Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that a minority of Senators blocked the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, which puts American consumers ahead of big oil companies and other corporate interests. This bill would prevent price gouging and market manipulation from driving up the price of gas. The anti-price gouging language, based on Senator Cantwell's bill that I cosponsored, would protect consumers from price gouging by sellers and distributors of oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates during natural disasters and abnormal market disruptions. As a cosponsor of the Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act, I also strongly support closing loopholes that allow traders using overseas markets to secretively bid up the price of oil and saddle Americans with the price at the gas pump. Today's vote on the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 was an opportunity to stand up to the OPEC cartel and force big oil to pay their fair share. I have long supported the efforts of the senior Senator from Wisconsin to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal and make colluding oil-producing nations liable in U.S. court for violations of antitrust law. Our oil companies can also be part of the solution. This bill would have encouraged them to invest in clean, affordable, and domestically produced renewable alternative fuels, expanded refinery capacity and utilization, and renewable electricity production. Last year's Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 put our Nation's energy policy on a new path: one that encourages renewable energy, conservation of the resources we have, and American innovation. But we have more work to do, and today's vote is a step back in those efforts. I will continue to support both short- and long-term solutions to our Nation's energy needs that protect American consumers while working to invest in renewable and alternative energies and break our addiction to oil.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is disappointing that a minority of Senators has chosen to delay and stall rather than allowing us to consider the serious matter before the Senate--climate change. In order to have the opportunity to debate and vote on amendments, I support cloture on the Climate Security Act of 2008, S. 3036. The Climate Security Act is far from perfect, but it represents a serious effort to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and spur new technologies and green job opportunities. By supporting cloture, we can begin to do the hard work of improving this legislation so that we can enact a workable, effective cap-and-trade program.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, during the Senate recess at the end of last month, I visited the central front in our Nation's fight against al-Qaida: Pakistan. During my 4-day stay, I met with a broad range of political officials from numerous parties, including the Pakistan People's Party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the PLM-N of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, as well as with President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani intelligence officials, the ousted chief justice, and representatives of Pakistan's civil society. Outside of Islamabad, my visit included a trip to Peshawar, in the tumultuous Northwest Frontier Province, where I met with local officials, and Kashmir, where the United States has funded numerous successful humanitarian and development programs in the wake of the devastating 2005 earthquake. The breadth of this trip was commensurate with the critical importance of Pakistan to our country's national security. Despite recent claims by CIA Director Michael Hayden that al-Qaida is now on the defensive, including in its safe haven in Pakistan, I traveled there because it is out of that country that we face our most serious national security threat. As the intelligence community has said again and again, the fight against al-Qaida begins in Pakistan. According to the State Department's 2007 terrorism report which was released this past April, al-Qaida and associated networks remain the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. That threat emanates from the reconstitution of some of al-Qaida's pre-9/11 capabilities ``through the exploitation of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas.'' The report added that instability in Pakistan, ``coupled with the Islamabad brokered cease-fire agreement in effect for the first half of 2007 along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, appeared to have provided AQ leadership greater mobility and ability to conduct training and operational planning, particularly that targeting Western Europe and the United States.'' During my visit, I conducted extensive discussions with Pakistani leaders about ceasefire negotiations, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, FATA, as well as in the Swat region of the NWFP. I remain skeptical about those negotiations and am particularly concerned that those in the FATA region will give al-Qaida room to plot against our troops in Afghanistan and our citizens here in the United States. The new civilian-led Government in Pakistan is seeking a different approach from that of President Musharraf, and that is understandable--it has, in fact, been mandated by the people of Pakistan, and it is high time they have a responsive government that heeds their call. A key part of this new approach will require success in reining in the military apparatus, which has historically controlled much of Pakistan's foreign policy--sometimes overtly with a military dictator running the country and other times more discreetly from behind a screen of a civilian-led government. But as Pakistan's new Government seeks to reconcile these complex, multilayered issues, it must not do so at the expense of the grave threats emanating from the border region. We must address those threats head-on because what happens in the terrorist safe haven of FATA is central to our national security, and we cannot afford to be distracted or complacent. To do so would be to the detriment of our safety and security as well as that of our friends and allies. At the same time, any long-term counterterrorism strategy in the FATA must include serious economic reforms, legal political party development, and initiatives to integrate FATA with the rest of Pakistan. This will not be easy, but it is long overdue and will help ensure we are using all the tools at our disposal to fight al-Qaida and associated terrorist threats. The growing extremism and creation of a terrorist safe haven in FATA has emerged out of decades of political marginalization and ensuing poverty. In working closely with the FATA political agents and local law enforcement, as well as the Government of Pakistan, we need to help create sustainable development strategies that provide opportunities for engagement while ensuring sufficient financial resources are allocated to those in need now and in the years to come. This must include not only traditional development projects but institution building and political engagement in a region long deprived of such opportunities. The people of the FATA must have alternative livelihood options that help facilitate opposition to terrorists and extremists. At the same time, we must find Osama Bin Laden and his senior leaders, and we must work to neutralize forces that plot or carry out attacks against Americans. But that cannot be our only goal. This fight runs much deeper than a simple manhunt--if we are serious about countering al-Qaida, and preventing another Bin Laden from emerging, we must shift our assistance to be more aligned with the needs of the local population and expand our development assistance throughout a country where poverty and anti-Western sentiment are pervasive. This administration's policies toward Pakistan have been highly damaging to our long-term national security. By embracing and relying on a single, unpopular, antidemocratic leader--namely, President Musharraf--President Bush failed to develop a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy that transcends individuals. He also encouraged Pakistanis to be skeptical about American intentions and principles. The recent elections provide a window of opportunity as the people of Pakistan soundly rejected President Musharraf's leadership in favor of political parties that promised a new direction. Although domestic politics remain fragile, we have an opportunity to reverse our history of neglect and mixed signals by expanding our relationships and supporting fundamental democratic institutions instead of one strong man--something the President may still be reluctant to do. We must do this so that our counterterrorism partnership can withstand the ups and downs of Pakistan's domestic politics, reflecting a more wide-ranging approach that does not ratchet up the already high levels of anti- American sentiment in that country. Any enduring counterterrorism partnership must recognize that Pakistan, despite the coups and military dictatorships that have marred its history, has a democratic tradition, a vibrant civil society, and a large and educated middle class whose interests and values frequently coincide with ours. By working with those Pakistanis and supporting their desire to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, we align ourselves with the moderate forces that are critical to the fight against extremism. Supporting the Pakistani people as they seek to strengthen democratic institutions is not just an outgrowth of our values--it is in our national security interests. The counterterrorism efforts we need from Islamabad must be serious and sustained in a way that only democratic processes can ensure. For these reasons, I have been deeply disappointed by the Bush administration's failure to condemn the illegal dismissal of the chief justice of Pakistan and scores of other judges and its refusal to call for their reinstatement. The ousting of the judges has become a cause celebre for Pakistan's civil society. It prompted the creation of a ``Lawyers' Movement''--a moderate, democratic uprising that Americans should embrace. During my time in Pakistan, I visited with the chief justice and shortly thereafter called for the judges to be reinstated because it is a clear violation of the basic tenets of the rule of law. I was asked whether I had made such a call in support of a particular political party and whether I also sought the removal of President Musharraf. I responded that those are issues for the Pakistanis to determine, and I continue to believe that is the case. Indeed, while the political landscape in Pakistan remains turbulent and fragile, I have no intention of meddling in domestic affairs. Nonetheless, it is unacceptable for the United States to sit back in the face of such fundamentally undemocratic actions. We cannot be selective in the democratic principles we support--that is not consistent with our values, and it is shortsighted in terms of our national security. Mr. President, the emergence of a new civilian leadership in Pakistan provides an opening for us to develop a new approach--a new relationship--that includes a sustainable, comprehensive counterterrorism partnership. We must seize this opportunity because, despite a great deal of anti-American sentiment, in many areas the Pakistanis are ready and willing to work with us. This is not to say that this process will be free from challenges--there are already serious hurdles that must be dealt with, including negotiations in the FATA and NWFP, both of which are cause for concern. In the end, we must recognize that the new leadership reflects a broad cross-section of Pakistan, and by fully engaging them, we can take an important step toward defending our national security interests in the central front in the fight against al-Qaida.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally debating legislation, S. 3036, addressing the serious problem of climate change. For years, Congress and the White House have ignored or downplayed the scientific consensus and failed to act on this pressing issue. That delay is inexcusable. The details of S. 3036 are as complicated as they are important, and, given the potential implications for our economy, our energy policies and our planet, we need to take the time to make sure we get them right. A number of questions have been raised about elements of the bill we are considering, and I look forward to considering amendments to address some of these concerns. But one thing is clear, and that is the need to establish a cap-and-trade program to reduce total domestic greenhouse emissions. To avoid the significant costs and consequences of climate change, leading scientists inform us that we must stabilize global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below 450 parts per million and prevent the temperature from increasing above 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. To achieve these reductions, I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Sanders, S. 309, that would require that such emissions be reduced by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. I hope that this debate marks a new recognition of the need for meaningful Federal action to address a threat that has been neglected for far too long. Though the challenge before us is great, the cost of inaction is even greater.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I would like to commemorate the life of a great soldier, strategic thinker and American, LTG William Odom. I was deeply saddened to learn of his recent sudden death. General Odom served our country with honor and distinction throughout his life. During his time serving as a military adviser in the White House, Director of the National Security Agency, and West Point and Yale professor, General Odom demonstrated an uncanny talent for assessing and advancing U.S. interests in a complex and challenging world. Over the years, the U.S. Congress has benefited greatly from General Odom's clear vision of U.S. interests in the Middle East. General Odom was a strong critic of the Iraq war even before it began. It is unfortunate that more Members of this body did not heed his insightful and prescient warnings of the perils of invading Iraq. His steadfast commitment to ending the war and restoring a balanced and focused national security strategy has been an inspiration. So, too, was his strong opposition to the President's illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Our thoughts are with his wife, son, and family during this difficult time. I hope that they can take some comfort knowing that he will be deeply missed by a grateful Nation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted for the non-Iraq portion of the supplemental because it included a number of provisions I support, such as Senator Webb's GI bill, an extension of unemployment insurance, funding for LIHEAP and Byrne grants, and a number of important Africa- related provisions. The Webb GI bill represents one of the best ways that the Federal Government can support members of our Armed Forces who might not otherwise have the opportunity to obtain a higher education. Expanding educational benefits is the least we can do for the men and women in uniform who have been asked to do so much for our country. However, I am disappointed that the Senate was prevented from voting on the fiscally responsible House version of the GI bill. We should not be piling up more debt for future generations to repay, and I will work to try to make sure that the cost of this benefit is paid for. The Senate should not get into the habit of using nonoffset emergency supplemental bills to bypass the regular appropriations process. Just because the President refuses to pay for the cost of the war in Iraq doesn't mean we should follow his path of fiscal irresponsibility. I am deeply disappointed that neither the House nor the Senate version of the supplemental contains language that would end the Iraq war. In fact, both bills--particularly the Senate Appropriations Committee bill--are actually weaker in this respect than the first supplemental we passed just over a year ago. Democrats took power of Congress last year pledging to work to bring an end to the war. While we have made significant progress in other areas, we are actually moving backward, not forward, when it comes to Iraq. What do I mean that the current supplemental is weaker than the one we passed a year ago? The new House supplemental requires redeployment of troops from Iraq to begin in 30 days, with a goal of completion within 18 months, or approximately the end of 2009. The supplemental we sent to the President a year ago set a goal of completing redeployment no later than the end of March 2008, or around 11 months from passage of the bill. So we have gone from an 11-month goal to an 18-month goal. And the exceptions have become even broader, meaning that even more U.S. troops could be allowed to remain in Iraq. In the new version, the administration is no longer limited to conducting targeted missions against ``members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations with global reach.'' Now, it can leave troops in Iraq to go after any ``terrorist organizations'' in that country. Going after al-Qaeda and its affiliates makes sense because they represent a direct threat to the United States. Leaving U.S. troops in Iraq to launch missions against any organization that the administration labels ``terrorist,'' regardless of whether they pose a threat to our country, doesn't make sense. It is just a continuation of the current administration's muddled, misguided approach, which focuses so much of our resources on one country while largely ignoring the threat posed by al-Qaida around the world. In addition, the House language allows U.S. troops to not just conduct training and equipping of Iraqi troops but also to provide ``logistical and intelligence support,'' which wasn't in last year's supplemental. That could mean our troops would still be fighting on the front lines, embedded with Iraqi forces, or providing air power, as we saw during the recent clashes in Basra. If you are looking to keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, then you won't have a problem with this new language. If, however, you want to bring our involvement in this war to a close, then you can and should be troubled by these big loopholes in the House bill. The House bill may be bad in this respect, but the Senate bill that we actually voted on and passed is far worse. It doesn't have any loopholes--it doesn't need them because it doesn't do anything. It simply expresses the sense of Congress that the mission in Iraq should be transitioned to a few limited purposes by June 2009. That is it-- nonbinding language that may make a few Members feel better about themselves but that won't do a thing to bring the war to a close. To make matters worse, the Senate bill includes a provision requiring a report on transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq but leaving 40,000 troops in Iraq at the end of the transition. Based on existing estimates, it would likely cost $40 billion a year to maintain such a presence in Iraq. We should be promptly redeploying our troops, not studying the option of transitioning to an open-ended, significant military presence in Iraq. Both the supplemental bills, and the process by which we are considering them, seem devised to maximize our political comfort, rather than put pressure on the White House to end a disastrous war. This shouldn't be about allowing ourselves to cast votes that make us feel better and look good. Now I realize, like my colleagues, that we have limited options to try to end the war before the next President and the next Congress take office. But that doesn't mean we can simply ignore Iraq or write off the next 10 months. More brave Americans will die in Iraq over the next 10 months, and our national security will continue to suffer while we focus on Iraq to the exclusion of so much else, including the global threat posed by al-Qaida. We have a responsibility to our constituents and to the American people, who have been demanding an end to the war for far, far too long, only to have that call go unheeded. At a minimum, we should be voting on an amendment I filed to safely redeploy our troops by setting a date after which funding for the war will be ended. The Senate has voted on such an amendment several times, offered by myself and the majority leader. I am under no illusions about whether such an amendment would pass. But Members of Congress should have to put themselves on the record as to whether they are serious about wanting to end the war. That may make some of them, even members of my party, a little uncomfortable. But making tough decisions, casting tough votes, standing on principle--that is what our constituents expect of us. As all of this weren't bad enough, this so-called supplemental spending bill doesn't just include Iraq spending for the current fiscal year. It also includes tens of billions of dollars to keep the war going in the next fiscal year. That means we can spare ourselves the inconvenience of taking up another Iraq spending bill this Congress. That may make us all feel better, but it is another way of showing that we aren't serious about putting pressure on the President to bring the war to a close. Instead of negotiating backroom deals, instead of trying to devise procedures and votes that minimize our discomfort, instead of acting like we are against the war without following through, instead of all that pretense and posturing, let's act like a legislative body and do some actual legislating. Let's have debates, and amendments, and votes. Let's do this in the open, on the record. That way our constituents will see whether we really are committed to ending the war, to fiscal responsibility, and to the other principles and goals that matter to the folks back home but that seem to have been forgotten here.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with the senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, to establish an independent commission to address long-standing, systemic problems in the collection, reporting, and analysis of foreign intelligence as well as diplomatic reporting and open source information. First, as the DNI has testified, we continue to direct ``disproportionate'' resources toward current crises, rather than toward long-term strategic issues and emerging threats. Second, we don't have the geographic distribution of resources needed to anticipate threats around the world. The lack of ``global reach'' has also been acknowledged by the Intelligence Community leadership. And third, we lack a comprehensive strategic approach to the collection of information by the entire U.S. Government, including not only the Intelligence Community, but also State Department and other Government officers who are based in our embassies. To put it simply, the Government does not have a process for asking the following questions: What do we need to know, not only today but in the future? Who is best suited to get that information and where do they need to be? Is our analysis up to the task? And how do we allocate resources, across agencies, so that these requirements are met with adequate funding? These big strategic questions are critical to our national security, yet they don't get asked, much less answered. These problems extend well beyond the authorities of the DNI and the jurisdiction of any one congressional committee. That is why we need an independent commission to finally address them comprehensively and to make recommendations for the executive branch and for Congress. There are concrete reasons why this is so important. Around the world, including in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, there are current and potential terrorist safe havens. There is also the potential for instability and the persistence of political, economic and social conditions that can result in a crisis that threatens our national security. Do we need more clandestine collectors in these parts of the world? Do we need more embassy political officers doing more diplomatic reporting? After all, information gleaned from conversations with government officials, civil society and tribal and religious leaders can be critical to understanding potential terrorist safe havens and can often be obtained more effectively than through the IC. What about other U.S. Government officials based overseas, such as FBI officers? What mix of these personnel is appropriate? What does a U.S. Embassy in one of these countries look like, from an interagency collection and reporting perspective? Are more consulates and out-of-embassy posts part of the solution? And how do we connect the requirements of our embassies overseas to Washington, where administration budget requests and congressional budgetary allocations and appropriations should reflect a broad, multi-year interagency collection strategy? An independent commission will be able to answer these questions. It will be able to look at the Intelligence Community, the State Department, and other departments and agencies to ensure that strategic and budgetary planning is not only consistent with national requirements, but is part of a larger, interagency process. The commission will consider the role of the National Security Council and the OMB in this process. It will look at the problem from top to bottom, interviewing NSC officials in Washington and visiting country missions overseas. This would not be a confrontational or accusatory investigation. It is an inquiry intended to produce concrete recommendations to fix long-standing problems. Those recommendations will be of enormous benefit to whoever the next president is. It will help Congress as it conducts oversight and considers the role of the Intelligence Community, the DNI, the State Department, and other agencies in the context of broader interagency strategies. This legislation has been endorsed by a broad range of people, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Donald Gregg, Carl Ford, Larry Wilkerson, David Kay, Gayle Smith and Rand Beers. I am pleased that the Intelligence Committee approved the legislation earlier this month as an amendment to the fiscal year 2009 intelligence authorization bill. I will continue working with Senator Hagel to ensure that this important legislation is enacted.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with the senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, to establish an independent commission to address long-standing, systemic problems in the collection, reporting, and analysis of foreign intelligence as well as diplomatic reporting and open source information. First, as the DNI has testified, we continue to direct ``disproportionate'' resources toward current crises, rather than toward long-term strategic issues and emerging threats. Second, we don't have the geographic distribution of resources needed to anticipate threats around the world. The lack of ``global reach'' has also been acknowledged by the Intelligence Community leadership. And third, we lack a comprehensive strategic approach to the collection of information by the entire U.S. Government, including not only the Intelligence Community, but also State Department and other Government officers who are based in our embassies. To put it simply, the Government does not have a process for asking the following questions: What do we need to know, not only today but in the future? Who is best suited to get that information and where do they need to be? Is our analysis up to the task? And how do we allocate resources, across agencies, so that these requirements are met with adequate funding? These big strategic questions are critical to our national security, yet they don't get asked, much less answered. These problems extend well beyond the authorities of the DNI and the jurisdiction of any one congressional committee. That is why we need an independent commission to finally address them comprehensively and to make recommendations for the executive branch and for Congress. There are concrete reasons why this is so important. Around the world, including in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, there are current and potential terrorist safe havens. There is also the potential for instability and the persistence of political, economic and social conditions that can result in a crisis that threatens our national security. Do we need more clandestine collectors in these parts of the world? Do we need more embassy political officers doing more diplomatic reporting? After all, information gleaned from conversations with government officials, civil society and tribal and religious leaders can be critical to understanding potential terrorist safe havens and can often be obtained more effectively than through the IC. What about other U.S. Government officials based overseas, such as FBI officers? What mix of these personnel is appropriate? What does a U.S. Embassy in one of these countries look like, from an interagency collection and reporting perspective? Are more consulates and out-of-embassy posts part of the solution? And how do we connect the requirements of our embassies overseas to Washington, where administration budget requests and congressional budgetary allocations and appropriations should reflect a broad, multi-year interagency collection strategy? An independent commission will be able to answer these questions. It will be able to look at the Intelligence Community, the State Department, and other departments and agencies to ensure that strategic and budgetary planning is not only consistent with national requirements, but is part of a larger, interagency process. The commission will consider the role of the National Security Council and the OMB in this process. It will look at the problem from top to bottom, interviewing NSC officials in Washington and visiting country missions overseas. This would not be a confrontational or accusatory investigation. It is an inquiry intended to produce concrete recommendations to fix long-standing problems. Those recommendations will be of enormous benefit to whoever the next president is. It will help Congress as it conducts oversight and considers the role of the Intelligence Community, the DNI, the State Department, and other agencies in the context of broader interagency strategies. This legislation has been endorsed by a broad range of people, including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Donald Gregg, Carl Ford, Larry Wilkerson, David Kay, Gayle Smith and Rand Beers. I am pleased that the Intelligence Committee approved the legislation earlier this month as an amendment to the fiscal year 2009 intelligence authorization bill. I will continue working with Senator Hagel to ensure that this important legislation is enacted.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to support the farm bill conference report. This bill, while far from perfect, is an important step in the right direction in a number of areas. This incremental improvement in farm programs and significant improvement in nutrition is preferable to the President's proposal to extend the status quo for several more years. I would like to commend Chairmen Harkin and Peterson, Ranking Members Chambliss and Goodlatte, and the rest of the conferees and their staffs on their hard work over the past few months on this bill. While I share the concerns I have heard from some Wisconsinites, as well as some of my colleagues, about the lack of reform to the commodity programs, I believe the good in this bill outweighs the bad. This bill makes significant improvements to programs that help farmers in Wisconsin every day, such as the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Organic Certification Cost Share, and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Programs. It is important to point out that for the first time the farm bill contains a separate title dedicated to nonprogram or specialty crops to assist a broader group of farmers with their pressing research and disease concerns, among other provisions. The nutrition title of this bill makes significant steps forward in the fight against hunger in America. My colleagues and the American people are well aware of the erosion in food stamp benefits over the past decade. In this time of increasing food and fuel costs, which are crippling many low- and middle-income Americans, it is a moral imperative to act to increase these benefits. In addition, the $50 million in immediate funding for the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program will make a real difference for food banks in Wisconsin. I commend the conferees for recognizing the critical need for improvement in these programs and addressing it, despite the tight budget constraints we face. I am extremely pleased that the bill makes improvements to the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program. Along with several of my colleagues, including Senator Kohl, I have called for the MILC Program's reimbursement rate to be raised to its original 45 percent. I also strongly support the feed cost adjustor that was including in conference to help ensure the MILC safety net can keep up with the rapidly rising costs of production. The MILC Program is an important safety net for Wisconsin's dairy farmers and one that operates in a responsible way--only kicking in and providing payments to farmers when times are tough. Further, the MILC Program caps the amount of payments one farmer can receive, ensuring that it helps small and medium farmers survive tough times without subsidizing expansion of larger farms. The improvements to this program are vital to farmers in Wisconsin. I am also pleased that long-overdue oversight of energy markets is included in the final farm bill. It is past time to prevent market manipulation by energy traders. Energy market speculation is part of the reason we are facing high gas prices and the farm bill takes an important step to close the ``Enron loophole'' that has allowed oil and gas traders to make electronic energy trades without Federal oversight. We cannot allow energy traders to secretively bid up the price of oil and saddle Americans with the price at the gas pump. I am a cosponsor of Senator Feinstein's Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act that has been incorporated into the farm bill. In a February 2008 letter, a bipartisan group of my colleagues and I urged the conference to retain the Senate-passed provision in the final farm bill. Our letter stated: ``With energy prices at or near record high levels, farmers and foresters are struggling to fill their tractors, heat their homes, fertilize their crops, and transport their goods to market. It is critical that the Congress take advantage of this opportunity on the Farm bill to increase transparency and reduce the threats of manipulation and excessive speculation that have plagued our energy commodity markets over the past several years.'' I am pleased we succeeded. The conference report included a number of provisions I included in legislation that I introduced last year, the Rural Opportunities Act, to help sustain and strengthen rural economies for the future, and create more opportunities in rural communities. I am pleased that the conference committee included a number of provisions similar to my legislation to support local bioeconomies and food markets, encourage local renewable fuels and biobased products, expand broadband Internet service in rural areas, and help develop the next generation of farmers, ranchers and land managers. In addition, the bill includes significant improvements to programs supporting organic agriculture. Wisconsin has a number of organic farmers and consumers who will benefit from the extra funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share and Organic Transition Assistance Programs, among others. This farm bill is the first to recognize the specific challenges faced by organic farmers, particularly as more and more consumers seek out their products. On a related note, I am pleased that the bill contains a provision similar to one I first proposed in 2006 allowing schools and other entities participating in Federal food programs to use local preference when purchasing products, which they are not currently allowed to do. This will allow schools to select in-season food grown locally, and will complement a number of programs, like the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, by providing a link between farmers and consumers, particularly children. This is better for farmers and consumers, Mr. President, and a commonsense reform that is long overdue. For some time I have worked to keep dairy imports from free-loading off of the dairy promotion money paid for by our hard-working dairy farmers. I am glad that the conference report makes every U.S. State and territory eligible and allows this assessment to be charged on imports as was intended in the 2002 farm bill. I am somewhat disappointed that the payment rate for imports is less than that paid by domestic producers, but half a loaf is better than none. I will continue to seek to level the playing field. In addition to the Agriculture Committee's portion of the bill, the Finance Committee also made a significant contribution to this legislation. I was glad that a provision similar to my Farmer Tax Fairness Act was included in the Finance portion of the conference report. This legislation will update the optional ability for farmers and other self-employed individuals to remain eligible for social security and disability benefits that had been eroded by inflation. It also indexes the program to inflation, so we are not in the same situation again sometime in the future. I was also pleased that several of my amendments that were included in the Senate bill were included in some form in the conference report. First, in a continuation of an effort I began with Senator Jeffords in 1998, I am pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment to improve the authority of what we had called the Small Farm Advocate in a previous amendment. I continued this effort with Senator Sanders, and while the conference report made this office a division within the new Office of Advocacy and Outreach, I expect that this will continue to help America's small and beginning farmers. Ensuring transparency and fair competition in the dairy industry has been a priority throughout my Senate career. Over the past year and a half, a couple developments showed a need for further action in this area. First, a GAO report on cash cheese trading that I requested with several of my colleagues confirmed that the market remains prone to manipulation even though there have been some improvements. Secondly, a sustained nonfat dry milk price reporting error that lasted over a year was found to have cost dairy farmers millions in reduced prices. I was glad to have an amendment accepted in the Senate that would require regular auditing of the dairy price reporting and require the USDA to better coordinate oversight of the dairy industry both within the department and with other federal agencies. The conference report retained the auditing requirement and shifted the improved oversight to a directive in the Joint Managers Statement. I hope that this added diligence and transparency can help give dairy farmers added confidence in the system. As we look to expand our Nation's renewable energy and lessen our dependence on oil, we need to provide opportunities for farmers and rural communities. Several key elements of my Rural Opportunities Act supporting local bioenergy were included in the farm bill. One amendment I got accepted encourages the USDA's continued support for and the expansion of regional bioeconomy consortiums, which can consist of land grant universities and State agriculture agencies dedicated to researching and promoting sustainable and locally supported bioenergy. The final bill maintains report language supporting these consortia. I was also pleased to work with Senator Coleman on another ``rural opportunity'' provision, which is based on our legislation, S. 1813, to provide local residents an opportunity to invest in biorefineries located in their communities. The farm bill provision gives priority to grants and loan guarantees for biorefineries with significant local ownership. This bill also makes significant strides in providing increased support for cellulosic ethanol and other innovative solutions to the energy problems we face as a nation. While Wisconsin is perhaps more widely known as a leader in milk and cheese production, we also lead the Nation in the production of cranberries and ginseng. I was glad to see a priority competitive research area for cranberries continue through the Senate bill and conference report. Similarly, I was glad that my legislation with Senator Kohl and Representative Obey to require country of harvest labeling for ginseng was accepted as an amendment in the Senate and continued as country of origin labeling in the conference report. This is an important step to help combat mislabeling of foreign ginseng as U.S. or Wisconsin grown, which receives a premium price for its higher quality. Overall, I was pleased that this bill provides a significant increase in conservation programs. I am particularly glad to see an emphasis on working lands programs like the popular Environmental Quality Incentive Program and an updated Conservation Stewardship Program, which benefit farmers and the environment. The farm bill also included provisions based on Senator Wyden's Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007, S. 1930, which I cosponsored, to address rampant, unsustainable illegal logging practices in developing nations. The bill also reauthorizes and the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program and allows the Secretary of Agriculture to use this program to carry out projects to implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. While I was disappointed that the funding levels of certain programs like the Wetlands Reserve Program were not what they should be and that the ``sodsaver'' provision was not a national protection, this bill is largely a step forward for conservation. Continuing in the category of mixed results, I was extremely pleased to see the addition of a new livestock title in the bill to promote competition and fair practices in agriculture but was disappointed that many of the Senate's commonsense provisions were removed or watered down in conference. I am pleased that producers will be able to have a choice to accept or decline arbitration when they sign agricultural contracts under the conference report, even though I was disappointed that a stronger Senate provision that mirrors legislation I have with Senator Grassley was not retained. On balance, this is a step in the right direction and I hope the USDA works to ensure that this remains a real choice for producers and there is no intimidation. In addition to the handful of improved competition protections that will benefit livestock producers, the underlying bill contains two other provisions that are also especially beneficial. I was glad to support Senator Kohl's longstanding efforts to find a way for meat from small and often specialty State-inspected meat processors to be sold across State lines so that consumers nationwide can enjoy these high quality Wisconsin products. The conference report contains a compromise that appears to strike a fair balance on this issue and this is a significant benefit to Wisconsin's local livestock producers and processors. I was also glad that the conference report will finally allow a country-of-origin labeling requirement for meat and produce to be enforced. While I have discussed at length the positive aspects of the legislation, let me be clear that the reforms in the commodity title should go further. I authored an amendment with Senator Menendez to make modest trims to direct payments and was disappointed the Senate did not vote on it. In addition, I supported the Dorgan-Grassley amendment to lower payment limits, the Klobuchar amendment to lower the AGI cap, and the Brown amendment to trim subsidies for crop insurers. I was disappointed that these efforts to make the commodity support programs more balanced and better targeted toward family farms and not concentrate payments in larger corporate-scale operations were unsuccessful. With these defeats, both the Senate-passed bill and the conference report missed an important opportunity for meaningful targeted reform of the farm support programs. There were some small steps in the right direction to be sure. Direct payments were trimmed by a few percent, excessive insurance company subsidies were trimmed and the cap on wealthy nonfarmers was lowered. But there was an opportunity to do much more and I will continue that fight. One other provision I am concerned about is the cut to the McGovern- Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. In light of food shortages across the globe, reducing the level of aid we provide to poor countries is simply wrong. I hope that, through the appropriations process, Congress will be able to continue providing funding for this important program.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, with skyrocketing inflation and unemployment, riots over land reform and food shortages, and streams of economic and political refugees fleeing into neighboring countries, the primary constant in Zimbabwe over the last 30 years has been the increasingly despotic and disastrous rule of President Robert Mugabe. A decade ago, high interest rates and inflation galvanized public support for the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Unions led by Morgan Tsvangirai, who was chosen in 1999 to lead a new opposition party--the Movement for Democratic Change, or MDC. In 2002 and 2005, President Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF party rigged Presidential and Parliamentary elections to maintain its grip on power, and while he tried to do it again on March 29 of this year, the MDC and the people of Zimbabwe refused to be intimidated or outmaneuvered. Despite the Zimbabwean Government's best efforts to limit the access of international monitors and journalists, most observers concur that the general elections conducted this past March were fraught with rigging, mainly to favor the ruling ZANU-PF. Even so, these efforts failed to silence the people of Zimbabwe's call for change. After significant and unexplained delays, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission announced that the MDC had won a majority in Parliament and that Mr. Tsvangirai won more votes for the Presidency, but not enough to avoid a runoff. For more than 6 weeks now, Zimbabwe has been in a state of increasing political uncertainty and violence. With each passing day, there are new reports of state-sponsored intimidation and detention of opposition leaders and supporters, human rights activists, trade union leaders, lawyers and journalists. The delay in announcing and now in setting a date for the Presidential runoff election has allowed the ruling party to mobilize traditional state security services as well as youth militias and bands of military veterans to weaken the opposition. Mr. Tsvangirai has agreed to participate in a run-off election, but he is reluctant to return to Zimbabwe, much less to campaign, unless the government will guarantee his security and cease its assault on his supporters. Facing the prospect of another three months in political limbo and social upheaval, Zimbabwe risks plunging into even greater uncertainty and instability. Mr. President, we can not stand by while this disaster unfolds. President Mugabe has been losing legitimacy, both at home and abroad, for years, isolating himself and his country to the detriment of Zimbabwe's citizens. The people of Zimbabwe are calling for change, but it will take engagement from external actors to help them escape the devastating status quo. The recent decision by dock workers across southern Africa to refuse to unload a Chinese ship carrying Zimbabwe- bound ammunition sent a strong message, one that the international community should echo. Public statements condemning the situation in Zimbabwe by the newly elected President of Botswana followed on the heels of these protests and resulted in the denial of a port at which the Chinese ship could dock. Decisions by other leaders in the region to welcome Mr. Tsvangirai for a visit have been equally important signs of this growing political will but they are not enough. The MDC's runoff conditions are more than reasonable, and should be supported in any way possible by regional and international governments. Given the tense environment and high potential for politically motivated violence, a commitment to ending impunity for human rights violations and stopping the attacks must be a top priority. Yesterday, the United Nations representative in Zimbabwe reported ``indications that the level of violence is escalating . . . and could reach crisis levels.'' I urge the U.N. to immediately send a team to investigate these human rights abuses so that the perpetrators will be held accountable and future violations might be deterred. Similarly, I welcome the African Union's willingness to send additional monitors for the runoff election, and I encourage the AU or SADC to draw together resources for a short-term peacekeeping mission to maintain order and protect civilians in Zimbabwe during this uncertain time. In addition to an immediate cessation of violence, I fully support demands by the United States Government and others that the Zimbabwe Government permit unfettered access for international media and observers during the campaign and conduct of the run-off polls and guarantee Mr. Tsvangirai's safety. South Africa's President Mbeki and other leaders of the Southern African Development Community should join this forthright call. President Mugabe and his top brass must respect fundamental human and political rights and allow for a fair, nonviolent, and independently monitored runoff election that can bring to power a legitimate government capable of bringing stability and growth to this embattled nation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. On this momentous occasion, we celebrate a vibrant nation that has thrived since its founding in 1948 under the most difficult circumstances. Founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust as a home for Jews around the world, Israel continues to be a beacon and a rare outpost of freedom and democracy in a region that knows too little of either. As we take the time to acknowledge the importance of this anniversary, we should also remember those who lost their lives in the fighting that coincided with the birth of this nation. Few, if any, nations have had such difficult births and have overcome such tremendous challenges. As we celebrate the anniversary of one of our strongest allies, the struggle for peace and stability throughout the Middle East continues. Peacemaking in this region is no easy task, but we need to nurture the progress developed during the Annapolis Summit and keep working toward a two-state solution that resolves the decades of turmoil Israel and its neighbors have endured. I am hopeful that through a continuing dialogue and diligent efforts, we will see a breakthrough that improves trust and cooperation between all actors and provides a framework for a lasting peace. The United States and Israel have a unique relationship that both Americans and Israelis cherish. Today, we should celebrate that relationship, which is as strong and deep as ever.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this past weekend a front page article in the Washington Post reminded us of the devastating attack on the USS Cole and the inability--or unwillingness--of the administration to see the investigation to the finish line. Nearly 8 years since the attack on the Cole, and 6\1/2\ since September 11, 2001, an attack directly linked to al-Qaida--and to bin Laden himself--remains stalled, at best, with few answers to key questions. I would like to take a minute to remind my colleagues of the attack I am referring to--an attack perhaps not as seared into our memories as those horrific ones of 9/11, but one that is equally as painful for those who lost loved ones and are still waiting to hold someone to account. On October 12, 2000, as the USS Navy destroyer Cole stopped briefly to refuel in the harbor of Aden, Yemen, it was attacked by a small boat loaded with explosives. The attack killed 17 members of the ship's crew, including a sailor from my home State of Wisconsin. At least 39 others were wounded. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, ``The plot . . .was a full-fledged al Qaida operation, supervised directly by [Osama] bin Laden.'' Although teams from the FBI and other U.S. agencies were immediately sent to Yemen to investigate, the Yemeni government was hesitant to participate in the investigation. While the Yemenis eventually agreed to a joint investigation, the 9/ 11 Commission Report notes that the CIA described Yemeni support for the investigation as ``slow and inadequate'' and that in the early stages of the investigation President Clinton, Secretary Albright, and others had to intervene to help. What followed was a number of arrests by the Yemeni government of people connected to the attack--including those found to have close links to al-Qaida--but less than 3 years after their arrest, 10 were able to escape from prison. Shortly after the jail break, the Justice Department unveiled a 51- count indictment against two of the escapees, including cell leader Jamal al-Badawi. Both were indicted on various terror offenses, included the murder of U.S. nationals and U.S. military personnel. Yet Yemen refused to extradite al-Badawi. Despite a trial in 2004 that condemned him to death--a sentence which was later reduced to 15 years in prison al-Badawi dug his way to freedom in 2006 with a number of other convicts. Although he surrendered 20 months later, al-Badawi was able to strike a deal with the government which rendered him a free man. No one has been charged in U.S. courts and none of those imprisoned remain behind bars. The USS Cole investigation remains unfinished as there has been no real accountability for the deaths of 17 Americans. I am deeply troubled by the message we are sending to our enemies by allowing this investigation to languish, while many of those involved in the attack walk free. Since 2003, I have repeatedly requested information from the State and Defense Departments, CIA, and FBI about these attacks, the circumstances surrounding the detention and escape of the suspects, and efforts to find and detain those involved. In 2006, I wrote to Secretary Rice and the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, expressing grave concern about al-Badawi's multiple escapes and in 2007 I strongly condemned the Yemeni government's decision to release him. There is little to inspire confidence in our efforts to hold these terrorists to account for their actions and even less to show for our work to date. Our reliance on the government of Yemen to detain and prosecute these known members of al-Qaida--and their inability or unwillingness to do so--calls into question the partnerships and relationships we have secured in our efforts to meet the number one threat we face. The State Department's 2007 ``Country Terrorism Report'' notes that Yemen has ``experienced several setbacks to its counterterrorism efforts'' and recounts multiple examples of the Yemeni government's inability to apprehend escaped convicts--many of whom are members of al-Qaida and are associated with the USS Cole attack. Furthermore, for the past two years Yemen has been listed as a terrorist safe haven because of al-Qaida's ability to ``reconstitute operational cells there'' and carry out ``several terrorist attacks against tourist targets.'' How reliable is the Yemeni government as a partner in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates if it has been designated as a safe haven for terrorists? What efforts are being taken to ensure the Yemenis commit to combating terrorists and work with us to hold those responsible for the USS Cole attack accountable? Can we assure the American people that the Yemenis will ensure al-Qaida is denied access to resources, opportunities and safe spaces from which to operate? We cannot simply rely on others to do our work--especially when they are clearly not doing the job that needs to be done. We cannot sit back and allow others to take the reins while we remain distracted. The war in Iraq has brought about a dramatic and regrettable shift in our priorities--a shift away from the top threat to our national security. Despite the persistent calls from the majority of Americans, we remain bogged down in Iraq--while it drains our resources, saps our attention, and depletes us of our ability to focus on our top national security concerns. I am concerned that this same lack of focus may be behind the administration's failures with respect to the attack on the Cole. The administration has paid relatively little attention to the marginalization of the USS Cole investigation, despite how critically important it remains to our national interest. The global fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates must be our top priority, and the administration must take seriously its responsibility to ensure that the al-Qaida operatives behind the attack on the USS Cole are held to account for their heinous actions.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce, along with Senators Klobuchar, Tester, and Harkin, the Election Day Registration Act of 2008, which would significantly increase voter participation by allowing all eligible citizens to register to vote in Federal elections on Election Day. In many ways, the machinery of our democracy needs significant repair. We live in an age of low turnout and high cynicism. The American people have lost faith in our election system, in part because they are not confident that their votes will be counted or that the ballot box is accessible to each and every voter regardless of ability, race, or means. What we see instead are long lines at polling places; faulty voting machines; under-trained, under-paid, over-worked poll workers; partisan election administrators; suspect vote tallies; caging lists; intimidation at the polling place; misleading flyers; illegal voter- file purges; and now, the Supreme Court approving discriminatory voter ID laws. If people cannot trust their elections, why should they trust their elected officials? Two years ago, Professor Dan Tokaji, a leading election law expert, called for a ``moneyball approach to election reform.'' Named after Michael Lewis's book about the Oakland A's data-driven hiring system, Tokaji's approach is quintessentially progressive, as that term was understood at the turn of the century. ``I mean to suggest a research- driven inquiry,'' Tokaji wrote, ``in place of the anecdotal approach that has too often dominated election reform conversations. While anecdotes and intuition have their place, they're no substitute for hard data and rigorous analysis.'' This bill embodies the moneyball approach to election reform. In stark contrast to many so-called election reform proposals, this bill addresses a real problem--low voter turnout--it targets a major cause of the problem--archaic registration laws--and it offers a proven solution--Election Day registration. The bill is very simple: it amends the Help America Vote Act to require every State to allow eligible citizens to register and vote in a Federal election on the day of the election. Voters may register using any form that satisfies the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act, including the Federal mail-in voter registration form and any state's standard registration form. North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, is exempted from the bill's requirements. The bill itself is simple, but it addresses a significant problem: the low voter turnout that has plagued this country for the last 40 years. We live in a participatory democracy, where our Government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a consent embodied in the people's exercise of their fundamental right to vote. It is self evident that a participatory democracy depends on participation. This may be a government of the people, but the people are not voting. Since 1968, American political participation has hovered around 50 percent for Presidential elections and 40 percent for congressional elections. Even in 2004, a record-breaking year, turnout was only 55 percent of the voting age population. The U.S. may be the only established democracy where the fact that a little under half of the electorate stayed home is considered cause for celebration. In fact, our predecessors in the Senate would be surprised to find us celebrating such low turnout: a 1974 report by the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service bemoaned the ``shocking'' drop in turnout in the 1972 election. And what was the number that so troubled the Committee--55 percent. The report went on: ``[i]t is the Committee's conviction that our disquieting record of voter participation is in large part due to the hodgepodge of registration barriers put in the way of the voter. Such obstacles have little, if anything, to recommend them. At best, current registration laws in the various states are outmoded and simply inappropriate for a highly mobile population. At worst, registration laws can be construed as a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who desperately need entry into the decision-making processes of our country.'' What a shame, that the Committee's findings are still valid. Our archaic registration laws have been reformed, but they are still archaic. We have passed a number of important bills designed to combat low turnout, but turnout is still low. America is even more mobile than it was in 1974, and yet our registration laws are still out of touch with the reality that more than 40 million Americans move every year. Worst of all, our registration laws still fall especially hard on the young, the old, and the poor. We have long known that complicated voter registration requirements constitute one of the major barriers to voting. In fact, many States adopted voter registration in order to prevent certain segments of the population from voting. Alexander Keyssar, the preeminent scholar on the history of the right to vote in this country, writes that although ``[r]egistration laws emerged in the nineteenth century as a means of keeping track of voters and preventing fraud; they also served--and were intended to serve--as a means of keeping African-American, working-class, immigrant, and poor voters from the polls.'' It is time for a fundamental change. A large body of research tells us that unnecessarily burdensome voter registration requirements are the single largest factor in preventing people from voting. Simply put, voter registration restrictions should not keep eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote. The solution to this problem is Election Day registration. Decades of empirical research confirm Election Day registration's positive impact on turnout. As one academic paper states, ``the evidence on whether EDR augments the electorate is remarkably clear and consistent. Studies finding positive and significant turnout impacts are too numerous to list.'' Studies indicate that Election Day registration alone increases turnout by roughly 5 to 10 percentage points. In general, States with Election Day registration boast voter turnout that is 10-12 percentage points higher than States that require voters to register before Election Day. Turnout in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which implemented Election Day registration over 35 years ago, has been especially high: in 2004, for example, 78 percent of eligible Minnesotans and 75 percent of eligible Wisconsinites went to the polls. The last time national voter turnout was above 70 percent, it was 1896, there were only 45 States, and the gold standard was the dominant campaign issue. Critics might worry about the possibility of fraud, but Election Day registration actually makes the registration process more secure. Voters registering on Election Day do so in the presence of an elections official who verifies the voter's residency and identity on the spot. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's Secretary of State, points out that Election Day registration ``is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you--not a postcard in the mail. That is a no- brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.'' In contrast to most election reforms, the cost of Election Day registration is negligible. A recent survey of 26 local elections officials in six EDR States found that ``officials agreed that incidental expense of administering EDR is minimal.'' In fact, Election Day registration may actually result in a net savings because it significantly reduces the use of provisional ballots. Provisional ballots, which are required by the Help America Vote Act, are expensive to administer. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that provisional ballots cost State and local governments about $25 million a year. In some states the number of provisional ballots cast is surprisingly large. For example, in 2004, more than 4 percent of California's registered voters cast provisional ballots--that's 644,642 provisional ballots. In Ohio, 157,714 provisional ballots were cast, about 2 percent of all registered voters. In contrast, in 2004 only 0.03 percent of voters in EDR States cast a provisional ballot. In Wisconsin, only 374 provisional ballots were cast. In Maine, only 95 provisional ballots were cast. In fact, only 952 provisional ballots were cast in all the EDR States combined in 2004. To be sure, this bill is no cure-all: it does not address long lines, deceptive flyers, and faulty voting machines. Other bills, good bills, address those issues. The bottom line is this: the Election Day Registration Act would substantially increase civic participation, improve the integrity of the electoral process, reduce election administration costs, and reaffirm that voting is a fundamental right. It has been proven effective by more than 30 years of successful implementation in Minnesota and Wisconsin and decades of empirical research. Election Day registration is good for voters, good for taxpayers, and good for democracy. 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 introduce, along with Senators Klobuchar, Tester, and Harkin, the Election Day Registration Act of 2008, which would significantly increase voter participation by allowing all eligible citizens to register to vote in Federal elections on Election Day. In many ways, the machinery of our democracy needs significant repair. We live in an age of low turnout and high cynicism. The American people have lost faith in our election system, in part because they are not confident that their votes will be counted or that the ballot box is accessible to each and every voter regardless of ability, race, or means. What we see instead are long lines at polling places; faulty voting machines; under-trained, under-paid, over-worked poll workers; partisan election administrators; suspect vote tallies; caging lists; intimidation at the polling place; misleading flyers; illegal voter- file purges; and now, the Supreme Court approving discriminatory voter ID laws. If people cannot trust their elections, why should they trust their elected officials? Two years ago, Professor Dan Tokaji, a leading election law expert, called for a ``moneyball approach to election reform.'' Named after Michael Lewis's book about the Oakland A's data-driven hiring system, Tokaji's approach is quintessentially progressive, as that term was understood at the turn of the century. ``I mean to suggest a research- driven inquiry,'' Tokaji wrote, ``in place of the anecdotal approach that has too often dominated election reform conversations. While anecdotes and intuition have their place, they're no substitute for hard data and rigorous analysis.'' This bill embodies the moneyball approach to election reform. In stark contrast to many so-called election reform proposals, this bill addresses a real problem--low voter turnout--it targets a major cause of the problem--archaic registration laws--and it offers a proven solution--Election Day registration. The bill is very simple: it amends the Help America Vote Act to require every State to allow eligible citizens to register and vote in a Federal election on the day of the election. Voters may register using any form that satisfies the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act, including the Federal mail-in voter registration form and any state's standard registration form. North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, is exempted from the bill's requirements. The bill itself is simple, but it addresses a significant problem: the low voter turnout that has plagued this country for the last 40 years. We live in a participatory democracy, where our Government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a consent embodied in the people's exercise of their fundamental right to vote. It is self evident that a participatory democracy depends on participation. This may be a government of the people, but the people are not voting. Since 1968, American political participation has hovered around 50 percent for Presidential elections and 40 percent for congressional elections. Even in 2004, a record-breaking year, turnout was only 55 percent of the voting age population. The U.S. may be the only established democracy where the fact that a little under half of the electorate stayed home is considered cause for celebration. In fact, our predecessors in the Senate would be surprised to find us celebrating such low turnout: a 1974 report by the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service bemoaned the ``shocking'' drop in turnout in the 1972 election. And what was the number that so troubled the Committee--55 percent. The report went on: ``[i]t is the Committee's conviction that our disquieting record of voter participation is in large part due to the hodgepodge of registration barriers put in the way of the voter. Such obstacles have little, if anything, to recommend them. At best, current registration laws in the various states are outmoded and simply inappropriate for a highly mobile population. At worst, registration laws can be construed as a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who desperately need entry into the decision-making processes of our country.'' What a shame, that the Committee's findings are still valid. Our archaic registration laws have been reformed, but they are still archaic. We have passed a number of important bills designed to combat low turnout, but turnout is still low. America is even more mobile than it was in 1974, and yet our registration laws are still out of touch with the reality that more than 40 million Americans move every year. Worst of all, our registration laws still fall especially hard on the young, the old, and the poor. We have long known that complicated voter registration requirements constitute one of the major barriers to voting. In fact, many States adopted voter registration in order to prevent certain segments of the population from voting. Alexander Keyssar, the preeminent scholar on the history of the right to vote in this country, writes that although ``[r]egistration laws emerged in the nineteenth century as a means of keeping track of voters and preventing fraud; they also served--and were intended to serve--as a means of keeping African-American, working-class, immigrant, and poor voters from the polls.'' It is time for a fundamental change. A large body of research tells us that unnecessarily burdensome voter registration requirements are the single largest factor in preventing people from voting. Simply put, voter registration restrictions should not keep eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote. The solution to this problem is Election Day registration. Decades of empirical research confirm Election Day registration's positive impact on turnout. As one academic paper states, ``the evidence on whether EDR augments the electorate is remarkably clear and consistent. Studies finding positive and significant turnout impacts are too numerous to list.'' Studies indicate that Election Day registration alone increases turnout by roughly 5 to 10 percentage points. In general, States with Election Day registration boast voter turnout that is 10-12 percentage points higher than States that require voters to register before Election Day. Turnout in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which implemented Election Day registration over 35 years ago, has been especially high: in 2004, for example, 78 percent of eligible Minnesotans and 75 percent of eligible Wisconsinites went to the polls. The last time national voter turnout was above 70 percent, it was 1896, there were only 45 States, and the gold standard was the dominant campaign issue. Critics might worry about the possibility of fraud, but Election Day registration actually makes the registration process more secure. Voters registering on Election Day do so in the presence of an elections official who verifies the voter's residency and identity on the spot. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's Secretary of State, points out that Election Day registration ``is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you--not a postcard in the mail. That is a no- brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.'' In contrast to most election reforms, the cost of Election Day registration is negligible. A recent survey of 26 local elections officials in six EDR States found that ``officials agreed that incidental expense of administering EDR is minimal.'' In fact, Election Day registration may actually result in a net savings because it significantly reduces the use of provisional ballots. Provisional ballots, which are required by the Help America Vote Act, are expensive to administer. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that provisional ballots cost State and local governments about $25 million a year. In some states the number of provisional ballots cast is surprisingly large. For example, in 2004, more than 4 percent of California's registered voters cast provisional ballots--that's 644,642 provisional ballots. In Ohio, 157,714 provisional ballots were cast, about 2 percent of all registered voters. In contrast, in 2004 only 0.03 percent of voters in EDR States cast a provisional ballot. In Wisconsin, only 374 provisional ballots were cast. In Maine, only 95 provisional ballots were cast. In fact, only 952 provisional ballots were cast in all the EDR States combined in 2004. To be sure, this bill is no cure-all: it does not address long lines, deceptive flyers, and faulty voting machines. Other bills, good bills, address those issues. The bottom line is this: the Election Day Registration Act would substantially increase civic participation, improve the integrity of the electoral process, reduce election administration costs, and reaffirm that voting is a fundamental right. It has been proven effective by more than 30 years of successful implementation in Minnesota and Wisconsin and decades of empirical research. Election Day registration is good for voters, good for taxpayers, and good for democracy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, one month ago I urged greater U.S. and international action to end the horrific violence plaguing Somalia and to press for a political solution that will lead to a sustainable peace in this war-torn country and stability for the volatile Horn of Africa region. Today, relentless violence in Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, is worsening the humanitarian and human rights crisis faced by hundreds of thousands of Somali civilians, while Islamist militias have gained substantial territorial control in south and central Somalia and Somali pirates are wreaking havoc off the country's coast. In the past few days, a range of actors from the UN's Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs to Human Rights Watch, and even Pope Benedict, have issued urgent appeals for an end to the lawless violence in Somalia. Today, I am introducing a resolution that will add the U.S. Senate to the list of those calling for the protection of civilians and a recommitment to the ideals and implementation of the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter. The resolution I am introducing--along with Senators Coleman, Brown, and Klobuchar--acknowledges the good work the U.S. has done, including the allocation of nearly $50 million to support the African Union peacekeepers in Somalia. The U.S. continues to be the leading humanitarian contributor, with more than $140 million in humanitarian assistance since the Ethiopians went into Somalia in December 2006. This most recent ``emergency'' response to the situation in Somalia has now gone on for sixteen months and yet conditions on the ground have deteriorated significantly, with some experts claiming Mogadishu is worse now than it has been since the civil war began in the early 1990s. It is clear our current policy towards Somalia is not working-- and we can no longer rely on temporary measures to stitch the crisis together. This new Senate resolution aims to refocus U.S. and international attention on the medium- and long-term priorities, namely, our commitment to helping Somalis build the institutions and conditions necessary for a stable nation free from civil war and violent extremism. The resolution reflects information gleaned from a hearing I held last month in the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs, in which expert witnesses stressed the need for an inclusive regional political process that facilitates dialogue and accountability. I will continue to demand a U.S. and international strategy to bring stability and security to Somalia until there is evidence that an effective plan exists and is being implemented in a consistent and coordinated fashion. For the sake of the people of Somalia and the reputation of the U.S. and the international community--not to mention our own national security--it is vital to reinvigorate a political process and stimulate legitimate progress towards that end. Given our historic role on the Horn of Africa and the critical national security concerns emanating from this part of the world, I encourage my colleagues to join me in calling upon the U.S. administration, other foreign donors, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, and other leaders in the region to end Somalia's descent into instability by facilitating political negotiations to address the need for accountability and the rule of law, and to prevent future suffering.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Fair Pay Restoration Act, legislation that protects American workers from pay discrimination, and I am glad the Senate is debating it. This bill is designed to overrule an incorrect court decision that cut off one woman's efforts to seek recourse for pay discrimination she experienced at the hands of her employer. As one of the few female supervisors at her company's plant, Lilly Ledbetter was paid substantially less than male employees in the same position who performed the same duties. This information about unequal pay was kept confidential. It was only after Ms. Ledbetter received an anonymous note revealing the higher salaries of other managers who were male that Ms. Ledbetter recognized that she was being paid less because she was a woman. Ms. Ledbetter's case went to trial and a jury awarded her full damages and back pay. Last year, in a sharply divided opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Ledbetter had filed her lawsuit too long after her employer originally decided to give her unequal pay. Under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an individual must file a complaint of wage discrimination within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Before the Ledbetter decision, each time an employee received a new paycheck, the 180-day clock was restarted because every paycheck was considered a new unlawful practice. The Supreme Court changed this longstanding rule. It held that an employee must file a complaint within 180 days from when the original pay decision was made. Ms. Ledbetter found out about the decision to pay her less than her male colleagues well after 180 days from when the company had made the decision. Under the Supreme Court's decision, Ms. Ledbetter was just too late to get back what she had worked for. It did not matter that she only discovered that she was being paid less than her male counterparts many years after the inequality in pay had begun. And it did not matter that there was no way for her to find out she was being paid less until someone told her that was the case. Mr. President, to put it simply, the Supreme Court got it wrong. It ignored the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the decisions of the vast majority of lower courts that the issuance of each new paycheck constitutes a new act of discrimination. It ignored the fact that Congress had not sought to change this longstanding interpretation of the law. The decision also ignores the workplace reality for millions of American workers just like Ms. Ledbetter. Workers often have no idea when they are not being compensated fairly because their companies do not disclose their employee's salaries. Because of the secrecy surrounding salaries, pay discrimination is one of the most difficult forms of discrimination to identify. Unlike a decision not to promote or hire, discrimination on the basis of pay can remain hidden for years. The Supreme Court's decision leaves victims of pay discrimination who do not learn about the discrimination within 6 months of its occurrence with no ability to seek justice. In the wake of this decision, employers can discriminate against employees by unfairly paying them less than what they are due, and as long as the employee does not learn about the discrimination and file a complaint within 6 months, the employer gets off scot free. The financial impact of a late filing is felt for years, even into retirement. Even a small disparity in pay can add up to thousands of dollars over multiple years. This is because other forms of compensation such as raises, overtime payments, retirement benefits, and even Social Security payments are calculated according to an employee's base pay. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision harms American workers even after their careers are over. The Fair Pay Restoration Act reestablishes a reasonable timeframe for filing pay discrimination claims. It returns us to where we were before the Court's decision, with the time limit for filing pay discrimination claims beginning when a new paycheck is received, rather than when an employer first decides to discriminate. Under this legislation, as long as workers file their claims within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their complaints will be considered. This bill also maintains the current limits on the amount employers owe once they have been found to have committed a discriminatory act. Current law limits backpay awards to 2 years before the worker filed a job discrimination claim. This bill retains this 2-year limit, and therefore does not make employers pay for salary inequalities that occurred many years ago. Workers thus have no reason to delay filing a claim. Doing so would only make proving their cases harder, especially because the burden of proof is on the employee, not the employer. Opponents say that this bill will burden employers by requiring them to defend themselves in costly litigation. This is simply not the case. Most employers want to do right by their employees, and most employers pay their employees fair and equal wages. This legislation will only affect those employers who underpay and discriminate against their workers, hoping that employees, like Ms. Ledbetter, won't find out in time. The Congressional Budget Office has also reported that restoring the law to where it was before the Ledbetter decision will not significantly affect the number of filings made with the EEOC, nor will it significantly increase the costs to the Commission or to the Federal courts. Yesterday, individuals from across the country observed Equal Pay Day, a day which reminds us as a nation that a woman is still paid 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. This disparity is all too real. Ending it will require commitment, and we can show that commitment by passing this bill. The last thing American women need is a Supreme Court decision that prevents them from seeking compensation from employers who have engaged in outright discrimination. In addition to passing the Fair Pay Restoration Act, Congress needs to do more to ensure all of America's citizens receive equal pay for equal work. Wage discrimination costs families thousands of dollars each year. This is hard-earned money that working women and men simply cannot afford to lose. We should pass the Fair Pay Act introduced by Senator Tom Harkin and the Paycheck Fairness Act introduced by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Senator Harkin's legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to prohibit wage discrimination on account of sex, race, or national origin. Senator Clinton's legislation would strengthen penalties for employers who violate the Equal Pay Act and require the Department of Labor to provide training to employers to help eliminate pay disparities. I can think of no better way to commemorate Equal Pay Day than to pass these three pieces of legislation now. Wage discrimination is not just a women's issue. Individuals and organizations from every part of our country, of different political beliefs and racial backgrounds, men and women, older Americans, religious groups, and individuals with disabilities have come out in support of the Fair Pay Restoration Act. These supporters understand that this legislation not only assists female workers who are trying to fight discrimination based on their sex. Because the Ledbetter decision established a general rule for all title VII employment discrimination claims, they know that this legislation is needed to restore the ability of employees across the Nation to redress discrimination based on factors such as race, national origin, age, religion, and disability. Congress has repeatedly passed landmark bipartisan legislation to eliminate discrimination in the workplace. These laws include the Equal Pay Act of 1963, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Indeed, we have made great progress in securing equal pay rights, but we must continue to defend these rights. Justice Ginsburg, in her sharply worded dissent in the Ledbetter decision, called on Congress to do something to rectify the inequity that the Supreme Court's decision left to our country. The Fair Pay Restoration Act is our answer to Justice Ginsburg's call. Lilly Ledbetter turned 70 years old this month. For almost two decades, Ms. Ledbetter worked hard for a company that discriminated against her by not paying her what it was legally required to pay. The Supreme Court, in its decision last year, ended Ms. Ledbetter's long quest for justice. She can no longer recover what was rightfully hers. Since the Ledbetter decision, other workers have already had their cases dismissed. These unjust outcomes will continue to mount until Congress acts. Each case is a new injustice, and it is an avoidable injustice because Congress can take steps right now to reverse the Supreme Court's erroneous decision. Passing the Fair Pay Restoration Act is an essential step in the right direction--a step toward the day when the basic right of American workers to equal pay for equal work will be realized. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of women and all American workers by voting for this vital legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 because it provides targeted relief to homeowners facing foreclosure and communities dealing with the negative effects of increasing numbers of foreclosures. Unfortunately, this bill also includes provisions that would not provide assistance to those most in need and it is my hope that those provisions will be modified or removed during the conference process. While I have reservations about some of the provisions in this bill, on balance, the legislation takes a step towards addressing some of the problems in the housing industry by increasing mortgage disclosures provided to borrowers and providing more housing counseling to homeowners facing foreclosure. I hope as Congress moves forward on this bill and other related housing measures we make sure that the legislation is crafted to help those most in need. It is estimated that at least 2 million Americans may face foreclosure on their homes in the coming months and years, which will not only have a devastating impact for those individual families, but will also have significant negative impact on the communities in which those homes are located. Various cities report that increased numbers of foreclosures and the concentration of foreclosures in certain neighborhoods can lead to increased instances of vandalism, crime, and theft. We need to act now to provide assistance that will help keep American families in their homes both for the good of those families and also for the good of whole neighborhoods. While Wisconsin has not been as hard hit as other regions of the country, foreclosures are in the rise in the state and a number of Wisconsinites have told me about their concerns about the effects of rising number of foreclosures on communities around the state. I have heard from local government officials who are concerned about holding lenders accountable for maintaining abandoned homes and ensuring the abandoned homes do not fall into disrepair. I have heard from housing advocates concerned about borrowers who may have been misled into taking out a subprime loan and now face the prospect of losing their homes. And I have heard from dedicated lawyers and counselors who are trying to provide counseling and other services in order to help individual and families through these tough times. If these personal stories are not enough to urge us to act, available foreclosure data should also move us to take steps to address the rising number of foreclosures around our country. One report, by the Center for Responsible Lending, looks at the effects of subprime loans issued in 2005 and 2006 throughout the Nation, including in Wisconsin. According to the center's analysis, there were over 60,000 subprime loans issued in 2005 and 2006 in Wisconsin and close to 12,000 of these homes financed by a subprime loan during those years may be foreclosed upon. Additionally, the foreclosures from these subprime loans may result in over 550,000 surrounding homes in my State of Wisconsin experiencing a decline in their value. These statistics are alarming and unfortunately are replicated in States around the country. This bill does take some good steps towards trying to address the rising number of foreclosures around the country. I am pleased that this bill includes an additional $150 million in housing counseling funds for 2008 and $30 million to provide legal services to homeowners dealing with the possible foreclosure of their homes. These funds are to be used to assist families facing foreclosure reach agreements with their lenders so that they can remain in their homes while also making reasonable payments on the amount owed on the home. Congress appropriated funding for counseling services as part of the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill and reports indicate that these funds are a cost-effective use of Federal resources. I am disappointed that the Senate did not provide the full $200 million in housing counseling funds that was included in the original bill introduced by Senator Reid in February. I am hopeful that we can continue to look for fiscally responsible ways to increase access to foreclosure counseling services in the coming months in order to assist more families in their attempts to restructure payments. I was also pleased to support the increased Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, funds that were included in the Foreclosure Prevention Act. CDBG is an immensely popular Federal program that provides a flexible source of funding for States and local governments to address the unique problems facing their communities. States and localities will be able to use these CDBG funds for a variety of purposes including: establishing methods to purchase foreclosed homes, rehabbing these homes in order to sell or rent them out, and demolishing foreclosed homes that are contributing to neighborhood blight. The increased number of foreclosures is impacting States and local communities in unique ways, and providing flexibility in the use of these CDBG funds is essential to help communities make the best possible use of this money. I was particularly pleased that the negotiators of this bill agreed to require that 25 percent of the CDBG funds provided in this bill be used to redevelop foreclosed homes for families or individuals whose income is at 50 percent of the area median income or less. While this targeting could be even stronger, it will help ensure that the Americans most in need are not left out of the Federal assistance provided in this legislation. The additional mortgage disclosures included in this package will do much to help ensure that future borrowers, whether taking out a first mortgage or refinancing their existing mortgages, better know the terms of the mortgages and how much they can expect to pay every month. While it is true that some borrowers fully knew that they were getting in over their heads when they took out mortgages, other borrowers did not understand the terms of their loans or were misled by lenders. The changes that this legislation makes to the Truth in Lending Act, TILA, will help to prevent some of the egregious lending practices that have gone on in the past from occurring again. While this provision is a good step forward, much more needs to be done to rein in predatory lending. I hope that the Senate can move quickly on comprehensive predatory lending legislation this year. Unfortunately, there were some tax provisions included in this legislation that will not directly help families and individuals facing foreclosure on their homes. I am particularly disappointed that the single largest provision in the bill is a tax break that bails out some of those businesses whose actions helped aggravate the housing crisis. I was also disappointed that the Senate voted to table the Durbin amendment which would have removed a provision in bankruptcy law that prevents mortgages on primary residences from being modified during bankruptcy. According to advocates, the Durbin amendment could have helped approximately 600,000 individuals or families remain in their homes. It is the single most effective thing that could be done to reduce foreclosures. Unfortunately, this amendment faced stiff resistance in the lending community, even though mortgages on vacation homes and luxury items such as yachts can be modified in bankruptcy under current law. Senator Durbin even worked to narrow the amendment to address some of the lenders' concerns. Even after these reasonable modifications, the lending community remained opposed to the amendment, and the Senate bowed to this opposition. That is unfortunate. The Durbin amendment was a measured response targeted at homeowners facing extreme hardship. I voted for Senator Durbin's stand-alone legislation on this last week in the Judiciary Committee, and I hope the Senate can move this proposal forward in the coming weeks and months. With respect to the renewable energy amendment offered by Senators Ensign and Cantwell, while I continue to support extending critical renewable energy tax provisions, I am disappointed that this amendment was not offset. I also oppose the amendment's section 105 language. It unfortunately does not reflect the latest compromise reached within both the House and Senate as reflected in H.R. 6, which passed the House on December 2, 2007; S. Amdt 3841, which I supported on December 13, 2007; and H.R. 5351. I am pleased, however, that Senator Cantwell has committed to working with me to ensure this provision is fixed to correct its overly broad definition, which poses a unique but serious threat to Wisconsin. Unless modified, the bill's language could have the unintended consequence of penalizing Wisconsin, which has a unique, State-mandated independent transmission model, by incentivizing its existing independent transmission company to sell assets to another independent transmission company. The provision is intended to only apply to vertically integrated utilities and I am pleased by my colleagues' willingness to work with me and Senator Kohl to preserve this intent. I have reservations about some of the provisions in this bill, but I will support the final bill because the bill does provide some important assistance to individuals and communities and it is important that we get the CDBG and housing counseling funds to States and local communities as soon as possible. The high number of foreclosures around our country has caused much suffering among individual homeowners and throughout local communities and we need to take action now to help these homeowners and communities rebuild their lives and neighborhoods. I hope that this bill can be improved during conference negotiations and that Congress will address the unresolved housing issues we face, including the need for stronger predatory lending laws and the need for more affordable housing for low income Americans. The problems in the housing industry and their broader impact on the Nation's economy are serious issues that will require the involvement of all levels of government as well as both private and nonprofit organizations. This bill represents a step forward in those efforts, but much more remains to be done.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, next week marks the 5-year anniversary of the war in Iraq. Although Saddam Hussein's brutal authoritarian regime no longer exists, the war has been nothing less than a disaster for that country, for others in the region, and unquestionably for our own, as well. Four million Iraqis are displaced from their homes and Iraq's profoundly weak central government cannot provide its citizens with sufficient basic services like food, water, and electricity or protect them from savage violence, disappearances, or kidnappings. Tensions continue to rise throughout the Middle East and, as the war triggers internal unrest in many countries, it has caused our own credibility to decrease significantly. The war continues to undermine our top national security priority-- the fight against al-Qaida, which has strengthened itself in Pakistan and reached out to new affiliates around the world. According to the Congressional Research Service, the war costs us over $10 billion a month in direct costs. The war saps our military, which is stretched too thin to keep us safe here at home. In short, the war is making us weaker, not stronger, and that trend is not likely to change. America continues to be mired in a conflict that has no end in sight. As of the beginning of this week a total of 3,974 American soldiers had been killed and 29,320 wounded. While the administration touts a recent decline in violence as an indication that the surge is ``working,'' there is little political progress that might indicate the decrease in violence will result in genuine national reconciliation. As the region remains particularly fragile and our international credibility profoundly damaged, Americans ask each other just how many more billions of dollars will be spent and how many more of our brave troops will die or be injured while we wait for national reconciliation in Iraq--which is the only way to end the violence. Just 2 weeks ago, many of my Republican colleagues stood on the Senate floor to sing their praises of the surge, but now we may be witnessing a reemergence of the brutal violence that was said to have dissipated. Early last week, two car bombs exploded, killing 24 people and wounding 56, while later in the week two bombs exploded in downtown Baghdad, killing nearly 70 people and wounding over 120. Yesterday a suicide bomber approached five American soldiers in Baghdad and detonated a bomb--killing all five soldiers and injuring three more. This attack has been labeled the worst attack on U.S. forces in months and it comes only days after a female suicide bomber blew herself up in the home of a Sunni leader who was reported to have been working in collaboration with U.S. forces. Similarly, another political impasse in Parliament may result in little tangible results from recently passed and supposedly key legislation. Yes, a de-baathification law has passed but it may usher in renewed sectarian tensions as former officials from Hussein's regime try to reclaim their old jobs. A provincial powers election law was sent back to the Parliament by the President's Council--requiring another round of drafting before it is able to move forward. As we well know, working on a law and even passing it is one thing--seeing it successfully implemented is another. National reconciliation still looks far off. The passage of what the administration is calling ``benchmark'' laws does not ensure society- wide sectarian reconciliation; in fact, there are significant concerns about how the local efforts we have supported to bring about this decline in violence will be integrated into the national framework. The Sunni Awakening has taken tens of thousands of former-insurgent Sunni militia fighters and it is unclear to what extent we can rely on their loyalties. It is not hard to see, however, that this policy risks increasing distrust between the local Sunnis and national government, which is led predominately by Shi'ites. Without a legitimate political settlement at the national level, any decline in violence in Iraq is likely to be tenuous. Recent news from Iraq seems to indicate that any gains in security are already slipping and without a strategy for safe redeployment, it is inevitably our brave men and women who will pay the price. The war in Iraq drags on while al-Qaida has reconstituted and strengthened itself. The Director of National Intelligence, DNI, recently testified before Congress that al-Qaida's central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is its most dangerous component. And just a few months ago, the DNI again repeated the Intelligence Community's assessment that, over the last 2 years, ``[al] Qaida's central leadership has been able to regenerate the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks in the Homeland.'' Let me remind my colleagues, that it was from Afghanistan, not Iraq, that the 9/11 attacks were planned and it was under the Taliban regime--which is once again gaining ground--that al-Qaida was able to flourish so freely. With a recent report warning that we are not winning in Afghanistan, we need to rethink our current Iraq-based strategy so we can counter the threat posed by al Qaida around the world. As we approach the 5th anniversary of the US-led invasion in Iraq, it is clear that continuing the current open-ended military policy doesn't make sense. The American people certainly know that this war doesn't make sense and they expect us to do everything in our power to end it. We in Congress cannot in good conscience put Iraq on the backburner, and we cannot turn a blind eye or feign helplessness as the administration keeps pursuing its misguided policies. This Congress has no greater priority than making right the mistake it made over five years ago when it authorized the war in Iraq. I do not want the American people to lose faith in their elected leaders for pursuing a war that they rightly oppose. I do not want to watch a failed strategy perpetuate regional turmoil any longer and I do not want any more American troops to die or get injured for a war that is not in our national security interest.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Senator Howard Metzenbaum was a progressive visionary whose strong support for America's workers and consumers left a lasting mark on our Nation. His determination to stand for a more just America in the Senate was an inspiration to me and everyone with whom he served. His influence and the example he set still resound strongly in the Senate chamber today. I deeply appreciate how much support and guidance Senator Metzenbaum gave to me when I came to the Senate in 1993. He had a wonderful way of bringing progressives in Congress together, and I will always be very grateful for that. He was a force to be reckoned with on the Senate floor--earning the nickname ``Senator No'' through ingenious tactics to stop legislation that threatening to hurt American workers and consumers. He was known for never backing down from a Senate floor fight, and his opposition spelled trouble for almost any bill. America's workers had no better friend and ally in Congress than Senator Metzenbaum, who sponsored the law requiring 60 days advance notice for a plant closing. Whenever Congress acts to help those American workers struggling in a difficult economy, we are building on Senator Metzenbaum's legacy. He also took on Washington's most powerful interests in an unrelenting push to stop the wasteful spending that destroys the public's trust in elected officials. In this way, former Senator Metzenbaum laid the ground work for those of us who continue the fight to rein in wasteful government spending. His later service as the chairman of the Consumer Federation of America was a testament to his strong commitment to consumer advocacy. Howard Metzenbaum was such a distinguished Member of this body, both because he served the people of Ohio so well, and because he set such an outstanding example of courage and commitment to those of us who had the privilege to serve with him. I join my colleagues, the State of Ohio, and the entire Nation in paying tribute to this great American.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was pleased to hear about the recent arrest of Viktor Bout, one of the most notorious arms dealers in the world. Last week, Mr. Bout, was arrested in Thailand by a U.S. sting operation in collaboration with Thai authorities which apprehended him as he was allegedly trying to sell weapons to the FARC the main Colombian rebel group and an organization that has also been placed on the U.S. terrorist list. If Bout is charged and convicted in Thailand, he faces 10 years in prison, while if the U.S. is able to extradite him he will face 15 years. I certainly recognize the need to ensure a free and fair trial for Mr. Bout that is his right but I am nonetheless pleased that after numerous attempts he has finally been arrested. For years, Bout has been able to evade law enforcement officers around the world, despite investigations by the U.N., the media, and even intelligence sources that indicate his complicity in arms smuggling and his role in fueling some of the world's most brutal wars in some cases by providing weapons to both sides of the conflict. Despite an outstanding 2002 Interpol warrant, until last week he was able to successfully dodge arrest. Mr. President, Viktor Bout benefited from the unrestrained capitalism and weak institutions that emerged in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. He used that tumultuous period for his own personal gain, as he built an aircraft fleet, purchased cheaply from the stockpiles of discarded Cold War weapons, and sought out clients around the globe to help perpetuate his diabolical money-making schemes. He exploited the dearth of arms control initiatives in fledging countries and recognized that the lack of an international framework would serve his interests well. According to Douglas Farah, one of the authors of the recently published ``Merchant of Death,'' ``[it] is highly unlikely [Bout] could have flown aircraft out of Russia and acquired huge amounts of weapons from Soviet arsenals without the direct protection of Russian intelligence, and, given his background, the [Russian military intelligence] seems the most likely candidate.'' Indeed, it is likely that such assistance was needed to create such a vast empire. Mr. President, this empire had many and varied clients. In fact, during the early years of the Iraq war, Bout's aircrafts were used to support U.S. Government contractor and subcontractor work. I inquired about the use of these aircrafts at a 2004 Iraq hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and learned shortly thereafter that both the State and Defense Departments had done business with Bout. Not long after my inquiry, this business relationship was purportedly terminated and Bout's assets were frozen by the Treasury Department. But despite this corrective action, Bout's work remained uninhibited and, according to some credible reports, he continued to associate with other entities of the U.S. Government. Bout was clearly a savvy and dependable broker, but he used these talents to do business with some of the most unsavory characters in the world. The U.N. investigative team which pursued Bout found that he was pouring small arms and ammunition into Afghanistan, Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of Congo for years--enabling millions of innocent people to be slaughtered and supporting carnage at unprecedented levels. Bout was able to circumvent both national and international arms controls by exploiting holes in the system. Despite the arrest warrants, asset freezes, and international embargoes, he was able to operate with impunity because of the lack of concerted international cooperation within the arms control and law enforcement arenas. Last week's arrest is a testament to the importance of that global cooperation and a reminder that as our world continues to globalize we must work together in order to hold individuals like Bout accountable for their actions.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, since independence in 1980, politics in Zimbabwe had been dominated by one party and indeed one man President and head of the ruling ZANU-PF, Robert Mugabe. In February 2000, Zimbabwe's citizens delivered a blow to President Mugabe when they rejected his party's proposed new constitution, and then in June's legislative elections, even without access to the state-run media and without significant financing, opposition candidates managed to win 58 of 150 parliamentary seats, up from just 3. In 2000, I joined many in Zimbabwe and the international community in hoping that this victory would mark the end of the ruling party's stranglehold on the state and herald the opening of democratic space and opportunities in a country that has seen repression for too long. Instead, Mr. Mugabe and his party responded to these defeats by tightening their grip on power. In 2000, international headlines warned of ``Zimbabwe's unprecedented economic and social crisis'' with unemployment at 50 percent and almost 60 percent inflation, and the 2000 elections were marred by the harassment of opposition candidates and supporters in which at least 25 were killed. These numbers pale in comparison with the devastating economic and political situations in Zimbabwe today. According to official figures, annual inflation now tops 100,000 percent with 80 percent employment despite the fact that at least one quarter of the population has fled the country. Meanwhile, the harassment and intimidation of the independent media, opposition politicians, civil society leaders, and human rights advocates has become more widespread and systematic. Exactly 1 year ago today, when opposition party activists and members of civil society attempted to hold a peaceful prayer meeting in response to President Mugabe's announcement that he would seek reelection, they were brutally assaulted by ZANU-PF police officers, security forces, and youth militia. More than 50 were arrested, at least 1 killed, and many badly beaten. On this somber anniversary, I appeal to political leaders here in the United States, in Africa, and around the world to send a strong signal to President Mugabe and his supporters that we want to see Zimbabwe recover from its current crisis and we will be watching as the unprecedented simultaneous presidential and legislative general elections are held on March 29. The violent repression, and even coercive harassment, we saw in March 2007 is unacceptable and will have negative consequences both internally and externally. For years, I have been frustrated and saddened by the hastening decline of this country. The courageous, patriotic citizens of Zimbabwe who resist the state's repression, even at enormous personal cost, must know that the world supports them, and the country's corrupt and tyrannical rulers must be told that their time is up. Although it will not happen this month, I hope that someday soon the people of Zimbabwe will be given a chance to freely express their will in a genuine democratic process that is free from manipulation, intimidation, and coercion.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana would permit parties sued by State attorneys general under authority of this bill to recover attorneys' fees and costs if they are successful. This amendment would undermine the purpose of giving those State officers that authority. We want their help in protecting the citizens of their States. To create the specter of a large cost to the taxpayer if a case is unsuccessful will only deter aggressive enforcement action. There are, of course, situations where litigants against the government are given the chance to collect attorneys' fees if they prevail in a lawsuit. As both a State legislator in Wisconsin and a U.S. Senator I have supported legislation like the Equal Access to Justice Act, ``EAJA'', which gives this right to small businesses and individuals of modest means. I have even introduced a bill in several previous Congresses to amend EAJA to make it easier to collect attorneys' fees. That EAJA statute, however, applies to a limited class of individuals and small businesses. Whether or not we should extend EAJA to apply in those cases where State attorneys general are acting on behalf of the Federal Government, we certainly should not impose a broader rule on the Attorneys General than we currently apply to Federal agencies. For these reasons, I oppose the Vitter amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the political situation in Ethiopia. The U.S.-Ethiopian partnership is an incredibly important one--perhaps one of the more significant on the continent given not only our longstanding history but also the increasingly strategic nature of our cooperation in recent years. Ethiopia sits on the Horn of Africa--perhaps one of the roughest neighborhoods in the world, with Somalia a failed state and likely safe haven for terrorists, Eritrea an inaccessible authoritarian regime that exacerbates conflicts throughout the region, Sudan a genocidal regime, and now Kenya descending into crisis. By contrast, Ethiopia seems relatively stable with its growing economy and robust poverty reduction programs. Indeed, one look at the deteriorating situation on the Horn of Africa and it is clear just how essential our relationship with Ethiopia really is. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's approach to strengthening and building bilateral ties with Ethiopia has been shortsighted and narrow. As in other parts of the world, the administration's counterterrorism agenda dominates the relationship, while poor governance and human rights concerns get a pass. Genuine democratic progress in Ethiopia is essential if we are to have a healthy and positive bilateral relationship. We cannot allow a myopic focus on one element of security to obscure our understanding of what is really occurring in Ethiopia. Rather than place our support in one man, we must invest in Ethiopia's institutions and its people to create a stable, sustainable political system. As we are seeing right now in Kenya, political repression breeds deep-seated resentment, which can have destructive and far-reaching consequences. The United States and the international community cannot support one policy objective at the expense of all others. To do so not only hurts the credibility of America and the viability of our democratic message, but it severely jeopardizes our national security. I am seriously concerned about the direction Ethiopia is headed-- recurringbecause according to many credible accounts, the political crisis that has been quietly growing and deepening over the past few years may be coming to a head. For years, faced with calls for political or economic reforms, the Ethiopian government has displayed a troubling tendency to react with alarmingly oppressive and disproportionate tactics. For example, in 2003, we received reports of massacres of civilians in the Gambella region of Ethiopia, which touched off a wave of violence and destruction that has yet to truly loosen its grip on the region. At that time, hundreds of lives were lost, tens of thousands were displaced, and many homes, schools, and businesses throughout the area were destroyed. Credible observers agree that Ethiopian security forces were heavily involved in some of the most serious abuses and more than 5 years later no one has been held accountable and there have been no reparations. The national elections held in May 2005 were a severe step back for Ethiopia's democratic progress. In advance of the elections, the Ethiopian Government expelled representatives of the three democracy- promotion organizations supported by USAID to assist the Ethiopian election commission, facilitate dialogue among political parties and election authorities, train pollwatchers, and assist civil society in the creation of a code of conduct. This expulsion was the first time in 20 years that a government has rejected such assistance, and the organizations have still not returned to Ethiopia because they do not feel an environment exists where they can truly undertake their objectives. Despite massive controversy surrounding the polls, it is notable that opposition parties still won an unprecedented number of parliamentary seats. Their pursuit of transparency and democracy was again thwarted, however, when they tried to register their concerns about the election process. In one incident, peaceful demonstrations by opposition members and their supporters in Ethiopia's capital of Addis Ababa were met with disproportionate and lethal force that killed more than 30 people and injured over 100. In another incident, the Ethiopian government arrested thousands of peacefully protesting citizens who took to the streets in support of the opposition. The systemic nature of this crackdown was revealed in credible reports coming from the Oromia and Amhara regions that federal police were unacceptably threatening, beating and detaining opposition supporters. Indeed, international human rights groups documented that regional authorities were exaggerating their concerns about armed insurgency and ``terrorism'' to try to justify the torture, imprisonment and sustained harassment of critics and even ordinary citizens. This tendency to portray political dissent as extremist uprisings has been repeated more recently with regards to what is being characterized by some as a brutal counterinsurgency operation led by Ethiopia's military in the Ogaden, a long-neglected region that borders Somalia. Certainly I recognize the serious security concerns in this region, made worse by the porous borders of the failed state just a stone's throw away. But it is precisely because Ethiopia is our partner in the fight against al-Qaida, its affiliates and allies, that I am so concerned about what I understand to be a massive military crackdown that does not differentiate between rebel groups and civilians. While I am sure there are few clean hands when it comes to fighting in the Ogaden region, the reports I have received about the Ethiopian government's illicit military tactics and human rights violations are of great concern. I have been hearing similar reports of egregious human rights abuses being committed in Somalia, about which I am gravely concerned. When I visited Ethiopia just over a year, I urged the Prime Minister not to send his troops into Somalia because I thought it might make instability there worse, not better. Tragically, more than a year later, it seems my worst fears have been realized as tens of thousands of people have fled their homes, humanitarian access is at an all time low, and there are numerous reports of increasing brutality towards civilians caught in the crossfire. In the interest of its own domestic security, Ethiopia is contributing to increased regional instability. What troubles me most is that the reports of Ethiopia's military coming out of the Ogaden and Mogadishu join a long list of increasingly repressive actions taken by the Ethiopian government. The Bush administration must not turn a blind eye to the aggressive--and recurring--tactics being utilized by one of our key allies to stifle dissent. I certainly welcome the role the Bush administration has played in helping to secure the release of many--although not all--of the individuals thrown in jail in the aftermath of the 2005 elections. I welcome the Embassy's engagement with opposition members and their efforts to encourage Ethiopian officials to create more political space for alternative views, independent media, and civil society. These are all important steps but they do not go far enough. The administration's efforts at backroom diplomacy are not working. I understand and respect the value of quiet diplomacy, but sometimes we reach the point where such a strategy is rendered ineffective--when private rhetorical commitments are repeatedly broken by unacceptable public actions. For example, recent reports that the Ethiopian government is jamming our Voice of America radio broadcasts should be condemned in no uncertain terms, not shrugged off. The Bush administration must live up to its own rhetoric in promoting democracy and human rights by making it clear that we do not--and will not--tolerate the Ethiopian government's abuses and illegal behavior. It must demonstrate that there are consequences for the repressive and often brutal tactics employed by the Ethiopian government, which are moving Ethiopia farther away from--not closer to--the goal of becoming a legitimate democracy and are increasingly a source of regional instability. I am afraid that the failure of this administration to acknowledge the internal crisis in Ethiopia is emblematic of its narrow-minded agenda, which will have repercussions for years to come if not addressed immediately. Worse yet, without a balanced U.S. policy that addresses both short- and long-term challenges to stability in Ethiopia, we run the risk of contributing to the groundswell of proxy wars rippling across the Horn--whether in Somalia, eastern Sudan, or even the Ogaden region. And those wars, in turn, by contributing to greater insecurity on the Horn and providing opportunities for forces that oppose U.S. interests, pose a direct threat to our own national security as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin for his excellent remarks and for his leadership on this issue. It has been very helpful during a very tough battle that we have to keep fighting. We had an interesting debate yesterday on the two bills I have offered with the majority leader. I know some of my colleagues expressed concern that we were spending too much time on this issue. Well I, for one, am pleased we are able to discuss one of the most pressing problems facing this country. Maybe now that they have allowed us to have this debate, the Republicans will allow us to actually consider and vote on these bills. While I appreciate the chance to have this debate, I would like to take this chance to respond to some of the statements that have been made on the other side. I have actually been accused of ``legislating defeat in Iraq'' or other variations on that theme, and somehow trying to micromanage the job of the commanders. Actually, we have already accomplished our military mission in Iraq: Removing Saddam Hussein. I am interested in achieving victory in the global effort to combat al- Qaida. We have to make a choice. The Army Chief of Staff has been clear that ``the numbers of forces we have committed in Iraq now increases our level of strategic risk.'' So what does that mean? It means we must choose between letting the Iraqi people resolve their sectarian disputes on their own or, on the other hand, exhausting our troops in Iraq and losing ground in the global fight against al-Qaida. Senator Inhofe said my bill demanding a strategy to defeat al-Qaida wasn't needed because we already have a plan to defeat al-Qaida. He failed to explain why, though. If we already have a strategy to defeat al-Qaida, why is it that al-Qaida has regenerated and reconstituted itself and is planning more attacks on our homeland? Admiral Mullen has been quite clear that under our current strategy, Afghanistan is a second priority where we only ``do what we can''--do what we can. In other words, we are so bogged down in Iraq, we don't have the forces to respond to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. If this is a strategy, it sure isn't working, which is why the majority leader and I want to require the administration to develop a plan that prioritizes the fight against al-Qaida and protecting ourselves at home over an endless war in Iraq. Senators Inhofe and Lieberman have claimed that we do already have political reconciliation in Iraq and that we have seen benchmark legislation in the Iraqi Parliament. Yes, a debaathification law has passed, an amnesty law has passed, and the provincial powers election power law passed. Yes, we have seen movement in the Iraqi Parliament after waiting for more than 4 years. It is my great hope that the laws recently passed will bring the Sunnis fully into the political process. But as we well know, passing a law is one thing, but actually seeing it successfully implemented is another, particularly given the country's weak national government. I think national reconciliation still looks far off. The passage of what the administration is calling ``benchmark'' laws does not ensure society-wide sectarian reconciliation. There are still significant concerns about how the local efforts we have supported to bring about declining violence will actually be integrated into the national framework. To illustrate this, the Sunni Awakening has taken tens of thousands of former insurgent Sunni militia fighters and provided them with U.S. funding in exchange for helping combat al-Qaida and Iraq. But to what extent we can rely on the long-term loyalties of these fighters is a very open question. We do know, however, that this policy actually risks increasing distrust between the local Sunnis and the national government, which of course is led primarily by Shiites. I would just like to ask, if Iraqis have agreed to political reconciliation, as Senator Inhofe suggested, well then doesn't that mean we have achieved the objectives of the surge and we can start bringing the troops home? When does the other side think we can bring the troops home? They never talk about that. Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? One hundred years? What kind of success is that? After more than 4 years of waiting for the Iraqi Government to make progress, we have lost nearly 4,000 Americans, with no end in sight and no clear path for a reconciliation that incorporates all aspects and elements of Iraqi society. Now, another argument we have heard is it has been suggested that Iraq would collapse or that genocide would occur if U.S. troops leave. Of course, that assumes our military presence there is actually helping the situation rather than simply postponing an inevitable day of reckoning. If we bring our troops out of this quagmire, Iraqis and their neighbors would have to confront the crisis head on. Now, I am not calling for the United States to abandon Iraq, but there is simply no way we can fix the mess we have made without a legitimate political settlement. A U.S. redeployment would actually put new pressure on Iraqis and on countries in the region to engage productively and to make the decision as to whether a full-fledged civil war is really in the interests of Iraq or its neighboring countries. I suspect--I really do feel strongly about this, having looked at this issue for many years in both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Intelligence Committee--that if these countries were faced with that decision, they would actually try harder to reconcile their differences peacefully rather than further ignite tensions. Some Members of this body seem to believe the war in Iraq is between U.S. troops on the one side and al-Qaida on the other. That is not what is going on. In fact, that is dangerous, wishful thinking. The recent patterns of violence in Iraq actually confirm what the intelligence community has said all along: that the war in Iraq is sectarian and intrasectarian and far from the oversimplified ``us versus them'' that proponents of an endless military engagement in Iraq continue to describe. Moreover, in mixed areas such as Mosul, violence is actually increasing. And in the south, the increased violence is among Shiites, and reduction in areas such as Anbar, which is almost entirely Sunni or in Baghdad, where sectarian cleansing has already occurred, do not represent a diminishment of the underlying tensions that could explode at any time. Contrary to what we heard yesterday, Iraq simply is not the central front on the war on terrorism. To the extent to which there is such a front in this very global conflict, it is clearly Pakistan and Afghanistan. No rational reading of press reports, independent studies or our own intelligence could possibly conclude otherwise. While the administration has focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. That sounds like a big mistake. That sounds like a real strategic error in an international battle against terrorism. Yet far too many people in the administration and my colleagues somehow believe Iraq is what it is all about. What a terrible strategic mistake. Early this month, the DNI testified before Congress that the central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al-Qaida's most dangerous component. And a few months ago, the DNI again repeated the intelligence community's assessment that over the last 2 years ``Al Qaeda's central leadership has been able to regenerate the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks in the Homeland''-- in the homeland, our homeland, our country, the United States of America. The DNI also testified that al-Qaida ``is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.: The identification, training, and positioning of operatives for an attack in the Homeland''--in this country. Meanwhile, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas--or FATA region-- in Pakistan is serving as a staging ground for al-Qaida in support of the Taliban and providing it with a base similar to the one it used to have across the border in Afghanistan. Over the past year, as we all know, we have seen an unprecedented rise of suicide bombings in Pakistan. The Taliban is gaining ground in Afghanistan, and while we may be sending an additional 3,200 marines to Afghanistan in the near future, we have been fighting for far too long there with too few soldiers and too few reconstruction funds. The price of that neglect is a dramatic resurgence of militants that must be urgently addressed. Yesterday, a Washington Post article noted that: More foreign soldiers and Afghan civilians died in Taliban- related fighting last year than in any year since U.S. and coalition forces ousted the extremist Islamic militia, which ruled most of the country, in 2001. Military officials expect the coming year to be just as deadly, if not more so, as the Taliban becomes more adept militarily and more formidable in its deployment of suicide bombers and roadside explosives. With the Joint Chiefs saying: ``In Iraq we do what we must and in Afghanistan we do what we can,'' it is no wonder Afghanistan is teetering on the edge. It has been neglected, shoved to the back burner so the President can pursue an open-ended war in Iraq. I remind my colleagues it was from Afghanistan, not Iraq, that the 9/ 11 attacks were planned, and it was under the Taliban regime, which is once again gaining ground, that al-Qaida was able to flourish so freely. This is the actual position, this is the actual situation in terms of this global fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. It is not all about Iraq. Al-Qaida affiliates from Africa to Southeast Asia pose a significant terrorist threat. While we have been so myopically fixated on Iraq, the threat from an al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa has grown and now, according again to the testimony of the Director of National Intelligence, ``represents a significant threat to the United States and European interests in the region.'' Since its merger with al-Qaida in September 2006, it has expanded its targets to include the United States, United Nations, and other interests, and it likely got a further boost when al-Qaida leadership announced last November that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group united with al-Qaida under AQIM's leadership. Its possible reach covers Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, Libya, and other countries. Meanwhile, it is using deadly tactics that suggest it is acquiring knowledge and help from the war in Iraq, basically a training ground for those who get exported to attack us. Al-Qaida has affiliates around the world--in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Lebanon, where al-Qaida poses a ``growing threat,'' the Horn of Africa, and Southeast Asia. And a few weeks ago, there were more arrests in Europe. None, not one of these developments has been prevented by the war in Iraq. 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. The administration claims al- Qaida in Iraq may be on the run, but al-Qaida has not abandoned its efforts to fight us globally. In fact, we are watching al-Qaida strengthen and develop its affiliates around the world, while we remain bogged down in Iraq. How foolish can we be to allow them to reconstitute all over the world as they watch us unable to extricate ourselves from a mistake which was, of course, going into Iraq the way we did. We need a robust military presence and effective reconstruction program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where al- Qaida and its affiliates are operating--across North Africa, in Southeast Asia, and along the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we need to address the root causes of the terrorist threat, not just rely on military power to get the job done. I would like to turn now briefly to the impact of the Iraq war on our military and National Guard. There is nobody in the Senate who cares more about this than the Presiding Officer. I will start by repeating what GEN George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said yesterday in congressional testimony: The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future. Many U.S. troops currently in Iraq, as we all know, are now in their third or fourth 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 420,000 have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said before, nearly 4,000 of our men and women 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 the Vietnam war. 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, of course, can be attributed to Iraq. There are insufficient Reserves to respond to additional conflicts or crises around the world. 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. In addition, thousands of our troops have, as we well know, 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 generations. I haven't even touched on the massive debt we are running up to pay for this war. We are spending approximately $10 billion a month in Iraq. Congress has appropriated over $525 billion for this war, and the debt keeps mounting. We heard eloquent floor statements yesterday on this side about how these costs are affecting our ability to address other priorities. I will not repeat all of what was said, but I do want to note that the war in Iraq keeps us from adequately addressing critical gaps in our homeland security and law enforcement. While we had 92,000 more troops to the Army and Marine Corps, the city of New York has 5,000 fewer police officers on the beat than it did on September 11, 2001. This year, we will spend a fifth of our $740 billion ``national security budget'' on Iraq, twice what the Federal Government spends defending our Nation. Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut grants for first responders, and the Coast Guard is struggling with an inadequate force size. It doesn't make sense. It simply doesn't make sense. The American people know that, which is why they voted the way they did last November. More than 60 percent of Americans are in favor of a phased withdrawal. They don't want to pass this problem off to the next 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. Polls continue to show voters strongly oppose the war in Iraq, and that is one of the top issues on which they will be voting. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of the situation in Iraq and 56 percent disapprove strongly. The same poll also found this is the second most important issue to voters in November, behind the economy and jobs. And a recent Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans, 56 percent, do not believe the surge is working and want a timetable to get out of Iraq. Those Americans need to be heard, and that is what we are trying to do with this important debate. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has voted overwhelmingly to allow some debate of the Feingold-Reid al-Qaida bill, but it is pretty clear to everyone that this body still doesn't fully understand and is not ready to address head on the threat posed by al- Qaida. As was made clear during debate on the Iraq redeployment legislation, too many Members confuse the war in Iraq with the fight against al-Qaida. That is true of the administration too. While it is focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Don't take my word for it. Listen to our intelligence community. Early this month, the Director of National Intelligence testified before Congress that the central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al-Qaida's most dangerous component. A few months ago, the DNI again repeated the intelligence community's assessment that over the last few years ``Al Qaeda's central leadership has been able to regenerate the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks in the Homeland''--our homeland, Mr. President, the United States of America. The DNI also testified that al-Qaida ``is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S.: the identification, training, and positioning of operatives for an attack in the Homeland.'' Meanwhile, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan is serving as a staging ground for al-Qaida in support of the Taliban and providing it with a base similar to the one it used to have across the border in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, testified recently that ``the most likely near term attack on the United States will come from Al Qaeda via'' its safe havens in Pakistan--not in Iraq, in Pakistan. Over the past year, we have seen an unprecedented rise in suicide bombings in Pakistan. The Taliban is gaining ground in Afghanistan. While we may be sending an additional 3,200 marines to Afghanistan in the near future, we have been fighting for far too long there with too few soldiers and too few reconstruction funds. With the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying in ``Iraq we do what we must and in Afghanistan we do what we can,'' it is no wonder that Afghanistan is teetering on the edge. Let me remind my colleagues that it was from Afghanistan--Afghanistan, not Iraq--that the 9/11 attacks were planned. And it was under the Taliban regime, which is once again gaining ground, that al-Qaida was able to flourish so freely. Al-Qaida affiliates from Africa to Southeast Asia pose a significant terrorist threat. While we have been so myopically fixated on Iraq, the threat from an al-Qaida affiliate in north Africa has grown and now, according to the DNI's testimony, ``represents a significant threat to the United States and European interests in the region.'' Since its merger with al-Qaida in September 2006, it has expanded its targets to include the United States, the United Nations, and other interests. And it likely got a further boost when al-Qaida leadership announced last November that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group united with al-Qaida under AQIM's leadership. Its possible reach covers Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, Libya, and other countries. Meanwhile, it is using deadly tactics that suggest it is acquiring knowledge from the war in Iraq. That is right. The war in Iraq may be being used as a training ground by forces that wish to do us harm. Another way of saying it is, our troops are being used as a way to train people to give them the skills to launch attacks in other places. Al-Qaida has affiliates around the world--in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Lebanon, where al-Qaida poses a growing threat, the Horn of Africa, and Southeast Asia. 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. We are watching al-Qaida strengthen and develop its affiliates around the world while we remain bogged down in Iraq. We need a robust military presence and an effective reconstruction program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where al- Qaida 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. We can start doing that by passing S. 2634. This bill requires the administration to provide Congress with a report outlining a comprehensive global strategy to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates. The strategy must ensure U.S. resources and assets are targeted appropriately to meet the regional and country-specific threats we face, and that troop deployments do not overstretch our military. Who could oppose a commonsense bill such as this? Well, as I noted earlier, the administration actually issued a veto threat for this bill. That threat makes the baffling argument that preparing a report on the threat of al-Qaida may somehow ``inhibit the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.'' That is not all. The administration also argues that preparing a plan that prioritizes operations against al-Qaida would tie the hands of commanders. This is just plain double-talk. We are trying to help our commanders and the rest of our Government to properly dedicate their resources to our most pressing national security concern. This bill does not tell our commanders how to carry out any operations; it merely requires a report. The Congress has a constitutional responsibility, in collaboration with the President, to determine what are our national security priorities. That is what we should be doing. That is what this bill would do. Unless the President has completely abandoned the idea of civilian control of the military, and of the shared responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches, then he should have no objection to my bill. The administration does say that it ``supports the bill's goals and intent, with regard to updating and informing Congress and the American people on the strategy to combat terrorism.'' I guess that is good news. But then it cites two documents it has already prepared on this topic. One is the September 2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which sets broad goals but does not include the detail called for in our bill about how limited resources will be allocated to achieve this strategic vision. That 2006 document also does not prioritize the geographic--country and region-specific--threats we face from AQ and its affiliates, which is essential because how else--how else, Mr. President--will we know where to focus our resources? The other document cited by the administration is the National Implementation Plan. I am a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees, and I am not even allowed to see that document. The administration will not even share it with the full Intelligence Committee. So the idea this document is an acceptable substitute for what is called for in the Feingold-Reid bill is absurd. The administration suggests our bill limits the President's authority to withhold information. Now, I agree we need to protect classified information, and there is nothing in my bill--nothing--that would prevent the addition of a classified annex. Much of our strategic planning, however, is not classified, consistent with our country's belief in open government and accountability. The American people deserve to be told, to the extent possible without divulging classified information, what their government is doing to protect them. The President's veto threat is further evidence of his unwillingness to be straight with the American people about the fact that the war in Iraq is actually undermining our national security. The President's current strategy is to prioritize operations in Iraq, even to the detriment of operations in Afghanistan against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, that does not make sense. It has to change, and we have to change it today by passing this Feingold-Reid bill, refocusing our attention and resources on al-Qaida. Mr. President, I yield the floor.