Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for Senator Specter's Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2007, S. 2243. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill, which addresses the importance of Saudi cooperation with the U.S. on counterterrorism issues. It is also important, however, that we raise concerns about Saudi Arabia's poor human rights record, weak rule of law, ongoing political and religious repression, and poor treatment of women. For instance, last month a court in Saudi Arabia doubled its sentence of lashings for a rape victim who had elected to speak out publicly about her case and her attempt at justice. According to human rights organizations, the court also harassed her lawyer, banned him from the case, and confiscated his professional license. Similarly, 2 of the country's leading reformers, the brothers Abdullah and Isa al-Hamid, were recently sentenced to 6 months in jail after they themselves were arrested for reportedly requiring the Saudi intelligence forces to produce an arrest warrant when seeking to detain peaceful demonstrators protesting the lengthy imprisonment of their relatives. The State Department's 2007 human rights report notes that very serious problems persist in Saudi Arabia, including no right to peacefully change the government; infliction of severe pain by judicially sanctioned corporal punishments; beatings and other abuses; inadequate prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, sometimes incommunicado; denial of fair public trials; exemption from the rule of law for some individuals and lack of judicial independence; arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, and correspondence; and significant restriction of civil liberties--freedoms of speech and press, including the Internet; assembly; association; and movement. In addition, the Saudi government committed severe violations of religious freedom and has very strict limitations on workers, especially for foreign workers. While the State Department continues to condemn Saudi Arabia for its abhorrent policies on human trafficking--and place it in the worst tier for such abuses-- the President continues to waive sanctions that are supposed to be triggered by this designation, in the interest of national security. What message are we sending if we don't act on these pervasive human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia? Such abuses should not be overlooked or sidelined in the interest of national security. In fact, they are critical to our national security and our ongoing efforts to combat al- Qaida and related extremist threats. The United States must continue to push for freedom of speech, religion, and association, and the rule of law around the globe. I will continue to support S. 2243, but also encourage my colleagues to also speak up about the crucial role that free and fair societies play in curbing human rights abuses and reducing the alienation, oppression and despair that feed extremism.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased that the leadership of both parties has resolved the issues surrounding consideration of the farm bill. I have been extremely frustrated with the delay up to this point. In my home State, thousands of Wisconsinites are waiting for this bill to pass as they prepare for the coming year. This is true for farmers, of course, but also for the hard-working people who run and depend on food pantries and other hunger relief organizations. I know how hard the committee, particularly Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss, worked to draft this extensive bill. I am pleased that this bill would make some significant improvements over current policy in a number of areas. I have heard some suggest that, if this impasse continued, Congress ought to just extend the status quo for 2 years. Frankly, this would be a shirking of our responsibility, and would ignore the improvements made in committee, as well as those that have already been, or may still be, added during Senate consideration. For example, the Senate committee bill would increase the reimbursement rate for the Milk Income Loss Contract, or MILC, program to 45 percent in 2009. Many Wisconsin farmers will benefit from this important increase in the MILC program's responsible safety net for small and medium dairy farmers. I am acutely aware of the importance of the support programs for American farmers. However, there is plenty of room for improvement, and I know many of my colleagues agree. Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, have filed relevant amendments that would make reasonable changes to existing programs and spend our limited money more responsibly. I have crafted a moderate reform amendment that I am glad to have combined with a similar effort by Senator Menendez. I hope our amendment will be considered by this body before the bill is passed, and look forward to supporting other reform efforts. The Senate should be considering these and other amendments to improve the bill, such as the payment limit amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Grassley. The committee bill also provides significant investments in conservation, nutrition, and rural development programs. I especially want to highlight the nutrition programs, as the beneficiaries of Food Stamps, TEFAP, and other such programs would be among the first to see the benefits of a new farm bill, at a time when food and fuel prices are on the rise. The committee bill does much for these programs-- including increasing the standard deduction for Food Stamps and indexing benefits to inflation. I am encouraged by these important investments that provide a total increase of over $5 billion. The current problems facing food banks and pantries across the country demonstrate the need for an infusion from the farm bill. As many of my colleagues know, food pantries across the country that have long distributed TEFAP and other similar programs are finding that, this year, the same resources are providing significantly less food for their needy constituents as the cost of both food and transportation has eroded their buying power. Just last week, my staff got an email from an employee at Milwaukee Hunger Task Force, one of the largest TEFAP distributors in the State, which highlights this dilemma. He explained that they just ordered a truckload of TEFAP peanut butter at a cost of $37,000; a year ago, this same order cost a full $10,000 less. And it is not just peanut butter-- the cost of a truckload of flour rose $7,000 in the same year; a truckload of tuna rose $8,000. I am sure my colleagues have seen some of the stories in their State papers as I have in Wisconsin, announcing the bare cupboards at food pantries, shelters, and other hunger relief groups. The increases for nutrition programs included in the farm bill are vital for these groups and the Americans they serve. I look forward to supporting proposals to further improve support for farmers, enhance life in rural areas and increase nutrition. Several amendments would significantly address the needs of farmers and rural communities while making available additional funds for nutrition as well. For example, the proposed Dorgan-Grassley payment-limits amendment that I am pleased to cosponsor provides over $200 million for nutrition programs, including $56 million to index TEFAP benefits for inflation. Similarly, my amendment with Senator Menendez provides $301 million for Food Stamps in the ``outyears'' of the next farm bill, 2013-2017, and about $70 million annually for purchase of local food through various nutrition programs including WIC Farmers market vouchers, the Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Program, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. I hope those Senators who were delaying consideration of this bill-- which helps millions of Americans, farmers and nonfarmers alike--will allow the Senate to have a fair and thorough debate on this important legislation. After all these months, any additional delay is simply unacceptable.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce in the Senate the Reasonable Notice and Search Act. This bill is nearly identical to a bill I introduced in the 109th Congress, S. 316. It addresses Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a provision passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that has caused serious concern among Members of Congress and the public. Section 213, sometimes referred to as the ``delayed notice search provision'' or the ``sneak and peek provision,'' authorizes the government in limited circumstances to conduct a search in a criminal investigation without immediately serving a search warrant on the owner or occupant of the premises that have been searched. Prior to the Patriot Act, secret searches for physical evidence were performed in some jurisdictions under the authority of Court of Appeals decisions, but the Supreme Court never definitively ruled whether they were constitutional. Section 213 of the Patriot Act authorized delayed notice warrants in any case in which an ``adverse result'' would occur if the warrant was served before the search was executed. ``Adverse result'' was defined as including: endangering the life or physical safety of an individual, flight from prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, or otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. This last catchall category could apply in virtually any criminal case. In addition, while some courts had required the service of the warrant within a specified period of time, the Patriot Act simply required that the warrant specify that it would be served within a ``reasonable'' period of time after the search. This provision of the Patriot Act was not limited to terrorism cases. In fact, before the Patriot Act passed, the FBI already had the authority to conduct secret searches of foreign terrorists and spies with no notice at all under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Furthermore, the Patriot Act ``sneak and peek'' authority was not made subject to any sunset provision. So Section 213 was obviously a provision that the Department of Justice wanted regardless of the terrorism threat after 9/11. Perhaps that is why this provision has caused such controversy. In 2003, by a wide bipartisan margin, the House passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill offered by then- Representative Butch Otter from Idaho, a Republican, to stop funding for delayed notice searches authorized under section 213. I first raised concerns about the sneak and peek provision when it was included in the Patriot Act in 2001. I raised concerns during the reauthorization process in 2005 and 2006, when changes were made that were, unfortunately, entirely inadequate. The reauthorization legislation did not change the very broad standard for issuing a sneak and peak search warrant. It put in place a 30-day time limit for the delayed notice of these warrants and permitted 90-day extensions--time periods that are far too long. So even after the reauthorization process, adequate safeguards are still not in place for these types of searches. I have never argued, however, and I am not arguing now, that there should be no delayed notice searches at all and that the provision should be repealed. I simply believe that this provision should be modified to protect against abuse. My bill will do three things to accomplish this. First, my bill would narrow the circumstances in which a delayed notice warrant can be granted to the following: potential loss of life, flight from prosecution, destruction or tampering with evidence, or intimidation of potential witnesses. I do not include the ``catchall provision'' in section 213, allowing a secret search when serving the warrant would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial,'' because it can too easily be turned into permission to do these searches whenever the government wants. Second, I believe that any delayed notice warrant should provide for a specific and limited time period within which notice must be given: 7 days. This is consistent with some of the pre-Patriot Act court decisions and will help to bring this provision in closer accord with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under my bill, prosecutors will be permitted to seek 21-day extensions if circumstances continue to warrant that the subject not be made aware of the search. But the default should be 1 week, unless a court is convinced that more time should be permitted. Finally, Section 213 should include a sunset provision so that it expires along with the other expanded surveillance provisions in Title II of the Patriot Act, at the end of 2009. This will allow Congress to reevaluate this authority and whether additional safeguards are needed. These are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. Rather, they recognize the legitimate concern across the political spectrum that this provision presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that Fourth Amendment rights have meaning, and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Computer Trespass Clarification Act of 2007, which would amend and clarify section 217 of the USA PATRIOT Act. This bill is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in the 109th Congress. Section 217 of the Patriot Act addresses the interception of computer trespass communications. This bill would modify existing law to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision, and also protect against invasions of privacy. Section 217 was designed to permit law enforcement to assist computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking. The original Department of Justice draft of the bill that later became the Patriot Act included this provision. A section by section analysis provided by the Department on September 19, 2001, stated the following: Current law may not allow victims of computer trespassing to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring unauthorized attacks as they occur. Because service providers often lack the expertise, equipment, or financial resources required to monitor attacks themselves as permitted under current law, they often have no way to exercise their rights to protect themselves from authorized attackers. Moreover, such attackers can target critical infrastructures and engage in cyberterrorism. To correct this problem, and help to protect national security, the proposed amendments to the wiretap statute would allow victims of computer attacks to authorize persons ``acting under color of law'' to monitor trespassers on their computer systems in a narrow class of cases. I strongly supported the goal of giving computer system owners the ability to call in law enforcement to help defend themselves against hacking. Including such a provision in the Patriot Act made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the drafters of the provision made it much broader than necessary, and refused to amend it at the time we debated the bill in 2001. As a result, the law now gives the government the authority to intercept communications by people using computers owned by others as long as they have engaged in some unauthorized activity on the computer, and the owner gives permission for the computer to be monitored--all without judicial approval. Only people who have a ``contractual relationship'' with the owner allowing the use of a computer are exempt from the definition of a computer trespasser under section 217 of the Patriot Act. Many people-- for example, college students, patrons of libraries, Internet cafes or airport business lounges, and guests at hotels--use computers owned by others with permission, but without a contractual relationship. They could end up being the subject of Government snooping if the owner of the computer gives permission to law enforcement. My bill would clarify that a computer trespasser is not someone who has permission to use a computer by the owner or operator of that computer. It would bring the existing computer trespass provision in line with the purpose of section 217 as expressed in the Department of Justice's initial explanation of the provision. Section 217 was intended to target only a narrow class of people: unauthorized cyberhackers. It was not intended to give the government the opportunity to engage in widespread surveillance of computer users without a warrant. Another problem is that unless criminal charges are brought against someone as a result of such surveillance, there would never be any notice at all that the surveillance has taken place. The computer owner authorizes the surveillance, and the FBI carries it out. There is no warrant, no court proceeding, no opportunity even for the subject of the surveillance to challenge the assertion of the owner that some unauthorized use of the computer has occurred. My bill would modify the computer trespass provision in the following additional ways to protect against abuse, while still maintaining its usefulness in cases of denial of service attacks and other forms of hacking. First, it would require that the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizing the interception has been subject to ``an ongoing pattern of communications activity that threatens the integrity or operation of such computer.'' In other words, the owner has to be the target of some kind of hacking. Second, the bill limits the length of warrantless surveillance to 96 hours. This is twice as long as is allowed for an emergency criminal wiretap. With four days of surveillance, it should not be difficult for the government to gather sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant if continued surveillance is necessary. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to report annually on the use of Section 217 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Section 217 was originally subject to the sunset provision in the Patriot Act and therefore would have expired at the end of 2005. However, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, which became law in March 2006, made this provision permanent. Congress needs to do more oversight of the use of this provision. The computer trespass provision now in the law as a result of section 217 of the PATRIOT Act leaves open the potential for significant and unnecessary invasions of privacy. The reasonable and modest changes to the provision contained in this bill preserve the usefulness of the provision for investigations of cyberhacking, but reduce the possibility of government abuse. I urge my colleagues to support the Computer Trespass Clarification Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Computer Trespass Clarification Act of 2007, which would amend and clarify section 217 of the USA PATRIOT Act. This bill is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in the 109th Congress. Section 217 of the Patriot Act addresses the interception of computer trespass communications. This bill would modify existing law to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision, and also protect against invasions of privacy. Section 217 was designed to permit law enforcement to assist computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking. The original Department of Justice draft of the bill that later became the Patriot Act included this provision. A section by section analysis provided by the Department on September 19, 2001, stated the following: Current law may not allow victims of computer trespassing to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring unauthorized attacks as they occur. Because service providers often lack the expertise, equipment, or financial resources required to monitor attacks themselves as permitted under current law, they often have no way to exercise their rights to protect themselves from authorized attackers. Moreover, such attackers can target critical infrastructures and engage in cyberterrorism. To correct this problem, and help to protect national security, the proposed amendments to the wiretap statute would allow victims of computer attacks to authorize persons ``acting under color of law'' to monitor trespassers on their computer systems in a narrow class of cases. I strongly supported the goal of giving computer system owners the ability to call in law enforcement to help defend themselves against hacking. Including such a provision in the Patriot Act made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the drafters of the provision made it much broader than necessary, and refused to amend it at the time we debated the bill in 2001. As a result, the law now gives the government the authority to intercept communications by people using computers owned by others as long as they have engaged in some unauthorized activity on the computer, and the owner gives permission for the computer to be monitored--all without judicial approval. Only people who have a ``contractual relationship'' with the owner allowing the use of a computer are exempt from the definition of a computer trespasser under section 217 of the Patriot Act. Many people-- for example, college students, patrons of libraries, Internet cafes or airport business lounges, and guests at hotels--use computers owned by others with permission, but without a contractual relationship. They could end up being the subject of Government snooping if the owner of the computer gives permission to law enforcement. My bill would clarify that a computer trespasser is not someone who has permission to use a computer by the owner or operator of that computer. It would bring the existing computer trespass provision in line with the purpose of section 217 as expressed in the Department of Justice's initial explanation of the provision. Section 217 was intended to target only a narrow class of people: unauthorized cyberhackers. It was not intended to give the government the opportunity to engage in widespread surveillance of computer users without a warrant. Another problem is that unless criminal charges are brought against someone as a result of such surveillance, there would never be any notice at all that the surveillance has taken place. The computer owner authorizes the surveillance, and the FBI carries it out. There is no warrant, no court proceeding, no opportunity even for the subject of the surveillance to challenge the assertion of the owner that some unauthorized use of the computer has occurred. My bill would modify the computer trespass provision in the following additional ways to protect against abuse, while still maintaining its usefulness in cases of denial of service attacks and other forms of hacking. First, it would require that the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizing the interception has been subject to ``an ongoing pattern of communications activity that threatens the integrity or operation of such computer.'' In other words, the owner has to be the target of some kind of hacking. Second, the bill limits the length of warrantless surveillance to 96 hours. This is twice as long as is allowed for an emergency criminal wiretap. With four days of surveillance, it should not be difficult for the government to gather sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant if continued surveillance is necessary. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to report annually on the use of Section 217 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Section 217 was originally subject to the sunset provision in the Patriot Act and therefore would have expired at the end of 2005. However, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, which became law in March 2006, made this provision permanent. Congress needs to do more oversight of the use of this provision. The computer trespass provision now in the law as a result of section 217 of the PATRIOT Act leaves open the potential for significant and unnecessary invasions of privacy. The reasonable and modest changes to the provision contained in this bill preserve the usefulness of the provision for investigations of cyberhacking, but reduce the possibility of government abuse. I urge my colleagues to support the Computer Trespass Clarification Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce in the Senate the Reasonable Notice and Search Act. This bill is nearly identical to a bill I introduced in the 109th Congress, S. 316. It addresses Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a provision passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that has caused serious concern among Members of Congress and the public. Section 213, sometimes referred to as the ``delayed notice search provision'' or the ``sneak and peek provision,'' authorizes the government in limited circumstances to conduct a search in a criminal investigation without immediately serving a search warrant on the owner or occupant of the premises that have been searched. Prior to the Patriot Act, secret searches for physical evidence were performed in some jurisdictions under the authority of Court of Appeals decisions, but the Supreme Court never definitively ruled whether they were constitutional. Section 213 of the Patriot Act authorized delayed notice warrants in any case in which an ``adverse result'' would occur if the warrant was served before the search was executed. ``Adverse result'' was defined as including: endangering the life or physical safety of an individual, flight from prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, or otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. This last catchall category could apply in virtually any criminal case. In addition, while some courts had required the service of the warrant within a specified period of time, the Patriot Act simply required that the warrant specify that it would be served within a ``reasonable'' period of time after the search. This provision of the Patriot Act was not limited to terrorism cases. In fact, before the Patriot Act passed, the FBI already had the authority to conduct secret searches of foreign terrorists and spies with no notice at all under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Furthermore, the Patriot Act ``sneak and peek'' authority was not made subject to any sunset provision. So Section 213 was obviously a provision that the Department of Justice wanted regardless of the terrorism threat after 9/11. Perhaps that is why this provision has caused such controversy. In 2003, by a wide bipartisan margin, the House passed an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill offered by then- Representative Butch Otter from Idaho, a Republican, to stop funding for delayed notice searches authorized under section 213. I first raised concerns about the sneak and peek provision when it was included in the Patriot Act in 2001. I raised concerns during the reauthorization process in 2005 and 2006, when changes were made that were, unfortunately, entirely inadequate. The reauthorization legislation did not change the very broad standard for issuing a sneak and peak search warrant. It put in place a 30-day time limit for the delayed notice of these warrants and permitted 90-day extensions--time periods that are far too long. So even after the reauthorization process, adequate safeguards are still not in place for these types of searches. I have never argued, however, and I am not arguing now, that there should be no delayed notice searches at all and that the provision should be repealed. I simply believe that this provision should be modified to protect against abuse. My bill will do three things to accomplish this. First, my bill would narrow the circumstances in which a delayed notice warrant can be granted to the following: potential loss of life, flight from prosecution, destruction or tampering with evidence, or intimidation of potential witnesses. I do not include the ``catchall provision'' in section 213, allowing a secret search when serving the warrant would ``seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial,'' because it can too easily be turned into permission to do these searches whenever the government wants. Second, I believe that any delayed notice warrant should provide for a specific and limited time period within which notice must be given: 7 days. This is consistent with some of the pre-Patriot Act court decisions and will help to bring this provision in closer accord with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under my bill, prosecutors will be permitted to seek 21-day extensions if circumstances continue to warrant that the subject not be made aware of the search. But the default should be 1 week, unless a court is convinced that more time should be permitted. Finally, Section 213 should include a sunset provision so that it expires along with the other expanded surveillance provisions in Title II of the Patriot Act, at the end of 2009. This will allow Congress to reevaluate this authority and whether additional safeguards are needed. These are reasonable and moderate changes to the law. They do not gut the provision. Rather, they recognize the legitimate concern across the political spectrum that this provision presents the potential for abuse. They also send a message that Fourth Amendment rights have meaning, and potential violations of those rights should be minimized if at all possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. Bipartisan support is a key element of successful campaign finance reform efforts, and I am therefore delighted that the junior Senator from Maine, Sen. Collins, has agreed to be the principal cosponsor of the bill. The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2009, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election. The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election as well. In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant. Several of the leading candidates for President in the 2008 election are not participating in the primary system, and it remains to be seen whether either major party candidate will accept public funds in the general election. It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse. This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates the state-by-state primary spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall primary spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1. One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. Candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit. The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. If a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating opposing candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit. This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million until funds for the general election are made available. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow the ``gap'' to be more than adequately filled. Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law. The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting 6 months before the date of the first primary or caucus, that's approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart. The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and lobbying reform bill enacted earlier this year. It requires presidential candidates to disclose all bundlers of $50,000 or more. The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, this is an excellent time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. The 2008 presidential campaign, which is already underway, will undoubtedly be the most expensive in history. A number of candidates from both parties have opted out of the primary matching funds system, and some experts predict that one or both major party nominees will even refuse public grants for the general election period. It is too late to make the changes needed to repair the system for the 2008 election. But if we act now, we can make sure that an updated and revised system is in place for the 2012 election. If we act now, I am certain that the 2008 campaign cycle will confirm our foresight. If we do nothing, 2008 will continue and accelerate the slide of the current system into irrelevancy. Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $365 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill first amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to allow the Bureau of Land Management to implement new user fees for processing oil and gas permits. It also amends the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to increase the yearly maintenance fee and one-time location fee for holders of more than 10 mining claims on federal land to $150 and $50 per claim, respectively, and imposes a 4 percent royalty on the gross income from mining on existing claims. Finally, it amends the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 to use a state's fee formula to establish the grazing fees for federal land in that state. Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to recognize the United Nations International Volunteer Day for Economic and Social Development, IVD. I strongly support international volunteering because of the mutual personal and cultural benefits it yields to both those who volunteer and those who benefit from volunteer efforts. Volunteering is one of the more meaningful ways for us to address very significant needs and develop a common understanding throughout our interconnected world. Volunteering overseas regularly changes perspectives for the better. My constituents often share their stories about these international experiences, and I am always pleased to hear them talk about how it broadened their understanding and deepened their compassion for other cultures. Today, some of the greatest threats to our national security are based on, or feed upon, a false impression of who the American people are and what we care about. To reverse these erroneous impressions we need to share and make clear the qualities of empathy and kindness that are central to our heritage. American volunteerism abroad is not only a simple act of benevolence--an effort to improve the lives of others--but it is also one of our best resources to create greater, more meaningful interaction and common points of reference and to build strong relationships throughout the world. Claudia from Milwaukee wrote me recently about her first international volunteer experience. She said, ``I have always had a desire to travel and explore. . . . Most recently, I had the opportunity to volunteer internationally with Cross-Cultural Solutions in Lima, Peru . . . which brought out every emotion we have. While in Lima, I worked with the elderly of Villa El Salvador, many of whom are abused, neglected and in poor health. Villa El Salvador, which is outside of Lima, is a shantytown built on the sand dunes in 1970. The warmth and love felt from the people was unbelievable. I also had the opportunity to participate in home visits. Seeing how people live with very little, most with only one or two rooms, many with dirt floors and some having no indoor plumbing, makes me realize that it's not the possessions we have in life but life itself. . . . We are one world, one planet. We do need to share it as one.'' I believe every American should have the opportunity to volunteer overseas and experience firsthand, like Claudia, how crucial this kind of assistance is to building meaningful personal understanding and international relationships as well as contributing to the development of nations. For this reason, I introduced the Global Service Fellowship Act, S. 1464, which creates an international volunteer program designed to provide more opportunities for people-to-people engagement. The bill reduces two key barriers that Americans face when volunteering overseas--cost and time limitations. First, the Global Service Fellowship Act reduces financial barriers by awarding fellowships that can be applied towards airfare, housing, or program costs, to name a few examples. By providing financial assistance, the Global Service Fellowship Program opens the door for every American to be a program participant--not just those with the resources to pay for it. Second, this bill offers flexibility in the length of time for which an individual can volunteer. I often hear from constituents who do not seek opportunities to participate in Federal volunteer programs because they cannot leave their jobs or family for years at a time. The Global Service Fellowship Program provides a commonsense approach to the time constraints of many Americans who seek volunteer opportunities by offering a timeframe that works for them--from a month up to a year. My bill would broaden the spectrum of Federal volunteer opportunities already made available by our Government. Given the increasingly negative perception of the United States overseas, we need more support for international volunteerism now more than ever. My constituents who engage in such opportunities are proof of how we can both inform ourselves of the needs and nature of our foreign neighbors and also directly change attitudes about the United States for the better. For these reasons, today marks a special day for me and, in particular, for my constituents who have shared with me their stories of hope and fulfillment from their international experiences. It is my wish that all of us will have these types of experiences and that this day will remind us of--and encourage us to participate in--the very meaningful opportunities and benefits offered by international volunteer initiatives.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. Bipartisan support is a key element of successful campaign finance reform efforts, and I am therefore delighted that the junior Senator from Maine, Sen. Collins, has agreed to be the principal cosponsor of the bill. The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2009, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election. The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election as well. In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant. Several of the leading candidates for President in the 2008 election are not participating in the primary system, and it remains to be seen whether either major party candidate will accept public funds in the general election. It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse. This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates the state-by-state primary spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall primary spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1. One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. Candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit. The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. If a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating opposing candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit. This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million until funds for the general election are made available. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow the ``gap'' to be more than adequately filled. Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law. The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting 6 months before the date of the first primary or caucus, that's approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart. The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and lobbying reform bill enacted earlier this year. It requires presidential candidates to disclose all bundlers of $50,000 or more. The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, this is an excellent time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. The 2008 presidential campaign, which is already underway, will undoubtedly be the most expensive in history. A number of candidates from both parties have opted out of the primary matching funds system, and some experts predict that one or both major party nominees will even refuse public grants for the general election period. It is too late to make the changes needed to repair the system for the 2008 election. But if we act now, we can make sure that an updated and revised system is in place for the 2012 election. If we act now, I am certain that the 2008 campaign cycle will confirm our foresight. If we do nothing, 2008 will continue and accelerate the slide of the current system into irrelevancy. Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $365 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill first amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to allow the Bureau of Land Management to implement new user fees for processing oil and gas permits. It also amends the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to increase the yearly maintenance fee and one-time location fee for holders of more than 10 mining claims on federal land to $150 and $50 per claim, respectively, and imposes a 4 percent royalty on the gross income from mining on existing claims. Finally, it amends the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 to use a state's fee formula to establish the grazing fees for federal land in that state. Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon be voting on the first measure to implement a trade deal since the announcement last spring by the administration and some Members of Congress of an agreement to facilitate the consideration of trade legislation. The centerpiece of that agreement was to be the inclusion in future trade agreements of meaningful labor standards. In fact, because last spring's announced agreement was only a set of principles, and not actual language, the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement bill before the Senate is the first opportunity to review the details of that agreement. I will touch on the new labor provisions included in the Peru agreement shortly, but the agreement is far more than just provisions overseeing labor standards. And in those areas, the trade agreement with Peru comes up short. In fact, the agreement looks just like the provisions in other trade agreements that have been stamped out over the past decade and more by the NAFTA template--a failed model of trade that has helped ship millions of family-supporting American jobs overseas, while too often failing to produce the promised enhanced standard of living for the families of our trading partners. Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the Peru agreement contains language identical to the devastating foreign investor rights provisions of NAFTA that undermine federal, state, and local protections for the environment, health, and public safety. Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the Peru agreement renders meaningless our longstanding common sense government procurement policies, including the Buy America law which requires that taxpayer dollars be used by the federal government to purchase American made goods and services when they are a reasonable option. Like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the Peru agreement undercuts pro-environmental policies such as recycled content requirements, and undermines our ability to require imported food to meet our safety standards. As the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen has noted, the Peru trade agreement includes NAFTA provisions that require the United States ``to treat imported food the same as U.S.-produced food, even though more intensive inspection is needed to compensate for Peru's weak domestic regulatory system.'' And like those previous trade agreements based on the NAFTA model, the Peru agreement includes NAFTA provisions that undermine the right to affordable medicines for poorer countries established in the World Trade Organization's Doha Declaration. With all of this NAFTA baggage included in the Peru agreement, one might ask if there is any reason to believe this agreement won't just reproduce the same disastrous results we have seen from failed trade policies over the past two decades. And that brings us to the new language included in the Peru agreement stemming from the deal announced last spring between a number of Members of Congress and the administration. Regrettably, and perhaps predictably, that new language does not live up to the billing it received at the time of the announcement. In fact, according to an analysis done by Professor Mark Barenberg of Columbia University, the new labor provisions are actually weaker than current law. Professor Barenberg compared the proposed new labor provisions with those of trade deals already in effect, and found that the Peru agreement undermines existing trade laws, which Barenberg states are already ``weak, unreliable, and inadequate to the task.'' For example, the Barenberg report notes that under current law, ``if Peru fails to comply with internationally recognized labor rights, then the United States can impose unlimited sanctions against Peru, can provide benefits to Peru in any area of foreign relations, or can withdraw special trade benefits in whole or in part, to ensure that Peru comes into compliance. The U.S. can target specific sectors, products, or actors. The U.S. can impose sanctions or withhold benefits until those specified actors comply.'' But under the U.S.-Peru agreement, ``if Peru fails to comply with the vague labor ``principles'' or with Peru's domestic labor law, Peru can choose to pay the United States only half the monetary value of the trade benefits that accrue to Peru as a result of the violations-- creating a cost-benefit incentive for Peru to commit violations. If Peru chooses this monetary penalty, then the sanction is not targeted on any sector or any actor. The Agreement establishes no system of positive benefits (carrots) to Peru for compliance.'' The Barenberg report gives another example. Under existing law, ``if Peru fails to comply with internationally recognized labor rights, then private parties in the United States, such as workers and labor unions, have the right to petition the President to impose sanctions or take other measures against Peru to ensure compliance.'' But, while private parties, including trade unions are allowed under section 301 of the Trade Act to file petitions with the President, alleging that a trading partner has violated a trade agreement, under the U.S.-Peru Agreement, private parties are given ``no right to directly initiate complaints against Peru for violating its obligation to enforce the vague labor ``principles'' or domestic labor law. Only the President may bring such complaints--and, in fact, the President has never filed a complaint under the labor-rights provisions of any bilateral trade agreement.'' Here is still another example. Under existing law, ``if the President decides that Peru is failing to comply with internationally recognized labor rights, he can impose sanctions. He need not gain the approval of another decision-maker.'' By contrast, under the U.S.-Peru agreement, ``if the President decides that Peru is failing to comply with vague labor ``principles'' or domestic labor law, he cannot impose sanctions. He can only file a complaint that may lead to international arbitration to determine whether Peru stands in violation. Hence, the decision to impose sanctions must be taken by two decision-makers, rather than one--the President and a panel of international arbitrators. And international arbitrators will apply international law, which holds that an obligation to adhere to the vague labor principles does not entail an obligation to adhere to actual labor rights, let alone adhere to any concrete performance measures or indicators.'' As others have noted, Professor Barenberg's report may explain why no major labor, environmental, human rights, or consumer protection groups have endorsed the Peru agreement. Our trade policies of the past two decades have been disastrous. They have contributed to the loss of several million family-supporting jobs in this country. They have left communities across my State devastated, and I know the same is true in communities around this country. Our trade deficit is still out of control, as we send more and more of our wealth overseas, much of it in the form of factories that provided entire communities with decent, good-paying jobs. I hold listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year. This is my 15th year holding those listening sessions, listening to tens of thousands of people from all over Wisconsin. I completed my 1000th of those sessions just about a year ago, and I can tell you that there is nearly universal frustration and anger with the trade policies we have pursued since the late 1980s. Even among those who would have called themselves traditional free-traders, it is increasingly obvious that the so-called NAFTA model of trade has been a tragic failure. I voted against NAFTA, GATT, and permanent most favored nation status for China, in great part because I felt they were bad deals for Wisconsin businesses and Wisconsin workers. At the time I voted against those agreements, I thought they would result in lost jobs for my State. But, as I have noted before, even as an opponent of those trade agreements, I had no idea just how bad things would get. Nor does the problem end with the loss of businesses and jobs. The model on which our recent trade agreements have been based fundamentally undermines our democratic institutions. It replaces the judgment of the people, as reflected in the laws and standards set forth by their elected representatives, with rules written by organizations dominated by multinational corporations. Food, environmental, and safety standards set by our democratic institutions are subject to challenge if they conflict with those approved by unelected international trade bureaucracies. Even laws that require the government to use our tax dollars to buy goods made here, rather than overseas, can be challenged. We cannot live in isolation. We are in a global economy, and it makes good sense to have reasonable trade agreements with those who want to trade with us--trade agreements that have broad-based support and that will provide broad-based economic benefits to all sectors of our economy and the economies of our trading partners. That is not what we have now, and we shouldn't pass another bill to implement one of these flawed agreements until we can straighten out the twisted trade model that has done so much damage to the personal economies of thousands of families across the country.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, H.R. 4156, the House-passed bill providing bridge funding for the Iraq war, is unacceptably weak. While I will support cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of that bill, my vote should not be misinterpreted as a vote in favor of this bill. By supporting cloture on the motion to proceed, I am voting in favor of the Senate having the opportunity to debate and amend it. I have already filed an amendment to the bill that consists of the Feingold- Reid amendment offered to the Defense Department authorization bill earlier this year. Unfortunately, it appears that the Republicans will not even allow the Senate to have meaningful debate on a war that has no end in sight and that does not have the backing of the American people. But Democrats aren't off the hook either. H.R. 4156 purports to attach some strings to the funding it provides, but those strings are so thin and pliable as to be virtually meaningless. Since Democrats assumed control of Congress with a mandate from the American people, we have made progress toward changing course in Iraq, and I have supported efforts to increase pressure on this administration to listen to the American people. At this point, giving the President money to continue the war while only setting a ``goal'' for concluding the redeployment of our troops is insufficient. I am afraid we are moving backwards, not forward, with this new bill. I spoke at some length yesterday about the administration's flawed strategy in Iraq, so I will not repeat myself today. I will say, however, that the administration's policy is indefensible. The American people know that, which is why they voted the way they did in November. They want us out of Iraq, and they want us out now. They don't want to give the so-called ``surge'' time and they are right. The surge is a delaying tactic, an effort to buy time. We can't afford to spend any more time, or money, on a war that is hurting our own national security. We must act and we must do it now. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 1 minute left on my time, and I thank the Chair; and I, of course, join the Republican leader in paying tribute to all the members of our Armed Forces, those who continue to serve, those who have completed their service, and particularly those whom we have lost and their families. But the Senate still needs to address Iraq. The American people voted a year ago to end the war and we haven't followed through. We need to address this issue and to end this misguided war now, before more Americans are injured and killed. The bridge fund passed yesterday by the House isn't good enough. The goal for redeployment doesn't cut it. We need a binding deadline, which means we need to pass the Feingold-Reid bill. Despite recent reports of a downturn in violence in Iraq, violence remains at unacceptable levels. 2007 has already been declared the bloodiest year since the war in Iraq started, and that is with almost 2 months still to go. Those counts don't bring in the number of Iraqis killed. On a relatively quiet day earlier this week, with no reported coalition tragedies, at least 33 Iraqis were killed and an equal number wounded in violence around the country. We can't say violence is down when violence around the country remains so high, when so many Americans are being killed and when so many Iraqis are afraid to walk the streets. The underlying reality is we are working with both sides of the Iraqi civil war and deepening our dependence on former insurgents and militia-infiltrated security forces. Meanwhile, the situation in the North and South is precarious at best. Unrest in these areas threatens the security of our supply lines. The most recent National Intelligence Estimate largely attributed the decline in violence--particularly in Baghdad--to population displacements. Baghdad is now predominantly Shi'ite. While the purpose of the surge was to foster reconciliation, the reality is that the number of Iraqis displaced by the conflict doubled since the start of the surge, adding to millions already pushed out of their homes from 2003 to 2006. Meanwhile, we have put our troops outside the forward operating bases in more dangerous territory for the purpose of policing the Iraqi civil war. When they are out in those joint security stations, they have to spend half their time watching their backs because our ``allies'' are former Sunni insurgents and Iraqi Security Forces, neither of whom can be trusted. We continue to supposedly ``train'' Iraqi Security Forces despite the fact that we finished training over 300,000 of them over a year ago. Of course, we may well be simply contributing to the Iraqi civil war by ``training'' and arming forces that are infiltrated by militias. We can't even account for the guns we have given them. The ``al Anbar'' strategy--signing cease fires I with insurgents who were attacking our guys not too long ago--does not have the support of the Iraqi government. It is a poor substitute for meaningful reconciliation, which supposedly the surge is going to foster. Now the administration is shifting the goal posts and talking about ``bottom- up'' reconciliation. We have seen the levels of violence in Iraq shift before--this is nothing new. If my colleagues think the surge is working and violence is down--let's get out while the getting is good. Without meaningful reconciliation, the violence will spike up again, that's for sure. So let's not wait around for that to happen. Many U.S. troops currently in Iraq are now in their second or third tours of duty. Approximately 95 percent of the Army National Guard's combat battalions and special operations units have been mobilized since 9/11. Mr. President, 1.4 million Americans have served in Iraq, and over 400,000 have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 4,000 have been killed in Iraq and over 27,000 have been wounded. The Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without seriously damaging the military. Young officers are leaving the service at an alarming rate. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam. Every active Army brigade currently not deployed is unprepared to perform its wartime mission. More than two-thirds of active duty Army brigades are unready for missions because of manpower and equipment shortages--most of which can be attributed to Iraq. There are insufficient Reserves to respond to additional conflicts or crises around the world, of which there are, of course, potentially many. This failure to prioritize correctly has left vital missions unattended. Natural disaster response, U.S. border security, and international efforts to combat al Qaida are all suffering due to the strain on military forces caused by poor strategy and failed leadership in Iraq. Thousands of our troops have returned home with invisible wounds; such as PTSD and TBI--traumatic brain injury, which will have a long- term impact on veterans and their families. These invisible wounds are not counted in the casualty numbers, but we will be struggling with them for a generation or more. The cost of the War? America has been in Iraq longer than it was in World War II. Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would cost less than $50 billion. The administration has now requested over $600 billion for the war. If we don't change course in Iraq, the cost of the war is likely to balloon to $3.5 trillion. If we keep a ``Korea-like presence'' in Iraq, as Secretary Gates has predicted, this means we will have 55,000 troops in Iraq by 2013--a level that remains constant until 2017. And while this drop would certainly be cheaper, it would still mean an additional $690 billion. CBO has estimated that, just paying the interest on the money we have borrowed to pay for the war to date, will cost another $415 billion. We are currently spending nearly $9 billion a month in Iraq. In 3 months in Iraq, we spend nearly the same amount that we spend on foreign relations and aid worldwide in 1 year. The fiscal year total spending of the war--$150 billion--is greater than the combination of spending on our national transportation infrastructure, health research, customs and border protection, higher education assistance, environmental protection, Head Start, and the CHIP program. Our national programs are being neglected because of this disastrous war and future generations will bear the brunt of our misguided policy. The costs are only rising. We spent twice as much this year in Iraq as we did in 2004. The President continues to mislead the country about al-Qaida and Iraq. Contrary to the President's assertions, Pakistan and Afghanistan, not Iraq, are the key theater in this global conflict. While the administration has focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border. The President also presents a false choice between fighting al-Qaida in Iraq and doing nothing. Every single redeployment proposal includes the option of targeted operations against al-Qaida within Iraq. The difference is that the President seems to think that 160,000 or 180,000 troops, sent to Iraq for an entirely different purpose, need to stay. We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al- Qaida is and will continue to be a global terrorist organization with dangerous affiliates around the world. Contrary to what the administration has implied, al-Qaida is not abandoning its efforts to fight us globally so that it can fight us in Iraq. That is absurd. We need a robust military presence and effective reconstruction program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where AQ and its affiliates are operating--across North Africa, in Southeast Asia, and along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we need to address the root causes of the terrorist threat, not just rely on military power to get the job done. For example, right now, Iran's strategic position continues to improve and the situation on the Turkish border is explosive. We are bogged down in Iraq and exposed to attack from all sides, and our ability to promote regional stability from a position of strength is undermined. Maintaining a huge, open-ended presence is igniting tensions in the region, and playing into the hands of the Iranian regime. Iran is able to expand their influence while we take the hits, in terms of casualties and finances. Our open-ended presence in Iraq is a blessing for Iran because it provides them with a buffer and mitigates any potential conflict between those two countries. It also removes any incentive for Iran to engage in a constructive manner. 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 American people want us out of Iraq. The administration's policy is clearly untenable. The American people know that, which is why they voted the way they did in November. More than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of a phased withdrawal. They do not want to pass this problem off to another President, and another Congress. And they sure don't want another American servicemember to die, or lose a limb, while elected representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes of their constituents. The Feingold-Reid amendment requires the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. At that point, funding for military operations in Iraq is terminated, with narrow exceptions for targeted operations against al-Qaida and its affiliates; providing security for U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure; and training Iraqis. We have narrowed the training exception to prevent training of Iraqi Security Forces--ISF--who took part in sectarian violence or attacks against U.S. troops. The exception also prohibits U.S. troops training Iraqis from being embedded with or taking part in combat operations with the ISF. These changes are intended to address concerns about the performance of the ISF--which has been infiltrated by Shia militias and accused of attacks upon U.S. troops--and to make sure that ``training'' is not used as a loophole to allow substantial numbers of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for combat purposes. The other two exceptions are appropriately narrow: the counterterrorism exception applies to operations against al-Qaida and affiliated international terrorist organizations, while force protection applies to protecting U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure. The time has come for the Senate to seriously engage on this issue. The costs and the tragedy of this war are plainly unacceptable and contrary to the will of the American people. Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 1077 Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that S. 1077 be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee, be placed on the calendar, and at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate may proceed to consideration of S. 1077 and it be considered under the following limitations: that the only amendment in order be a Feingold-Reid amendment which is the text of the amendment offered on the DOD authorization measure; that there be a total time limitation of 2 hours of debate on the bill and the amendment, with the time divided and controlled in the usual form, and upon the use of that time the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am, of course, disappointed Republicans have again blocked us from debating and voting on legislation to end the war in Iraq. S. 1077 is the bill I introduced with the majority leader, Harry Reid, and eight other Senators earlier this year to safely redeploy troops from Iraq. The substitute amendment is the amendment we offered to the Defense authorization bill in September. It is, in effect, just a tweaked version of S. 1077. The majority leader joins me in these efforts. There is simply no good reason to block a vote on this important bill. I assure my colleagues I am not going to go away, and this issue will not go away either, much as they might prefer it. Until Congress brings a halt to the President's open-ended, misguided war in Iraq, we will have debates and votes on this issue again and again and again. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am grateful to my colleagues for joining me in passing a resolution which remembers the lives of four American women who continue to be a source of great inspiration. Mr. President, on December 2, 1980, two Maryknoll Sisters, Maura Clarke and Ita Ford, Ursuline Sister Dorothy Kazel, and Cleveland Team lay missionary Jean Donovan were brutally violated and murdered by members of the Salvadoran National Guard. We do not wish to revisit the events of those difficult times in Central America with this resolution. We wish to remember and honor the love and dedication these women of faith showed to those they came to serve. Two years ago, on the December 2 anniversary of the brutal deaths of these four American women, several 25th anniversary events were held in the United States including one at Milwaukee's Saint Therese Church in my home State of Wisconsin. I was pleased that the House passed a resolution honoring the lives of the four missionaries in the year of the 25th anniversary. Unfortunately, one or more members of this body anonymously blocked the Senate from passing a similar resolution to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the murder of these nuns. Along with my cosponsors, I am pleased that the Senate is now appropriately honoring these women with the passage of this resolution. Mr. President, remembering these women is a very personal and moving thing for those who actually knew them, but it is also truly powerful for those who have only learned of them after their deaths. I had the opportunity several years ago to meet many of their family members and have become well aware of one of the churchwomen, Sister Ita Ford, through my chief of staff and her aunt, Jean Reardon Baumann, who was a dear friend of Ita's from their childhood together in Brooklyn, New York. I would like to share with my colleagues a letter Sister Ita Ford wrote to her niece in August of 1980: Dear Jennifer, the odds that this note will arrive for your birthday are poor, but know I'm with you in spirit as you celebrate 16 big ones. I hope it's a special day for you. I want to say something to you and I wish I were there to talk to you because sometimes letters don't get across all the meaning and feeling. But, I'll give it a try anyway. First of all, I love you and care about you and how you are. I'm sure you know that. That holds if you're an angel or a goof-off, a genius or a jerk. A lot of that is up to you, and what you decide to do with your life. What I want to say . . . some of it isn't too jolly birthday talk, but it's real. . . . Yesterday I stood looking down at a 16-year-old who had been killed a few hours earlier. I know a lot of kids even younger who are dead. This is a terrible time in El Salvador for youth. A lot of idealism and commitment is getting snuffed out here now. The reasons why so many people are being killed are quite complicated, yet there are some clear, simple strands. One is that many people have found a meaning to life, to sacrifice, to struggle, and even to death. And whether their life span is 16 years, 60 or 90, for them, their life has had a purpose. In many ways, they are fortunate people. Brooklyn is not passing through the drama of El Salvador, but some things hold true wherever one is, and at whatever age. What I'm saying is, I hope you come to find that which gives life a deep meaning for you . . . something worth living for, maybe even worth dying for . . . something that energizes you, enthuses you, enables you to keep moving ahead. I can't tell you what it might be--that's for you to find, to choose, to love. I can just encourage you to start looking, and support you in the search. Maybe this sounds weird and off-the-wall, and maybe, no one else will talk to you like this, but then, too, I'm seeing and living things that others around you aren't. . . . I want to say to you: don't waste the gifts and opportunities you have to make yourself and other people happy. . . . I hope this doesn't sound like some kind of a sermon because I don't mean it that way. Rather, it's something you learn here, and I want to share it with you. In fact, it's my birthday present to you. If it doesn't make sense right at this moment, keep this and read it sometime from now. Maybe it will be clearer . . . A very happy birthday to you and much, much love, Ita. From that one letter alone, I am sure that others will understand the kind of people these women were, and the impact they continue to have on us all. I also want to thank, in particular, my friend from Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern and his staff who have led the efforts in Congress to appropriately remember these four courageous American women who dedicated their lives to their faith and to the service of others.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in honor of the eighth annual International Education Week, which runs Monday, November 12 to 16, 2007, I would like to emphasize the importance of international education and exchange programs and the key role they play in strengthening our own educational system, shaping our young citizens to become successful in our interconnected world, and improving our image as Americans overseas. In so doing, I want to share a number of stories from my constituents about how their international education and exchange experiences have changed their lives. While I do not have time to read all of their stories, I will ask to have them printed in the Record as each and every one of these stories demonstrates how critical it is that we support international education and exchange programs and initiatives. You will see in all of my constituents' stories a common theme-- international education has opened their eyes to the fact that we are an interconnected global community and that we have responsibilities as Americans to reach out to that global community. A constituent, Claire from River Falls, WI, wrote to me that: I was an AFS student in high school (in Brazil) and since then firmly believe that if we could lift every 16 year old out of their ``comfort zone'' and have them live somewhere else in the world for a few months; we'd end war and certainly increase global understanding. I agree with this statement and firmly believe that if we all stepped out of our ``comfort zone,'' we would be facing a future that is more stable and secure than where we appear to be today. International education and exchange strengthens our own educational system in a variety of ways. First and foremost, educational exchanges better prepare our children for the workforce and competing in the global economy. Katherine from River Falls shared her experience working through a nongovernmental organization called Building Tomorrow. She wrote: While in Uganda [with Building for Tomorrow], I was fortunate enough to have a home-stay experience with a Ugandan family . . . I and two other Building Tomorrow members were paired with a doctor because we all had an interest in some aspect of health care . . . This experience was remarkable and contributed to my decision to pursue a career in public health. International education and exchange strengthens our own educational system. Teachers and students participating in exchange programs are able not only to broaden their own horizons, they also inform their peers of their experiences and thinking and, in so doing, contribute to their school systems for the lasting benefit of others. Sandra, a teacher in Sun Prairie, wrote to me that she participated in two separate Fulbright Hayes Group Projects Abroad and that, ``both Fulbright-Hayes Group Projects Abroad inspired me to develop innovative interdisciplinary curriculum units, made infinitely richer by my newly acquired photographs, video footage, cultural artifacts, interview notes, books published outside of the U.S., and personal reflections . . . As a result of ongoing internationally focused literacy programming, my middle school students, including reluctant and struggling readers, seek out books on other cultures and countries, are intrigued by world maps, and pay more attention to world news and global concerns.'' International education and exchange programs foster greater cultural understanding. Today's students are tomorrow's leaders--and the better they understand other cultures, the better prepared they will be to make informed and balanced decisions for the benefit of our Nation's and our world's security and well-being. Thanks to the disastrous policies of this administration, anti-American sentiment around the world is at alarming levels. Those policies were based, in part, on inadequate information or misinformation about the rest of the world. As a result, future American leaders are facing a world that is fraught with mistrust. Their overseas experiences today will build relationships for tomorrow. Those experiences will form their future decisions and provide them with a broader appreciation of others' views and interests. Sarah, a senior at University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, wrote to explain to me about her semester abroad program: Traveling and studying abroad in general taught me about American and other cultures, societies, views, and ideas, different forms of government, a greater sense of independence, and how to look at cultures and traditions that are different from my own with an open mind, rather than making judgment[s] before I know all the facts. As U.S. citizens, many of us have privileges that countless millions of people throughout the world will never experience. International educational opportunities encourage a greater sense of social responsibility to assist those who face lives of poverty, disease, and the effects of natural disasters. Lacey, a 25 year-old graduate of UW Madison, e-mailed me upon her return from spending a summer studying in China which impacted her so much that she is returning to be a volunteer interpreter at the Beijing 2008 Olympics. She wrote: I use my travels and the things I learn from each place to bring back to my community with me and try to give back in whatever way I can as much as possible. Finally, our citizens are our best diplomats. International education and exchange programs offer them the opportunity to reach out to others to reverse negative or inaccurate images that the rest of the world has formed. Kathy from Oshkosh shared with me how her experiences changed her perceptions: I recall with distinct clarity a conversation I had with my host mother in Spain about the people of Islam in our country. She was very surprised that I had friends who are Muslim and that I respect their culture and religion. She told me that I changed the way she views Americans . . . Senator Feingold, I am no longer just a citizen of the United States of America. I am a citizen of the World. Congress has an important role to play in enabling and promoting these experiences for our constituents. I was a strong supporter of the creation of the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, an independent commission created in 2004 for the purpose of recommending a program to greatly expand the opportunity for students at institutions of higher education in the United States to study abroad, with special emphasis on studying in developing countries. One of my colleagues--Senator Durbin--has taken an important step in working to implement the commission's published recommendations by introducing the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007, S. 991. But this bill is not enough. We also need to be supporting opportunities for every American to study overseas. And if not study, then to volunteer or participate in one-on-one exchanges. Cultural misunderstanding makes our world more dangerous, and, as you have heard from the accounts I have read, it is our citizens who make the biggest, longest lasting change. As we recognize and celebrate International Education Week, I call on all Americans to take a little time to learn something new this week about another culture, and I encourage all Americans to recognize and support international education and exchange throughout the year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have constituent stories printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many fine qualities. I was particularly impressed by his determination to depoliticize the Department of Justice. After the debacle of the last Attorney General, this is obviously a very high priority. If nothing else, over the remaining 15 months of the Bush Presidency, the Department must recover its credibility and its reputation. Never again should it be led by someone who is willing to wield its awesome power for political purposes or fill its most important positions with individuals chosen for their politics rather than their legal skills. Judge Mukasey appears to have the intelligence, the experience, and the stature to undertake this very important task. There are other areas where I was favorably impressed by Judge Mukasey. His straightforward promise to stop the disparate treatment of gay employees at the Department of Justice was welcome and refreshing. He indicated his intention to be a much more hands-on manager of the process for seeking the federal death penalty, and when I asked him in writing if a request by a U.S. attorney to discuss a death penalty decision with Attorney General personally was a valid reason to fire that U.S. attorney, he answered simply, ``No.'' If Judge Mukasey is confirmed, I look forward to working with him to try to ensure that Federal death penalty is fairly administered. I was also impressed that on several occasions Judge Mukasey was willing to admit in his written answers that some thing he had said or written in the past were incorrect. This administration needs more people who will admit they were wrong when that is the case. That kind of humility and honesty is often the first step toward correcting mistakes and reaching consensus. In many respects then, Judge Mukasey is a big improvement on the previous Attorney General. At this point in our history, however, the country needs more. Simply put, after all that has taken place over the last seven years, we need an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. And on that fundamental qualification for this office, Judge Mukasey falls short. The President's warrantless wiretapping program, instituted after 9/ 11 and carried out in secret until it was revealed in a New York Times article in December 2005, presented the Department of Justice with a historic test of its integrity and its commitment to the rule of law. Under the previous leadership, the Department failed that test. We need an Attorney General who, when faced with a similar crisis, will look the President in the eye and tell him ``No.'' When I first met with Judge Mukasey, I questioned him about the two justifications for authorizing warrantless wiretaps that the Department has put forward publicly. With respect to the argument that the authorization for use of military force, or AUMF, somehow authorized warrantless wiretaps, he said, ``I don't see that argument.'' With respect to the argument that the program was legal under the President's article II powers, he said he was ``agnostic.'' I and a number of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee returned to this question in the hearings and in written questions for the record. Unfortunately, this time the results were not reassuring. He responded to my question for the record about the largely discredited AUMF justification by saying that ``I still have not come to a conclusion. . . . I believe there are good arguments on both sides of that issue.'' That is a statement that ought to give pause to anyone in this body. His answers to questions concerning the article II justification indicate that he is no longer agnostic on that question, but instead he has become a believer that executive power trumps the laws written by Congress. Both at the hearing and in writing, Judge Mukasey stated several times that the President must obey all valid and constitutional statutes, even if he is acting to defend or protect the country. He also said that ``FISA is a constitutional law'' and that ``[a]s a general matter, therefore, the President is not free to disregard or violate FISA.'' But he also stated that ``difficult separation of powers questions'' would arise, and would have to be resolved through the three-part test articulated in the Supreme Court Youngstown case, if a statute--and FISA in particular--were to constrain the President's constitutional authority. If FISA is constitutional--and Judge Mukasey says it is-- then why are these separation of powers questions so ``difficult''? Clearly, Judge Mukasey believes that a law can be constitutional on its face, but can become unconstitutional if its application constrains the constitutional authority of the President. There is no difference between this view of executive power and the theory that executive power trumps congressional power. There is no other way to interpret Judge Mukasey's statement to Senator Leahy: ``If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute, but within the authority of the president to defend the country, the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law.'' This view is simply contrary to Justice Jackson's three-part test in Youngstown. Youngstown makes clear that where the President's constitutional authority and a statute passed by Congress come into conflict, the President's powers are reduced by whatever powers Congress holds over the subject--not vice versa. Jackson states that when the President acts against the will of Congress, ``he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling Congress from acting upon the subject.'' Congress is thus free to constrain the President's constitutional powers to any degree it likes, as long as Congress is acting within its own powers in doing so; likewise, the President's actions may be upheld only if they are ``within his domain and beyond control of Congress.'' The argument that constitutional statutes can become unconstitutional ignores this second part of the inquiry--whether the limitation on the President's authority is in an area where Congress cannot legislate. It is clear that wiretapping is not within the exclusive domain of the President, as Judge Mukasey admits that FISA is a constitutional law. Moreover, the executive authority that Judge Mukasey invoked most often--the authority to protect and defend the country--is not exclusive to the President. It is an authority that Congress shares, which Judge Mukasey admitted in answers to written questions. I have discussed this issue in some detail because extreme theories of executive power have become one of the primary, and most unfortunate, legacies of the Bush administration. Congress needs to be very clear in rejecting them, and in making respect for the rule of law a nonnegotiable qualification for the office of Attorney General of the United States. Let me say a word about the issue of torture, which has dominated the debate on the nomination of Judge Mukasey in the past week. Last week, the White House press secretary again implied that Members of Congress who have been briefed on the CIA's interrogation program have approved it or consented to it. That is not the case. I have vigorously opposed the program, and continue to do so. The program is of highly questionable legality, it is inconsistent with our values as a nation, and it does not make our Nation any safer. In fact, I believe that it may have the effect of exposing Americans--including military and other U.S. personnel--to greater risk. I have detailed the reasons for my strong objections to the CIA's program in classified correspondence, sent shortly after I was first briefed on it. More recently, I have stated my opposition publicly, although I am prohibited by classification rules from providing further details about my concerns in a public setting. In any event, neither detailed legal and factual analysis, nor knowledge of the operational details of the CIA's program, is necessary to reach a judgment on whether waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding has been used by some of the most evil regimes in history. It has been considered torture in this country for over a century. If Judge Mukasey won't say the simple truth--that this barbaric practice is torture--how can we count on him to stand up to the White House on other issues? America needs an Attorney General who stands squarely on the side of the rule of law. This is not an arid, theoretical debate. The rule of law is the very foundation of freedom and a crucial bulwark against tyranny. Congress cannot stand silent in the face of this challenge by the executive to the crucial underpinnings of our system of government. The Nation's top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country's history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose the 2008 Department of Defense appropriations conference report because it provides money to continue the misguided war in Iraq but fails to require the redeployment of U.S. troops. The war in Iraq is the wrong war. It is overstretching our military and undermining our national security. It is long past time for this war to end. Some may pretend that this conference report does not include any Iraq money. That claim is misleading, at best. This bill provides the regular DOD funding that keeps the war going. In fact, this bill will pay for a significant part of our operations in Iraq. Moreover, there is nothing in this bill to prevent the Defense Department from shifting regular funds to pay for the full costs of the war in Iraq in the event that the Congress does not enact supplemental appropriations for the war. I strongly support our brave men and women in uniform. We do not do them any favors by giving the President money to keep this open-ended war going with no strings attached. For their sake, and for the sake of our national security, we should use our power of the purse to force the President to bring this war to a close. This bill represents another missed opportunity, and another example of Congress failing to use its power to bring our troops out of Iraq.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate has spent little time in recent weeks discussing Iraq, but we cannot ignore the latest grim news from this misguided war. The Associated Press reported this week that 2007 is now the deadliest year in Iraq for U.S. troops--even though we still have almost 2 months of this year remaining. I will ask that the article be printed in the Record. According to a recent Associated Press count at least 3,858 Americans have been killed and 28,385 Americans have been wounded in Iraq. We are fast approaching two very grim milestones--4,000 killed and 30,000 casualties. We should stop and consider the implications of these numbers. I grieve for those who are lost and wounded, and I am all the more determined that no more of our brave men and women should be killed in a war that has no end in sight and is not making our country safer. Instead of acknowledging that these sad milestones are indications of a failed policy, the administration is once again digging it in heels. Lately, it has been talking about the recent decline in U.S. deaths as a justification for continuing its open-ended military policies in Iraq. The American people are not fooled by these claims of success. They know all too well that the President's policies are simply buying time, and they continue to reject them. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll illustrates that a majority of Americans are still calling for a change of course in Iraq. 59 percent of Americans think we're not making significant progress in Iraq and 6 out of 10 that's 60 percent of Americans want the level of U.S. forces reduced. And yet, the President ignores the wishes of the public, offering a small, token drawdown of forces in the near future but no timeline as to when significant numbers of troops will come home. If the goal of the surge was to provide a window for political reconciliation, as the President outlined last January, victory remains elusive. Meanwhile, Al-Qaida has reconstituted and strengthened itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region at the same time while we have been focused on fighting a war in Iraq. The President likes to say that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror instead of fixing all his attention on Iraq, he needs to address what is happening hundreds of miles to the east. Again and again, the American people have once again voiced their opinion that this war makes no sense and that they expect us uphold our congressional responsibilities and use our power to end it. It is bad enough to have the President disregard the American people by escalating our involvement in Iraq. Despite the efforts of Democratic leaders, Congress is also ignoring the will of the American people. And so I urge my colleagues not to allow Iraq to remain on the congressional backburner. We cannot say we've done everything possible to end the war--we cannot say we are acting on our constituents' top concern--when we are not discussing, not debating, and certainly not voting on Iraq. We cannot afford to sideline this critical issue at a time when we are close to reaching 4,000 American men and women killed and 30,000 wounded in a misguided, never-ending war. It is a war that will continue through the waning days of this administration unless we summon our congressional power to end it. It is a war that we cannot sit back and doing nothing about. It is a war that has cost over half trillion dollars, stretched our military to the breaking point, and made us less safe. It is an unacceptable war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Associated press to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as Congress continues to work on comprehensive energy legislation, I want to discuss the importance to my constituents of enacting strong yet achievable corporate average fuel economy standards. The final energy package needs to increase vehicle fuel economy requirements, but it should do so without undercutting hardworking families in Wisconsin and across the country. Between manufacturing, dealerships, and the automotive parts industry, there are upwards of 50,000 auto jobs in Wisconsin. Having grown up in Janesville--home to a General Motors plant--I understand how important the auto industry is to the State's economy and its communities. For far too long, under different administrations and different Congresses, the U.S. has pursued trade and other policies that have undermined our country's manufacturing base. Now, it is time to pay attention to the concerns of America's workers. We can have strong and achievable CAFE standards. However, this will require several reasonable revisions to the Energy bill that the Senate passed. For starters, separate standards for cars and trucks need to be maintained. I recently organized a coalition of senators to write the Senate's Democratic leadership and urge it to maintain the distinction in current law between standards for cars and trucks. Passenger cars and light-duty trucks are inherently different. They should have separate fuel economy standards. Unfortunately the Senate's CAFE language is unclear in this regard, providing little certainty on how the Department of Transportation will interpret this provision. Congress must provide the necessary certainty. In order to ensure the Energy bill takes the right approach on CAFE standards, I have also joined colleagues in calling for a formal House- Senate conference to meet to draft the final bill. We should not abandon the normal legislative process on such an important issue and resort to informal, backroom dealmaking. I understand that there are still objections to convening a conference and I hope that those will be resolved soon. Since the Senate considered the Energy bill, I have worked to ensure that the final version includes a CAFE standard that supports working families in Janesville and elsewhere. When the Senate considered the bill earlier this year, I supported the reasonable Pryor-Bond-Levin amendment to increase CAFE standards, and I was disappointed that it was never brought to a vote. I continue to work with them and other colleagues to make sure that Congress strikes the right balance on this important issue. As the Congress works to finalize its comprehensive energy legislation, I urge my colleagues to help set strong yet achievable vehicle fuel economy requirements. We can increase CAFE standards while also ensuring that my hometown of Janesville--and hometowns like it across the country--still has the family-supporting jobs that are vital to the strength of the community. National Radiation Protection Professionals Week

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the President of the United States is pursuing a strategy towards Iran that is badly flawed, dangerous, and likely doomed to failure. I am deeply concerned about Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorism, and by indications that it is aiding groups in Iraq that are killing American troops, but the administration has so far failed to come up with an effective way to address these very serious matters. For instance, less than 2 weeks ago the administration designated the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a material supporter of terrorism, and the IRGC for proliferation activities. I support sanctions that target proliferators and have introduced legislation that would strengthen our sanctions regime, but the designation of Iranian government entities raises new policy questions that do not seem to have been fully explored, and it may very well be counterproductive. Moreover, this poorly timed action undermines efforts to win support for multilateral initiatives. Instead of acting alone, we should maintain and strengthen the international community's collective ability to counter Iranian ambitions, including with regard to its nuclear program. Iran's actions pose serious threats to our national security. But aggressive saber-rattling is not an appropriate or effective response. The administration has shown repeatedly that it is too quick to turn to military power, and its threat, to address problems overseas. It has also shown time and again an inability to see the big picture. And it still seems to prefer unilateral over multilateral approaches. All of these are mistakes we cannot afford to have repeated. We can't focus on Iran in isolation, the way the administration has focused for so long on Iraq without considering a broader context or taking a more comprehensive approach. Instead of repeating the myopia of Iraq, the administration should approach the problem of Iran through a more strategic lens one that incorporates a broader and more integrated vision, that takes into account regional concerns, and that is consistent with our top national security priority, which is the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. We need a national security strategy that addresses al- Qaida, Iran, Iraq, and the many other problems we face. Instead, the administration prefers to focus on Iraq, and now Iran, as if we had the luxury of addressing these challenges in isolation. We must vigorously oppose any efforts by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and its support to terrorist organizations that goes almost without saying. But we must curb these actions by seeing the whole board and by using more of the tools at our disposal. And that is not happening. Instead, the administration is taking an unnecessarily belligerent approach that runs the risk of increasing our vulnerability, both at home and abroad. The United States should be working in unison with the international community, which shares our concern over Iran's nuclear program. At the same time as the new sanctions were announced, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, was meeting in Rome with Iran's negotiators to discuss Tehran's nuclear program and discussions among the EU+ 3 comprised of France, Germany and the UK plus China, Russia and U.S.--are likely to continue at the end of November following the completion of another IAEA report. In the past, Secretary Rice and others at State have publicly supported these talks and expressed confidence in the negotiations. But the administration's hard line position is unlikely to win over Russia and China, without whom there can be little progress. The administration should be trying to persuade our friends and allies to increase their economic pressure on Iran, ideally through the U.N. Rather than imposing unilateral sanctions, we should be pressing the EU to announce multilateral sanctions, which would have a much greater impact given that we have not traded or invested in Iran for nearly 30 years. Instead, our bellicose rhetoric and hard-line approach could be undermining our ability to gain support from--Russia, China and even from some EU countries--to implement multilateral sanctions that Iran cannot ignore. Trying to unilaterally isolate Iran further is unlikely to curb its nuclear program. And it won't make sure that Iran does not aid the proliferation of and access to weapons in Iraq. Veiled, and not-so- veiled, threats of military action aren't likely to work either. They are, however, likely to embolden Iran's hardliners as they seek to thwart moderates in that country who might otherwise encourage dialogue or political reform. Instead of using the Iraq focused bilateral talks that have occurred in Baghdad as a platform from which to build, we are launching ourselves on to a collision course that may further endanger U.S. troops in Iraq in the near term. And that might only be the beginning. Our massive presence in Iraq undermines our ability to deal with Iran. It is draining our resources, exhausting our troops, exposing them to potential Iranian attacks, and undermining our credibility. We should redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can deal with Iran from a position of greater strength. Instead, the President is leading us deeper into the quagmire that his misguided policies in Iraq created. It is essential that those of us here in Congress condemn the violent and defiant statements coming out of Iran. But we also have a responsibility as a co-equal branch of government to respond to this administration's aggressive words, ill-considered decisions and ad hoc policies, particularly when they may undermine our own national security. Dealing with Iran is a daunting task. But we are only making it more difficult with our counterproductive policies of isolation and war-mongering. We cannot again succumb to the shortsightedness that keeps us fixated on Iraq and drains the attention and resources needed to combat threats to our national security around the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will vote to sustain President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. The President's veto of the WRDA bill is a welcome opportunity for Congress to modify the flawed, bloated bill. Instead of overriding the veto, Congress should be taking this opportunity to fix the bill. For 7 years, I have worked with Senator McCain and many of our colleagues to achieve essential reforms of the Corps of Engineers, and have long anticipated the day that meaningful reforms are enacted. Unfortunately, during conference, the Senate's strong Corps reform provisions were significantly watered down. Instead of the reform bill that the country needs, this bill is simply the latest example of business as usual. 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 that the projects the Corps builds are safe, appropriate, environmentally responsible and fiscally sound. The urgency and necessity could not be clearer. A critical component of reforming the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is ensuring independent review of significant Corps projects. This bill provides review but does not ensure it is truly independent. I will continue to push for Corps reforms that ensure fiscal responsibility, accountability, public safety, and environmental protections. This means ensuring that Americans' tax dollars are spent on the most important priorities, not just on Members' pet projects. Earlier this year, I was joined by Senators McCain, Coburn, Carper, Gregg, Sununu, and DeMint in offering an amendment to form a commission of non-Federal, water resources experts to provide Congress recommendations on a process for prioritizing Corps projects. However, the Senate defeated this effort. I can only conclude that many of our colleagues think the status quo is acceptable. To me, there is nothing acceptable about a $58 billion backlog (soon to be $81 billion) of authorized but unfunded projects. Some of my colleagues have argued it is okay to authorize $23 billion in projects, because WRDA only authorizes projects and does not appropriate funds. This approach shirks our responsibility as elected officials. By authorizing WRDA projects, Congress is indicating these projects are worthy of funding and that taxpayer dollars should be committed to these projects. Unfortunately, without some way of prioritizing and with a limited annual construction budget of around $2 billion, our Nation's critical infrastructure and restoration projects--and the American people who depend on these water resources projects--will suffer. The President did the right thing when he vetoed the WRDA bill and I am disappointed that Congress is determined to override that veto. My colleagues would be better off if they listened to people like Mark Beorkrem, a true Corps reform champion. Mark recently passed away, but his 20 years of advocacy on behalf of the Mississippi River and reforming the Corps of Engineers will have profound and lasting effects on the health and vitality of the Mississippi and rivers across the country. Most recently, Mark played a pivotal role in ensuring the inclusion of a comprehensive ecosystem restoration component in the Corps' Mississippi River lock expansion project. He also provided leadership within the national Corps Reform Network, as well as the Sierra Club, sharing his knowledge and passion for environmental protection and restoration. The Mississippi and many of our Nation's rivers and wetlands are better off thanks to Mark's tireless efforts. We should be guided by his example. I urge my colleagues to support the President's veto of the WRDA conference report, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record newspaper editorials on this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Cantwell and Feinstein in introducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code the ``Percentage Depletion Allowance'' for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. Elimination of this double subsidy will produce estimated savings of at least $500 million over 5 years, based on the most recent year for which figures are available from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Clinton administration's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal. These savings will help fund the reclamation and restoration of abandoned mines through an Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, that my bill creates, and the remaining \3/4\ of savings will be returned to the Federal treasury. Percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That is right, these allowances were initiated nearly 100 years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since. Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration, and output. The problem, however, is that percentage depletion also makes it possible to recover many times the amount of the original investment. There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment. Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested. The set rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the Internal Revenue Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent. There is no restriction in the tax code to ensure that over time companies do not deduct more than the capital that a company has invested. Furthermore, a Percentage Deduction Allowance makes sense only so long as the deducting company actually pays for the investment for which it claims the deduction. The result is a double subsidy for hardrock mining companies: first they can mine on public lands for free under the General Mining Law of 1872, and then they are allowed to take a deduction for capital investment that they have not made for the privilege to mine on public lands. My legislation would eliminate the use of the Percentage Depletion Allowance for mining on public lands, resulting in an estimated savings of $450 million over 5 years, while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. My bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $110 million, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Though there is no comprehensive inventory of abandoned mines, estimates put the figure at upwards of 100,000 abandoned mines on public lands. There are currently no comprehensive federal or state programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources. In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: the taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry. The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the Percentage Depletion Allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Cantwell and Feinstein in introducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code the ``Percentage Depletion Allowance'' for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. Elimination of this double subsidy will produce estimated savings of at least $500 million over 5 years, based on the most recent year for which figures are available from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Clinton administration's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal. These savings will help fund the reclamation and restoration of abandoned mines through an Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, that my bill creates, and the remaining \3/4\ of savings will be returned to the Federal treasury. Percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That is right, these allowances were initiated nearly 100 years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since. Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration, and output. The problem, however, is that percentage depletion also makes it possible to recover many times the amount of the original investment. There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment. Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested. The set rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the Internal Revenue Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent. There is no restriction in the tax code to ensure that over time companies do not deduct more than the capital that a company has invested. Furthermore, a Percentage Deduction Allowance makes sense only so long as the deducting company actually pays for the investment for which it claims the deduction. The result is a double subsidy for hardrock mining companies: first they can mine on public lands for free under the General Mining Law of 1872, and then they are allowed to take a deduction for capital investment that they have not made for the privilege to mine on public lands. My legislation would eliminate the use of the Percentage Depletion Allowance for mining on public lands, resulting in an estimated savings of $450 million over 5 years, while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. My bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $110 million, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Though there is no comprehensive inventory of abandoned mines, estimates put the figure at upwards of 100,000 abandoned mines on public lands. There are currently no comprehensive federal or state programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources. In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: the taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry. The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the Percentage Depletion Allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion. Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am so pleased to congratulate Congregation B'nai Abraham in Beloit, WI, on their 100th anniversary. Congregation B'nai Abraham was established on November 7, 1907, and during the past 100 years it has thrived due to its outstanding leadership, a wonderful congregation, and a supportive community. I have many happy memories of my visits to this synagogue, particularly with the Beloit/Janesville BBYO. Generations of Wisconsinites have proudly called Congregation B'nai Abraham their synagogue. Under the leadership of Rabbi Ira Youdovin, new generations will continue to flourish. Today we celebrate this outstanding achievement and the people over the last 100 years who have built this wonderful congregation. Mazel Tov on this remarkable anniversary, and I wish Congregation B'nai Abraham the best for the next 100 years.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have come to this floor many times over the years to urge increased U.S. attention and resources to Somalia. Meanwhile, the United States and the international community at large have continued to respond sporadically and clumsily to the steady deterioration of Somalia's security, humanitarian, and political situations. In January, I said that we had only a very limited window to establish the conditions necessary for stability in Somalia and the volatile Horn of Africa region, but I fear that opportunity may soon be lost. Events over the past few days suggest that strong but inclusive leadership is needed now if Somalia is to avoid the worst descent into chaos of its tumultuous history. This weekend saw a massive setback in Somalia's security and humanitarian situation as a fresh outbreak of fighting which aid workers describe as the worst violence in months--forced tens of thousands more Somalis from their homes in Mogadishu. Most of these people are seeking refuge in communities whose coping capacities are already at the breaking point due to the strain of providing food, water, protection, shelter, and basic services to more than 300,000 existing internally displaced persons. Some of the newly displaced have fled to areas where there is little or no access by humanitarian agencies. Forty of these aid organizations that are operating against all odds in Somalia released a statement yesterday highlighting the dramatic deterioration of the humanitarian situation and their increasing inability to effectively respond due to security and access constraints. They are calling on the international community and all parties to the present conflict to demonstrate a commitment to protect civilians, to facilitate the delivery of aid, and to respect humanitarian space and the safety of humanitarian workers. I want to take this moment to honor the courageous individuals and their sponsoring organizations for their persistent service to the innocent civilians most affected by the ongoing instability in Somalia and to echo their appeal for concerted action to support their work and the broader objective of peace for Somalia. Amidst this dark backdrop there is a glimmer of hope for progress. On Monday, the embattled Foreign Minister of Somalia's fragile transitional federal government, Ali Mohamed Gedi, resigned amid feverish political infighting. Since its formation 3 years ago, the TFG has suffered from a lack of public legitimacy due to its inability to effectively represent and provide security and services to the Somali people. The appointment of a new Prime Minister is likely to be the last chance for this transitional government to restore some credibility and move forward with political reconciliation. I encourage all parties to seize this opportunity for progress towards a solution to the country's deepening crisis. In January, I warned that without concerted international and national action, Somalia could deteriorate into what it has been since the early 1990s--a haven for terrorists and warlords and a source of crippling instability in a critical region. But as tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea rise once again, the ongoing humanitarian needs of civilians in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia reach international attention, and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan stands on extremely fragile ground, I fear that our failure to protect civilians, defeat extremists, and build conditions for stability in Somalia could result in an even more disastrous outcome with consequences that extend far beyond the porous borders of this besieged nation. We cannot afford to squander this chance for progress towards peace.