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and ask unanimous consent, again, that my time be reserved.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from Hawaii, through the Chair, how much I respect him. I understand why he has to take this approach on this particular attempt to offer this amendment. The fact is, this great Senator, this war hero, has supported us on this amendment in other contexts. He is in agreement with us. He has a responsibility on this bill that I respect. But what greater statement that we are on the right track in terms of wanting to have a reasonable withdrawal from Iraq than the fact that this great Senator has been supportive. So I thank him. Of course, I hope people will vote with me on this amendment, but I completely understand his reason for taking this approach on this particular bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill because it does nothing to bring to a close the open-ended military mission in Iraq, which has overburdened our military, weakened our national security, and cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers. There were provisions in the bill which I strongly supported, including language I proposed that will make it easier for family members and other trusted adults to take leave to care for children and dependents when their loved ones are deployed. I am also pleased that the Senate approved two amendments I cosponsored. One was an amendment by Senator Webb creating a Commission on Wartime Contracting to examine waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the misuse of force by private security contractors. The other was an amendment by Senator Sanders to ensure that money allocated for research on gulf war illnesses is spent wisely. But on balance, I could not vote for a bill that defies the will of so many Wisconsinites and so many Americans by allowing the President to continue one of the greatest and most tragic foreign policy blunders in the history of our Nation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are about to begin the 2008 fiscal year without having enacted any of the appropriations bills for that year. I am even more disappointed that we are about to vote on a continuing resolution that provides tens of billions of dollars to continue the misguided war in Iraq but does not include any language to bring that war to a close. We need to keep the Federal Government operating and make sure our brave troops get all the equipment and supplies they need, but we should not be giving the President a blank check to continue a war that is hurting our national security. For that reason, I will be voting against this resolution.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the threat posed by Iran, but I voted against the amendment offered by Senators Kyl and Lieberman because it could be interpreted as an authorization to keep U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely to police the Iraqi civil war and engage in a proxy war with Iran. Maintaining a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq is undermining our ability to deter Iran as it increases its influence in Iraq, becomes bolder in its nuclear aspirations, and continues to support Hezbollah. The administration needs to end its myopic focus on Iraq and develop comprehensive, effective strategies for dealing with Iran and the other serious challenges we face around the world. Mr. President, I voted against Senator Biden's amendment because, while we should support a comprehensive political settlement in Iraq, the U.S. Government shouldn't tell the Iraqi people how to run their country.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support many of the priorities in this bill, and I do not think the Senate should extend debate on it indefinitely. But, if we invoke cloture on the bill, as it currently stands, we will be ensuring that it contains no language to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to a close. That would be a mistake. The war in Iraq is taking a tremendous toll on our servicemembers and our military preparedness--not to mention our national security and our pocketbook. It is irresponsible for Congress to pass legislation authorizing the activities of the Department of Defense that fails to bring our troops home and this war to an end.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today we are voting on the reauthorization of a program that has wide support in our country and that has reduced the number of uninsured children nationwide by over 6 million. In fact, CHIP has helped lower the rate of noninsurance among low-income children by one-third since its enactment in 1997. That is a huge accomplishment, and has helped address a problem in our country that is unacceptable--the millions of uninsured families. In my home State of Wisconsin, CHIP, known as BadgerCare, provides health insurance for over 67,000 families. Wisconsin has done an incredible job of covering uninsured children as well as their parents, and the positive effects of this program are felt at schools, in the workforce, and at home. This bill helps support Wisconsin's efforts and provides low-income families in my State with better access to preventive care, primary care, and affordable care. The end result is healthier families. BadgerCare is vital to the well-being of many families in Wisconsin and I am very pleased that this bill supports the program in my State, including Wisconsin's choice to cover parents of CHIP and Medicaid children. We know from numerous reports that when we cover parents, we bring more uninsured children into the program as well. States like Wisconsin have proven time and again that covering parents means covering more kids. I worked hard with my colleagues and the Senate Finance Committee to make sure that Wisconsin could keep families in the CHIP program, and I am very pleased that those efforts have paid off. This legislation is not perfect. I would like to be voting on a more expansive package today that would offer health care access to more children and families. I am very disappointed that this legislation does not include language that would allow access to the program for legal immigrants. Unfortunately, it appears that, because of Republican opposition to this policy, legal immigrant children will continue to have to wait five years before they become eligible for CHIP and Medicaid. I will do my best to help change the discriminatory policy in the future. Despite the flaws in this legislation, the CHIP reauthorization bill marks an important step forward in getting coverage to those who need it. I will support this bill's final passage, and I hope the President will reconsider his ill-advised decision to veto it. I look forward to the day that everyone in our country has access to the basic right of health care. Mr. Dodd. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. This is a bipartisan agreement to do what is right for our nation's children. There are few more important issues facing the senate than the health and well-being of our Nation's youth. The vote to pass this legislation is a vote for children. As the father of two young daughters, I keenly understand how important it is to know that if one of them gets sick they have the health insurance coverage that will provide for them. For millions of parents, every slight sniffle or aching tooth could mean the difference between paying the rent and paying for medical care. Today we have an opportunity to help give those parents peace of mind about their children's health. It is our national shame that 9 million children wake up every day lacking any form of health insurance. Every day, this means millions of regular checkups are sidelined, dental exams go unscheduled, and early diagnoses of chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes are postponed. For families, such delays set the stage for children to grow up underperforming in school, developing preventable or treatable conditions, or worse, permanent disability or even premature death. The lack of health insurance causes more than poor health outcomes. Access to affordable health care is essential to alleviating child poverty. Low-income families without insurance often get stuck in an endless cycle of medical debt, a primary cause of bankruptcy filings in this country. Parents already struggling to make ends meet should not have to choose between providing their children needed medications and putting a roof over their heads or food on their table. I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for working so hard with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to put together a bill that will benefit the lives of millions of children and their families. Their leadership over the years, and that of Senators Hatch, Rockefeller, Kennedy and many others, helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and reduce the number of uninsured children by one-third. Their persistence now to expand this bill in the face of considerable opposition shows their commitment to children's health. This bill is a tremendous investment in the health and future of our children. Specifically, the bill continues providing coverage for 6.6 million children currently enrolled in CHIP and provides coverage for 3.1 million children who are currently uninsured today. It gives States the resources they need to keep up with the growing numbers of uninsured children. It provides tools and incentives to cover children who have fallen through the cracks of current programs. And it will prevent the President from unfairly and shortsightedly limiting States' efforts to expand their CHIP programs to cover even more children. All together these efforts will reduce the number of uninsured children by one third over the next 5 years. In my own State of Connecticut, our CHIP program, commonly known as HUSKY B, has brought affordable health insurance to more than 130,000 children in working families since its inception in 1998. H.R. 976 is essential to States like Connecticut so that they may continue to operate programs like HUSKY B and build on their proven success to insure even more children. I am additionally very pleased that my Support for Injured Servicemembers Act amendment was included in the final SCHIP bill. This amendment provides up to 6 months of Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, leave for family members of military personnel who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently allows three months of unpaid leave. Fourteen years ago, FMLA declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. If ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to speed their recoveries but most of all, they deserve the care of their closest loved ones. That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act. Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort through the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. It's not surprising that the Commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly inspiring. According to the Commission's report, 33 percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help their recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. Last week in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, we heard from one of those families and there are thousands more to be heard. The House is moving forward with companion legislation and I am grateful to my colleagues Congresswoman Woolsey and Chairman Miller and their cosponsors. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is the lead cosponsor of my amendment. In addition, I am pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this amendment. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for accepting this important amendment and appreciate the support of all of my colleagues in this effort. I am troubled by the comments by President Bush and members of his administration about this bill. This legislation is vital to the health and well being of our children. The CHIP program is a model of success and this bill provides sustainable and predictable health care coverage for low income children regardless of their health status. It represents the hard work and agreement of an overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the aisle. It is a testament to how important issues like children's health care can be addressed in a bipartisan manner by a united Congress. The President's policy of block and delay would mean Connecticut and other States would have to take away existing health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children when they should be covering more kids. But despite the bipartisan agreement of this Congress, the President threatens to veto this legislation. If he does, all Americans will know whether the President stands for children or would rather stand in the way of children's access to critically needed health care. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation and I urge President Bush to do what is right and sign it into law.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today we are again forced to consider legislation to raise the Nation's debt limit. It is obvious to anyone that we are here because of the grossly reckless fiscal policies that have been advanced by the administration and Congress for nearly 6 years. Over those 6 years we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs-- balancing the Nation's fiscal books. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. Nearly 6 years later, we are staring at almost a mirror image of that 10-year, $5 trillion surplus, except that instead of healthy surpluses, under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits and mounting debt. We absolutely cannot afford to continue to run up these massive deficits. Doing so causes the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. Every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits. But inside this dark cloud of dismal fiscal news there is a silver lining; namely, the restoration of the so-called ``pay-as-you-go'' budget rule, known as pay-go, as part of the budget resolution we adopted this year. That rule was central to the ability of the Congress to balance the Federal budget in the 1990s, and the return of that commonsense discipline gives us a better chance to clean up the fiscal disaster the current administration created. Unlike the last time Congress had to raise the debt limit for this administration, we now have pay-go back in place. In some ways, today's vote to raise the debt limit ratifies the actions taken by the administration and Congress to stick future generations with an immense credit card bill. Had we not restored the pay-go rule recently, I may well have decided not to support this measure. Fortunately, pay-go has been reinstated, and we will be better able to return to the path of fiscal responsibility we abandoned a few years ago. And because of that, I will support this measure, made necessary by the profligate policies of President Bush, and egregiously aided and abetted by the last three Congresses.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. Some of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007, is similar to legislation I introduced in the last two Congresses and will solve the problem for today and into the future. Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and lead the Nation in cheese production with over 25 percent or 2.5 billion pounds of cheese a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of butter, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hardworking farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist. One concern that I have heard from Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. These programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years. Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers who are at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies. Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers, Social Security Act Sec. 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a), have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC per year; making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits because they must average 2 QCs per year to be eligible. With inflation, there is no chance of the amount needed to earn a QC dropping on its own and it has steadily risen since 2001, so legislation is needed to fix this unanticipated erosion in this option for farmers and the self-employed. Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs. Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. In addition, by linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again. Along with providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It could even provide a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run. Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law. When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. When these provisions were developed, Congress intended self-employed individuals to have the ability to pay enough to earn a full 4 QCs. Unfortunately the Tax Code has not kept up with the times and due to inflation many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. Some of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007, is similar to legislation I introduced in the last two Congresses and will solve the problem for today and into the future. Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and lead the Nation in cheese production with over 25 percent or 2.5 billion pounds of cheese a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of butter, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hardworking farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist. One concern that I have heard from Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. These programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years. Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers who are at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies. Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers, Social Security Act Sec. 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a), have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC per year; making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits because they must average 2 QCs per year to be eligible. With inflation, there is no chance of the amount needed to earn a QC dropping on its own and it has steadily risen since 2001, so legislation is needed to fix this unanticipated erosion in this option for farmers and the self-employed. Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs. Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. In addition, by linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again. Along with providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It could even provide a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run. Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law. When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. When these provisions were developed, Congress intended self-employed individuals to have the ability to pay enough to earn a full 4 QCs. Unfortunately the Tax Code has not kept up with the times and due to inflation many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am pleased today to introduce the National Security Reform Act of 2007, a bipartisan effort that has the support of Senators who I respect a great deal, and with whom I have worked over the years on the Patriot Act and other issues. It also has the support of organizations and activists across the political spectrum. This past spring, the Inspector General of the Justice Department issued the results of a congressionally mandated audit, an audit that examined the FBI's implementation of its dramatically expanded authority under the USA PATRIOT Act to issue National Security Letters, or NSLs. The Inspector General found, as he put it: ``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' A subsequent internal audit conducted by the FBI itself confirmed the IG's findings. After the IG report came out, the Judiciary Committee heard from the Inspector General himself, who described his conclusions in detail, and from the FBI Director, who talked about some steps the FBI is taking in response to the report. I appreciate that the FBI agrees with the IG's conclusions and recognizes that it needs to change the way it does business when it comes to NSLs. But in my view, leaving it to the FBI to fix this problem is not enough. Unfortunately, Congress shares some responsibility for the FBI's troubling implementation of these broad authorities. The FBI's apparently lax attitude and in some cases grave misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities is attributable in no small part to the USA PATRIOT Act. That flawed legislation greatly expanded the NSL authorities, essentially granting the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong-doing, without judicial approval. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow and failed to adequately remedy those shortcomings when it considered the NSL statutes as part of the Patriot Act reauthorization process. This Inspector General report proves that ``trust us'' doesn't cut it when it comes to the Government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records--without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage. It was a significant mistake for Congress to grant the Government broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they wouldn't be misused. Congress has the responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities--limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies, but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans. In addition, a Federal district court recently struck down one of the new NSL statutes, as modified by the Patriot Act reauthorization legislation enacted in 2006. The court found that a statutory provision permitting the FBI to impose a permanent, blanket nondisclosure order on recipients of NSLs violated the First Amendment. Congress also has not provided sufficient privacy protections to govern the related authority in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which permits the Government to obtain court orders for Americans' business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Often referred to as the ``library'' provision, although it covers all types of business records, Section 215 was one of the most controversial provisions in the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, Congress did not go nearly far enough in the reauthorization process in addressing the very legitimate privacy and civil liberties concerns that have been raised about this power, including with respect to the low standard the Government has to meet to obtain a Section 215 order, the entirely insufficient judicial review provisions, and the lack of other procedural protections. All of this is why a bipartisan group of Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans, are introducing the National Security Letter Reform Act of 2007. The bill places new safeguards on the use of National Security Letters and related Patriot Act authorities to protect against abuse. It restricts the types of records that can be obtained without a court order to those that are the least sensitive and private, and it ensures that the FBI can only use NSLs to obtain information about individuals with some nexus to a suspected terrorist or spy. It makes sure that the FBI can no longer obtain the sensitive records of individuals three or four times removed from a suspect, most of whom would be entirely innocent. It prevents the use of so-called ``exigent letters,'' which the IG found the FBI was using in violation of the NSL statutes. It requires additional congressional reporting on NSLs, and it requires the FBI to establish a compliance program and tracking database for NSLs. It requires the Attorney General to issue minimization and destruction procedures for information obtained through NSLs, so that information obtained about Americans is subject to enhanced protections and the FBI does not retain information obtained in error. On Section 215, the legislation establishes a standard of individualized suspicion for obtaining a FISA business records order, requiring that the government have reason to believe the records sought relate to a suspected terrorist or spy or someone directly linked to a suspected terrorist or spy, and it creates procedural protections to prevent abuses. The bill also ensures robust, meaningful and constitutionally sound judicial review of both National Security Letters and Section 215 business records orders, and the gag orders that accompany them. This legislation is a measured, reasonable response to a serious problem. The NSL authorities operate in secret. The Justice Department's classified reports to Congress on the use of NSLs were admittedly inaccurate. And when, during the reauthorization process, Congress asked questions about how these authorities were being used, we got empty assurances and platitudes that we now know were mistaken. Oversight alone is not enough. Congress also must take corrective action. The Inspector General report has shown both that the executive branch cannot be trusted to exercise those powers without oversight and that current statutory safeguards are inadequate. This National Security Letter Reform Act is the answer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am pleased today to introduce the National Security Reform Act of 2007, a bipartisan effort that has the support of Senators who I respect a great deal, and with whom I have worked over the years on the Patriot Act and other issues. It also has the support of organizations and activists across the political spectrum. This past spring, the Inspector General of the Justice Department issued the results of a congressionally mandated audit, an audit that examined the FBI's implementation of its dramatically expanded authority under the USA PATRIOT Act to issue National Security Letters, or NSLs. The Inspector General found, as he put it: ``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' A subsequent internal audit conducted by the FBI itself confirmed the IG's findings. After the IG report came out, the Judiciary Committee heard from the Inspector General himself, who described his conclusions in detail, and from the FBI Director, who talked about some steps the FBI is taking in response to the report. I appreciate that the FBI agrees with the IG's conclusions and recognizes that it needs to change the way it does business when it comes to NSLs. But in my view, leaving it to the FBI to fix this problem is not enough. Unfortunately, Congress shares some responsibility for the FBI's troubling implementation of these broad authorities. The FBI's apparently lax attitude and in some cases grave misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities is attributable in no small part to the USA PATRIOT Act. That flawed legislation greatly expanded the NSL authorities, essentially granting the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong-doing, without judicial approval. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow and failed to adequately remedy those shortcomings when it considered the NSL statutes as part of the Patriot Act reauthorization process. This Inspector General report proves that ``trust us'' doesn't cut it when it comes to the Government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records--without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage. It was a significant mistake for Congress to grant the Government broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they wouldn't be misused. Congress has the responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities--limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies, but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans. In addition, a Federal district court recently struck down one of the new NSL statutes, as modified by the Patriot Act reauthorization legislation enacted in 2006. The court found that a statutory provision permitting the FBI to impose a permanent, blanket nondisclosure order on recipients of NSLs violated the First Amendment. Congress also has not provided sufficient privacy protections to govern the related authority in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which permits the Government to obtain court orders for Americans' business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Often referred to as the ``library'' provision, although it covers all types of business records, Section 215 was one of the most controversial provisions in the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, Congress did not go nearly far enough in the reauthorization process in addressing the very legitimate privacy and civil liberties concerns that have been raised about this power, including with respect to the low standard the Government has to meet to obtain a Section 215 order, the entirely insufficient judicial review provisions, and the lack of other procedural protections. All of this is why a bipartisan group of Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans, are introducing the National Security Letter Reform Act of 2007. The bill places new safeguards on the use of National Security Letters and related Patriot Act authorities to protect against abuse. It restricts the types of records that can be obtained without a court order to those that are the least sensitive and private, and it ensures that the FBI can only use NSLs to obtain information about individuals with some nexus to a suspected terrorist or spy. It makes sure that the FBI can no longer obtain the sensitive records of individuals three or four times removed from a suspect, most of whom would be entirely innocent. It prevents the use of so-called ``exigent letters,'' which the IG found the FBI was using in violation of the NSL statutes. It requires additional congressional reporting on NSLs, and it requires the FBI to establish a compliance program and tracking database for NSLs. It requires the Attorney General to issue minimization and destruction procedures for information obtained through NSLs, so that information obtained about Americans is subject to enhanced protections and the FBI does not retain information obtained in error. On Section 215, the legislation establishes a standard of individualized suspicion for obtaining a FISA business records order, requiring that the government have reason to believe the records sought relate to a suspected terrorist or spy or someone directly linked to a suspected terrorist or spy, and it creates procedural protections to prevent abuses. The bill also ensures robust, meaningful and constitutionally sound judicial review of both National Security Letters and Section 215 business records orders, and the gag orders that accompany them. This legislation is a measured, reasonable response to a serious problem. The NSL authorities operate in secret. The Justice Department's classified reports to Congress on the use of NSLs were admittedly inaccurate. And when, during the reauthorization process, Congress asked questions about how these authorities were being used, we got empty assurances and platitudes that we now know were mistaken. Oversight alone is not enough. Congress also must take corrective action. The Inspector General report has shown both that the executive branch cannot be trusted to exercise those powers without oversight and that current statutory safeguards are inadequate. This National Security Letter Reform Act is the answer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. If I do not use all the time, I will certainly be happy to yield to the Senator from California. Mr. President, I will oppose the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act. For 7 years, I have worked with Senator McCain and many of our colleagues on essential reforms of the Corps of Engineers and have long anticipated the day the Congress enacts meaningful reform. Unfortunately, today is not that day, and this is not the reform bill the country needs. After a decade of Government and independent reports calling for reforming the Corps and pointing out stunning flaws in Corps projects and project studies, and after the tragic failures of New Orleans' levees during Hurricane Katrina, the American people deserve meaningful reforms to ensure the projects the Corps builds are safe, appropriate, environmentally responsible, and fiscally sound. The urgency and necessity could not be clearer. Unfortunately, the conference report includes weak reforms. The Senate twice voted in support of strong reform language, when it passed WRDA bills earlier this year and last Congress. But the conference report we are about to vote on has been stripped of many important safeguards that would ensure accountability and prevent the Corps from manipulating the process. We have compromised enough over the years. We can no longer afford a system that favors wasteful projects over the needs of the American people. The bill brought back from conference is particularly disappointing because a few months ago, on May 15, Senators Reid, Boxer, and I entered into a colloquy in which we agreed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would ensure the strong Senate reforms would be the minimum reforms coming out of conference and enacted into law. That agreement, apparently, has counted for little. I am particularly troubled by the changes made to the bill's independent review provision during negotiations between the House and the Senate. The Senate version of the bill included a strong independent review provision, which I successfully offered as an amendment to last year's bill and which was again included in this year's WRDA. Subjecting Corps of Engineers project studies to a review by an independent panel of experts will help ensure future Corps projects do not waste taxpayer money or endanger public safety and that environmental impacts are avoided or minimized. Unfortunately, the independent review provision included in the conference report was significantly weakened in several respects. First, it does not ensure independence of the review process. Under the conference report, the supposedly ``independent'' review is not independent. The review process is run by the Corps rather than outside the Agency, as required by the Senate bill. The Corps Chief of Engineers is given significant authority to decide the timing of review, the projects to be reviewed, and whether to implement a review panel's recommendations, and, apparently, even has the ability to control the flow of information received by the review panel. The Corps was not given the authority to determine the scope of the review, but in these other respects, it was given far too much authority, all of which will compromise the independence of the review that is performed. Second, it terminates the independent review provision 7 years after enactment. It is reasonable for Congress to continually evaluate how the program is working, but to presume there is not a need for a long- term review and set a sunset date is irresponsible. Independent reviews should be permanently integrated into the Corp's planning process. The burden should be on the Corps to demonstrate why it does not need a congressionally mandated review process, rather than on Congress to wage another battle to extend the requirement in 7 years. Third, it allows the Corps to exempt projects. The Senate provisions established mandatory review when clear triggers are met. However, the conference report gives the Corps fairly broad discretion to decide what projects get reviewed. It expands the House's loophole allowing the Corps to exempt projects that exceed the mandatory $45 million cost trigger. The Corps can exempt Continuing Authority Program projects, certain rehabilitation projects, and, most egregiously, projects it determines are not controversial or only require an Environmental Assessment rather than a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement. It is this very decision, whether to do an EA or an EIS, that is often in need of review. Furthermore, a project's economic justification, engineering analysis, and formulation of project alternatives are critical elements that should be looked at for all major projects, not just those with significant environmental impact. The conference report also prevents review of most ongoing studies. Although the conference report allows the Corps to exempt projects from review, it does not give the Corps equal authority to include projects. The bill includes restrictive language that prevents the Corps from reviewing studies that were initiated more than 2 years ago, or that were initiated in the last 2 years but already have an ``array of alternatives'' identified, which occurs early in the process. The Senate language would have allowed the Corps to initiate a review for any project that does not have a draft feasibility report. The conference report also eliminates the requirement that a review is mandatory if requested by a Federal agency. The Senate bill would have made a project review mandatory if requested by a Federal agency with the authority to review Corps projects. Instead, the conference report gives the Corps the authority to reject the request and requires the Federal agency to appeal the decision to the Council on Environmental Quality. The Corps should be required to conduct a review made by the head of another agency that is charged with reviewing Corps projects or, at a minimum, to justify to the Council on Environmental Quality why it wants to deny such a request. The final problem I wish to highlight is the conference report does not make sure the Corps is accountable. The conference report eliminated a key provision in the Senate bill that ensured accountability. Specifically, the provision would have required that if a project ends up in court, the same weight is given to the panel and the Corps' opinion if the Corps cannot provide a good example for why it ignored the panel's recommendations. By dropping this accountability requirement, the conference report allows the Corps to ignore the panel's recommendations, as the Corps is currently doing with its own internal review process. I would love to be able to join my colleagues in claiming this is a ``historic moment.'' I am pleased that some of the other reforms I fought for are included in this bill. We have come a long way in the last 7 years, as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues who supported the Senate's reforms last year and again earlier this year. But we have not come far enough, and that is truly regrettable. Why should the taxpayers of this country have to continue wondering if their dollars are being spent on projects that lack merit, hurt the environment or are not entirely reliable? Is not Congress finally willing to put an end to the longtime practice of doling out projects to Members regardless of those projects' merits? How many more flawed projects or wasted dollars will it take before we say enough? I am pleased the conference report contains some modest reforms, but we can do much better than that. In fact, we did much better than that when we passed the Senate bill not long ago. Congress needs to get this right; I think the stakes are too high. Unfortunately, for the reasons I have explained, the conference report fails to do enough. It contains severely compromised language that does not fix the status quo under which Congress uses the Corps to fund pet projects that are not justified or adequately reviewed. I wish to also express my concern with the cost of the bill which has ballooned to $23 billion, $23 billion from the $14, $15 billion cost of the House and Senate versions. Nearly $1 billion of the additional cost is for 19 projects that were added during conference, neither the Senate nor the House has previously reviewed these projects. My colleagues have previously stood on the Senate floor and said the cost of the bill does not matter because WRDA is merely an authorizing bill and not an appropriations bill. We will sort out our priorities later, they say. I think the American taxpayers join me in saying this is absolutely irresponsible and shirks our responsibilities as elected officials. There is already a $58 billion backlog of construction projects previously authorized, and with only $2 billion annually appropriated for project construction, this means the Nation's most pressing needs face significant competition for funding and likely delays. Furthermore, this bill authorizes a significant number of projects and studies that are beyond the Corps' primary mission areas. The Corps cannot be everything to everyone, and Congress does need to discipline itself and set priorities. I will continue to work with my colleagues to institute a system for prioritizing Corps projects and other critical reforms. We may have an opportunity to pass those reforms sooner than some had hoped. The administration has indicated the President will veto this bill, this bloated bill. Rather than overriding a veto, I hope the Congress will use that veto as an opportunity to rethink the flawed mindset that resulted in this bill and in previous WRDA bills. We do not do our constituents favors by spending their tax dollars on projects that are not justified or fully reviewed. We need reforms to make sure these tax dollars are spent in the most important priorities, not just on members' pork. I urge my colleagues to oppose the WRDA conference report. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DURBIN.) The Senator from Missouri.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I, of course, thank the Senator from California, who is chair of the key committee on this bill, for her persistence in trying to get this bill through the Senate. We came to the floor twice this spring to try to get consent to pass the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. Each time an objection was made on behalf of an unidentified Republican Senator. Yet no Senator had come to us to let us know what his or her objection to the bill is. The source of the objection apparently didn't want to be identified, but when the President signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act last week, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, S. 1, fortunately, secret holds become a thing of the past, and I am very proud to have been deeply involved with passage of that legislation. So if an objection was lodged today, the objecting Senator would have had to come forward in 6 session days. As far as I know, this was going to be the first test of the new rule on secret holds, and I was looking forward to learning who the real objector was, as the rule requires, if an objection was made on behalf of an unidentified Senator. But now it appears that the Senator from Nevada has actually identified himself as the objector to the bill, so we know what is going on here. I believe the new provision under the new law is the reason this individual identified himself. I don't think that would have happened had it not been for the positive deterrent effect this new legislation has. Senator Feinstein and I can cite this as the first time this was successfully forced in the case of a secret hold. This underlying bill about disclosure, which I authored along with others, is completely noncontroversial. This simply put Senate campaigns under the same obligation to file their reports electronically that the House and Presidential campaigns have been forced to do for years. There is simply no reason that the information in Senate campaign finance reports should remain less accessible to the public than any other campaign finance reports. We are now at 41 bipartisan cosponsors. As the Senator from California pointed out, not a single concern about the bill was heard in the Rules Committee. The bill passed by voice vote, and no one has come to us with any concerns about it at all. So the time has come to get it done. The Senator from Nevada has made an alternative proposal to bring up the bill but to make an amendment in order. The amendment he wants to offer, however, has nothing to do with this bill. Indeed, it is a very controversial proposal to require groups that file ethics complaints to disclose their donors. I am sure the charitable and advocacy organizations will find this amendment quite controversial. It should be referred to the appropriate committee and given very searching study before it is offered on the floor. As the Senator from California said, it would certainly be a poison pill for the underlying bill, which thus far has had no public opposition whatsoever. So I am pleased the Senator from California objected. We are happy to make that objection very public. I thank the chairman of the committee, the Senator from California. I will say again, it looks as though we made a little bit of progress. No longer is there a secret hold on the bill. Instead, the Senator from Nevada has made it plain he is the one holding up the bill by insisting on offering an unrelated amendment. That is unfortunate, but at least we know what we are dealing with. I hope in the days ahead we will be able to prevail on him to change his approach. There are some bills where it is simply not appropriate to seek to add extraneous and controversial amendments. The amendment he has proposed is surely a poison pill for this bill, and we need to get this bill in place soon so these requirements of disclosure will apply during the 2008 election season. Once again, I truly thank the Senator from California, and I look forward to getting this bill passed in the near future. I yield the floor.