Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to rescind funds appropriated for the procurement of the V-22 and CV-22 Osprey. This aircraft has been the subject of significant controversy because of safety, technical, and cost problems. In 1991, then- Secretary Dick Cheney tried to cancel the program altogether. I have long advocated for more extensive testing of the aircraft to evaluate design defects that render the Osprey unstable and technical problems that have already cost the lives of 30 servicemembers. New problems were discovered as recently as June 2007. I appreciate that the military is in need of additional helicopters, particularly as a result of the high operational tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the fact that the Osprey costs significantly more than other aircraft that can meet the same need, I believe we should shift to a safer, more economic program. This bill would rescind funds appropriated for the program through 2008. That includes $2.8 billion in previously appropriated but unobligated funds and $2.9 billion in funds appropriated for fiscal year 08. The Defense Department estimates it will spend an additional $28.6 billion to purchase a total of 458 Osprey through 2018. Ending this troubled program could produce savings of over $34.3 billion.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to rescind funds appropriated for the procurement of the V-22 and CV-22 Osprey. This aircraft has been the subject of significant controversy because of safety, technical, and cost problems. In 1991, then- Secretary Dick Cheney tried to cancel the program altogether. I have long advocated for more extensive testing of the aircraft to evaluate design defects that render the Osprey unstable and technical problems that have already cost the lives of 30 servicemembers. New problems were discovered as recently as June 2007. I appreciate that the military is in need of additional helicopters, particularly as a result of the high operational tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the fact that the Osprey costs significantly more than other aircraft that can meet the same need, I believe we should shift to a safer, more economic program. This bill would rescind funds appropriated for the program through 2008. That includes $2.8 billion in previously appropriated but unobligated funds and $2.9 billion in funds appropriated for fiscal year 08. The Defense Department estimates it will spend an additional $28.6 billion to purchase a total of 458 Osprey through 2018. Ending this troubled program could produce savings of over $34.3 billion.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment with the majority leader, Senator Reid, and Senators Leahy, Dodd, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, Whitehouse, Wyden, Durbin, Schumer, Obama, Sanders, Menendez, Lautenberg, and Brown to H.R. 2764, the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill. The amendment is one I have offered before. I will not hesitate, if I must, to offer it again and again and again. The 17 cosponsors is the greatest number we have ever had for this amendment. It requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days of enactment, and requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, with the bulk of our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions: providing security for U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure, training the Iraqi security forces, providing training and equipment to U.S. service men and women to ensure their safety and security, and conducting targeted operations limited in duration and scope against members of al-Qaida and others affiliated with international terrorist organizations. Some of my colleagues complain that we spent too much time debating Iraq this year. They would rather talk about other issues. Well, we have a lot of important priorities, but nothing is more important to me or my constituents than ending this disastrous war. As I do every year, I held a town hall meeting in every county in Wisconsin this year. That is 72 meetings for those of you who are not from the Badger State. I heard a lot from my constituents at the meetings about health care and education. But the No. 1 issue I heard about was foreign affairs, particularly the war in Iraq. But the No. 1 issue I heard about was foreign affairs, particularly the war in Iraq. Let me tell you--they weren't asking why Congress is spending so much time on this issue. They weren't asking us to give the President more time for his so-called surge. Like Americans all across the country, they want an end to this war, and they want to know what is stopping us. The Senate needs to address the concerns and demands of our constituents, who more than a year ago voted for a change in congressional leadership in large measure because of the debacle in Iraq. But we have yet to follow through and end this misguided war, before more Americans are injured and killed. And we are about to adjourn for the year and let the war drag on even longer. We hear a lot from supporters of the President that violence in Iraq is down right now, and therefore we are on the path to victory. That argument would be a lot more convincing if the administration had a viable strategy for success. The surge may buy time, but as long as there is no political solution to Iraq's problems, we are just postponing the inevitable resurgence in violence, and our brave troops will continue bearing the brunt of it. That is not a strategy for success. It is not even a strategy. It is a way of pushing this problem off to the next President and the next Congress, while our troops put their lives on the line, and our constituents foot the bill. Or, I should say, our constituents' children and grandchildren foot the bill, because we can't even be bothered to figure out a way to pay for the war. We are just handing the tab to future generations, sticking them with hundreds of billions of dollars of more deficit spending. I am certainly pleased that violence in Iraq has declined in the last few months. Once again, our troops have showed they excel in any challenge with which they are tasked. This doesn't change the fact, however, that this year was the bloodiest year for Americans since the war began, and there are still a few weeks to go in 2007. Indeed, let us remember that nearly 4,000 Americans have died, and almost 30,000 have been wounded in a war that has no clear strategy and no end in sight. While the President is bringing home a token number of troops, over 160,000 remain as the war drags on into its fifth year. What are we supposed to tell them, and their families, to wait another year until a new administration and new Congress finally listen to the American people and bring this tragedy to a close? Mr. President, Iraq appears to be no closer to legitimate political reconciliation at the national level than it was before the surge began. Equally worrisome is that, as part of the President's plan, we appear to be deepening our dependence upon former insurgents and militia-infiltrated security forces with questionable loyalties. Supporting the sheiks in al Anbar--and elsewhere--may help to reduce violence in the near term, but by supporting both sides of a civil war, we are risking greater violence down the road. Such tactics are likely to undermine the prospects for long-term stability, as they could lead to greater political fragmentation and ultimately jeopardize Iraq's territorial integrity. Again, without legitimate national reconciliation, violence may ebb and flow, but it won't end, and we will be no closer to a settlement, no matter how long we keep a significant military presence in Iraq. That is not the fault of our heroic men and women in uniform. It is the fault of the administration's disastrous policies. There is another dirty secret behind the temporary drop in violence, and it relates to the segregation of Baghdad and the neighborhoods on its outskirts. With so many Iraqis fleeing their homes in search of greater safety and security, large-scale displacement has resulted in very different demographics. Previously mixed neighborhoods have ceased to exist, thereby curtailing one of the chief sources of sectarian violence. This ethnic cleansing is hardly evidence of a successful surge. And it sure isn't a hopeful sign for future peace and stability. When it announced the surge, the administration said its goal was to keep a lid on violence to give time and space for reconciliation in Iraq. Now that we are no closer to reconciliation, the administration is trying, once again, to shift the goalposts. We don't hear as much about reconciliation now, and when we do, it sounds very different from the national reconciliation that was supposedly our goal--instead we hear about ``bottom-up'' reconciliation, whatever that means. All the administration can do is stall for time, just as it did in 2004, just as it did in 2005, and just as it did in 2006. The slogan may be different--``Mission Accomplished,'' ``Stay the Course,'' ``The New Way Forward'' and even ``Return on Success,'' but each time we are told we are on the right road, if we just keep walking a little longer. Until, that is, we reach another dead end, and a new slogan is invented to justify heading in a new, but equally futile direction. As the administration blunders from one mistake to another, brave American troops are being injured and killed in Iraq; our military is being overstretched; countless billions of dollars are being spent; the American people are growing more and more frustrated and outraged; and our national security is being undermined. Instead of focusing on Iraq, we should be focusing on our top national security priority--going after al-Qaida and its affiliates around the globe. This administration has sadly proven that we cannot do both. Al-Qaida is waging a global campaign, from North Africa--where the Algerian Government has blamed an al-Qaida affiliate for two major bombings last week--to the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan were, while we have been distracted by Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted and strengthened itself. There is a price to pay for our neglect, and this administration has failed to acknowledge it. Because of its narrow focus on Iraq, the administration has been so distracted it has not adequately addressed the deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan, where the resurgent Taliban--the same movement that harbored and supported the terrorist elements that attacked our country on 9/11--are gaining ground. Violence may be down in Iraq, but it is up significantly in Afghanistan. There were 77 suicide attacks in Afghanistan in just the first 6 months of 2007, which is about twice the number for the same period in 2006 and 26 times higher than from January to June 2005. This worrisome escalation of suicide bombings is one of many signs that Afghanistan's already tenuous stability is even shakier. And while earlier this week the Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. military and its NATO partners are reviewing plans for Afghanistan, it is awfully late in the game to try to put that country on a solid path to stabilization and development. Nonetheless, we have to try because we still have an opportunity to finish the job we started 6 years ago in Afghanistan-- eliminating the Taliban and destroying a safe haven for terrorist networks that seek to harm us. This opportunity is critical because until bin Laden and his reconstituted al-Qaida leadership are killed or captured, Afghanistan's future cannot be separated from our own national security. Instead of seeing the big picture--instead of approaching Iraq in the context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless enemy--this administration persists with its tragic policy and its tragic mistakes. As the President digs in his heels, he is simultaneously deepening instability throughout the Middle East, undermining the international support and cooperation we need to defeat al-Qaida, providing al-Qaida and its allies with a rallying cry and recruiting tool, and increasing our vulnerability. The President's promise to redeploy a few battalions, while leaving 160,000 troops in Iraq, is not nearly enough. That is why, once again, I am offering this amendment with Majority Leader Reid. It is up to us here in Congress to reverse what continues to be an intractable policy. It is our job to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to protect our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq, because the President will not. I am not suggesting that we abandon the people of Iraq or that we ignore the political impasse there. We cannot ignore the ongoing humanitarian crisis that has unfolded within Iraq or the one that followed millions of Iraqis as they fled to Jordan and Syria. These issues require the attention and constructive engagement of U.S. policymakers, key regional players, and the international community. They require high-level, consistent, and multilateral engagement and cooperation. But Iraqi reconciliation cannot--and will not--be brought about by a massive American military engagement. By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can finally bring our troops out of Iraq and focus on what should be our top national security priority-- waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its affiliates. Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their right. But I hope none of them will suggest that Feingold-Reid would hurt the troops by denying them equipment or support. There is no truth to that argument--none. Passing this legislation would result in our troops being safely redeployed within 9 months. At that point, with the troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would end, with the narrow exceptions I mentioned earlier. That is what Congress did in 1993, when it voted overwhelmingly to bring our military mission in Somalia to an end. That is what Congress must do again to terminate the President's unending mission in Iraq. This amendment is almost identical to the version I offered with Senator Reid and others to the Defense Department authorization bill. And once again, we have specified that nothing in this amendment will prevent U.S. troops from receiving the training or equipment they need ``to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.'' I hope we won't be hearing any more spurious arguments about troops on the battlefield not getting the supplies they need. This war is exhausting our country, overstretching our military, and tarnishing our credibility. Even with the recent decline in violence, the American people know the war is wrong, and they continue to call for its end. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Feingold-Reid so we can finally heed their call to action. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join my Senate colleagues in wishing Senator Trent Lott well as he leaves the Senate. I have known Senator Lott since I arrived here in 1993, and he has always been a model of civility, and someone whose word you can rely on. While we don't have a great deal in common politically, we still have worked together on important issues like media concentration and 527 reform. One of the best things about working in the Senate is finding ways to reach across the aisle and work together, and I am pleased that Senator Lott and I could find that common ground. I think that is what the American people want us to do, and it is something that Trent Lott has always done very well. It was a pleasure from time to time to be on the same side as Senator Lott. He is an effective and tenacious legislator, and I think we both enjoyed the strange bedfellows aspect of our work together. I particularly enjoyed appearing before the Rules Committee when Senator Lott was its chairman. Senator Lott has given so much of his life to public service, serving 34 years in Congress, in a number of different leadership posts. I have appreciated his willingness to work together on a number of issues, and I have appreciated what a fair and courteous colleague he has been. I know that the people of Mississippi will miss his leadership, as will so many in this body. I wish him all the best as he leaves the Senate and returns to private life.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank Senators Harkin and Chambliss for their tireless work on this important bill. I know that both worked diligently on this legislation, and that, like all of us, they have the best interests of America's farmers, ranchers, rural and urban communities at heart. I would also like to thank the committee staff for the assistance and support they have provided to me and my staff throughout the farm bill process. While I am disappointed at the lack of reform in the commodity programs, the bill does make significant improvements in a number of other programs. The committee bill included a number of provisions I included in legislation that I introduced earlier this 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 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. The bill also includes several important provisions to increase affordable broadband service in rural areas. Critical among the bill's provisions is making sure that limited Federal resources are better targeted to actual rural areas without broadband service. Several reports have highlighted problems with the current program including funding projects in new suburban communities. The bill also provides funding for the community food projects and other programs that promote local markets, which help farmers and consumers by providing a direct connection between them. I know that the local food movement is gaining more and more momentum, and I hope that these provisions in the bill will help expand this wonderful opportunity to even more communities across the country. There is also a clarification included in the bill that I first proposed in 2006 to help ensure that schools can use local preference when purchasing food for meals and snacks. The bill also makes an investment in advanced biofuels, as well as language from a bill I cosponsored to provide local residents an opportunity to invest in biorefineries located in their communities. Mr. President, 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, which will happen in 2009 under this legislation. 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. Milk prices are higher now than they have been in years; consequently, no MILC payments have been made since February of this year. 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. The bill also makes significant improvements to existing nutrition and conservation programs. While there is room for more improvement in both of these areas, I know the committee worked hard to provide additional funds for these programs within a very tight budget. On the conservation side, the bill includes significant funding for a number of programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, the Conservation Security Program, CSP, and the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP. I know that these and other programs are extremely popular among Wisconsin farmers and residents, and I am pleased that the committee worked to address some of the funding shortfall that exists. The nutrition title of this bill makes significant investments in the Food Stamp Program. Perhaps most importantly, the bill ends benefit erosion by indexing benefits to inflation. The bill also removes the cap on deductions for childcare costs entirely, which had been set at $175 per month, though Wisconsin parents spend, on average, $780 per month on childcare. Lastly, the bill changes certain assets limits for the Food Stamp Program, allowing recipients to save money for retirement or to help send their children to college or other training. I know that improving food stamps was a priority for Senator Harkin, as it was for me and many of the other Members of this body. Other important programs see an increase in this bill, including the Emergency Food Assistance Program, grants to promote use of food stamp EBT cards at farmers markets, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program, and the Senior Farmers Market Program. I was also extremely pleased to see the addition of a new livestock title in the bill to promote competition and fair practices in agriculture. As many of my colleagues know, most areas of agriculture present different challenges, and often these situations are not fully analogous to other businesses. I am glad the committee took this step to address the unique problems of agriculture. I am especially glad that a provision I authored with Senator Grassley to prevent mandatory arbitration clauses in agricultural contracts was included in the bill. In addition to the 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 underlying bill 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 underlying bill will finally allow a country-of-origin labeling requirement for meat and produce to be enforced. In addition to the Agriculture Committee's portion of the bill, the Finance Committee also made a significant contribution to the Senate's legislation. I was glad that my Farmer Tax Fairness Act was included in the finance portion of the bill. 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 would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting several of my amendments into the managers' package. First, in a continuation of an effort I began with Senator Jeffords in 1998, I am pleased that the committee accepted my amendment to improve the authority of what we had called the small farm advocate in previous amendment. I am pleased to have continued this effort with Senator Sanders and hope that this small office can continue to help America's small and beginning farmers. On a related note, I was glad to have an amendment accepted that will ensure that small farm research priority continues to be an option even with the proposed restructuring of agricultural research. These small efforts can make a tremendous difference for our small farmers. As many of my colleagues know, I have long been advocating for reform of the Federal milk marketing order system. To that end, I was pleased that the chairman provided for a commission to examine dairy marketing orders in his draft of the bill and hope that this commission takes a close look at the antiquated rules that provide dairy farmers at a competitive disadvantage in the upper Midwest. I was also glad to have an amendment accepted to make a small modification to ensure the commission is balanced to better consider the interests of dairy farmers and ensuring fair competition. Ensuring transparency and fair competition in the dairy industry has also been a continuing effort throughout my Senate career. Over the past year, a couple developments showed a need for further action in this area. First, the 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 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. I hope that this added diligence and transparency can help give dairy farmers added confidence in the system. With this year's high profile case of imported wheat gluten being adulterated with melamine, it is important to assess the risks and make sure that other high-protein products are safe. I am especially concerned that unsafe imports of dairy proteins such as milk protein concentrates and casein would have the potential to undercut consumer confidence in dairy products in general and severely damage our domestic industry and producers. Therefore, I am glad that the committee accepted an amendment to require a report on all high-protein imports including both gluten and dairy proteins to make sure that we are taking the proper precautions and testing. Every year, I distribute a survey to farmers at a booth at the Wisconsin Farm Technology Days and ask what their top challenges are. Even in this farm bill year, the responses have overwhelmingly indicated that health care is their top concern. I know that the farm bill cannot fix this problem completely and I have a proposal with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to move forward on the broader need for health care reform. But in the meantime, farmers need help meeting their health care needs. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues hear from farmers and their families regularly about the particular challenges they face in finding and affording health care. More and more, one member of a farming family is essentially forced to work off-farm just to be eligible for a health care plan. I cannot tell you how many times my staff and I have heard from a farmer's spouse about how much they would like to be spending their days working on the farm, with their family, but instead go into town to work as a teacher or at a bank just for the health care. I look forward to the results of a study that was cosponsored by Senator Harkin and was also accepted into the managers' package on the challenges farmers--and the rural areas they live in-- face in obtaining health care. I hope that this body can work in the future to alleviate this problem faced by so many hard-working American farmers. I also believe that 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. Earlier this year, I introduced the Rural Opportunity Act and am very pleased that several key elements 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. 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. Mr. President, my home State is home to many organic producers. I was glad that the chairman and ranking member accepted an amendment I authored expressing the sense of the Senate that organic research at the Agricultural Research Service should get a fair share of research funding a--share proportional to its share of the market. It is hard to believe, but when we passed the 2002 farm bill, organics were a new, trendy, item. Today organics account for about 6 percent of food purchases in the U.S. While Wisconsin is perhaps more widely known as a leader in milk and cheese production, we also lead the Nation in production of cranberries and ginseng. I was glad to see a priority competitive research area for cranberries in the underlying legislation. 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. 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. While there were many positives in this legislation, these accomplishments are bittersweet for me as the Senate missed an important opportunity for meaningful targeted reform of the farm support programs. I was deeply disappointed that several amendments to make the commodity support programs more balanced to better target family farms and not concentrate payments in larger corporate-scale operations were unsuccessful. While I cosponsored or supported several reform amendments, I was especially disappointed that despite the support of a majority of Senators, the Dorgan-Grassley payment limit and Klobuchar adjusted gross income amendments were defeated because they could not reach a 60-vote threshold. There is no good reason why large, wealthy corporate farms, nonfarmers and even estates of dead people receive hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from taxpayers. The result on Dorgan- Grassley was particularly troubling because we able to pass a similar provision in 2002. I was also disappointed to be prevented from offering an amendment to make a progressive cut to direct payments and redirect the savings to benefit farmers and rural America with my colleague Senator Menendez. Our amendment would have addressed the most serious problems with direct payments. Direct payments are particularly problematic because they are based on a history of crop growing, regardless of what is currently being grown or even whether the land is being farmed at all. Nor are they tied to need, crop prices, or weather conditions. When prices are low, they are insufficient; when prices are high, like now, they are hard to justify. With many needs and very few new resources available for this farm bill reauthorization, we recognized the need to keep the majority of the savings in our farmers' pockets and in our rural communities, but instead of going to the largest landowners, the money would have been refocused to meet many of the unmet needs in programs that help a broad number of farmers. Our amendment had the support of a diverse group of organizations including the Wisconsin Farmers Union, the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Cornucopia Institute, the National Rural Health Association, the Rural Coalition, and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to recognize a victory for the cause of justice, albeit one that is long overdue. In 1944, Booker Townsell, a private in the U.S. Army, was convicted of a crime in an unfair and racially biased trial, 63 years ago to this day. I join Booker Townsell's family in heralding the recent decision by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to overturn this conviction and restore all rights lost as a result of the conviction. Although Booker Townsell is no longer with us, and no ruling can change the injustice that Booker Townsell suffered when he was wrongly convicted by the Army in 1944, I am pleased to see that the Army is rejecting the original decision handed down 63 years ago. Despite the injustice he suffered, Booker Townsell displayed tremendous strength, and went on to lead a full life in Wisconsin, including raising a wonderful family. I am glad to see the tremendous weight of this conviction lifted from his family. It is due to their valiant effort that this decision was finally overturned. I also thank Congressmen Jim McDermott and Duncan Hunter for putting vital pressure on the Army to review the 1944 decision. While it has taken far too long, 63 years later, justice has finally been restored to Booker Townsell and his family.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this morning I laid out the reasons why I opposed cloture on the motion to proceed. Now I would like to describe in more detail the reasons that the Senate should be considering the Judiciary bill rather than the Intelligence Committee bill. And I will lay out again why I strongly oppose the immunity provision in the Intelligence Committee bill. There are a number of similarities between the bills reported by the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Their basic structure is the same. Both bills authorize the Government to conduct surveillance of individuals reasonably believed to be overseas without court approval for individual warrants. Both bills authorize the Government to develop and implement procedures to govern this new type of surveillance, and provide the procedures to the FISA Court for review after they have gone into effect. But in critical ways, the bills take different approaches. The Judiciary bill contains a number of important changes to improve court oversight of these broad new executive branch authorities, and to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. Let me be clear: The differences between these two bills have nothing to do with our ability to combat terrorism. They have everything to do with ensuring that the executive branch adheres to the rule of law and doesn't unnecessarily listen in on the private communications of Americans. This debate is about whether the court should have an independent oversight role, and what protections should apply to the communications of Americans that get swept up in these broad new surveillance powers. If you believe that courts should have a meaningful oversight role with respect to Government surveillance, then you should support the Judiciary bill. And if you believe that Congress should try to limit the number of communications of Americans here at home that will be swept up in a broad new surveillance program that is supposed to be focused on foreigners overseas, then you should support the Judiciary bill. That said, the Judiciary bill is not perfect. More still needs to be done to protect the privacy of Americans. But that is why it should be such an easy decision to support the Judiciary bill as a starting point. Let me also remind my colleagues that the process by which the Judiciary Committee considered, drafted, amended and reported out its bill was an open one, allowing outside experts and the public at large the opportunity to review and comment. With regard to legislation so directly connected to the constitutional rights of Americans, the results of this open process should be accorded great weight, especially in light of the Judiciary Commiittee's unique role and expertise in protecting those rights. So what are the differences between the two bills? First, the Judiciary bill gives the secret FISA court more authority to operate as an independent check on the executive branch. One provision in the Judiciary bill fixes an enormous problem with the Intelligence Committee bill--the complete lack of incentives for the Government to do what the bill tells it to do, which is target people overseas rather than people here in America. The Judiciary bill solves this problem by limiting the use of information concerning Americans when that information is obtained through procedures the FISA Court ultimately finds are not reasonably designed to target persons overseas. The Judiciary bill states that if the court determines that the Government has been using unlawful procedures, then its use of that information is limited--in exactly the same way that it is limited under FISA today if the Government starts surveillance in an emergency and is later turned down for a court order. But the new provision in the Judiciary bill is more flexible: It gives the court the option to allow the use of the information the Government collected the first time around, depending on the circumstances. Another provision of the Judiciary bill ensures that the FISA Court has the authority to oversee compliance with minimization procedures. Minimization procedures have been held up as the primary protection for the privacy of Americans whose communications get swept up in this new surveillance authority. I don't think current minimization procedures are strong enough to do the job. But to the extent that minimization can help protect Americans' privacy, its implementation needs to be overseen by the court. That means giving the court the authority to review whether the Government is complying with minimization rules and to ask for the information it needs to make that assessment. Without this provision from the Judiciary bill, the Government's dissemination and use of information on innocent, law-abiding Americans will occur without any checks and balances whatsoever. Once again, ``trust us'' will have to do. I believe in this case, as in so many others, ``trust us'' is not enough. The Judiciary bill furthers other types of oversight, as well. It requires relevant inspectors general to conduct an audit of the President's illegal wiretapping program, which is long overdue. And it improves congressional access to FISA Court orders. The Intelligence Committee bill requires that Congress be provided with orders, decisions and opinions of the FISA Court that include significant interpretations of law within 45 days after they are issued. That is good as far as it goes, but the Judiciary bill adds that Congress should be provided with pleadings associated with opinions that contain significant interpretations of law. These pleadings may be critical to understanding the reasoning behind any particular interpretation as well as how the Government interprets and seeks to implement the law. It also requires that significant interpretations of law not previously provided to Congress over the past 5 years be provided. The Judiciary bill also does a better job of protecting Americans from widespread warrantless wiretapping. First, it protects against reverse targeting. It ensures that if the Government is wiretapping a foreigner overseas in order to collect the communications of the American with whom that foreign target is communicating, it has to get a court order on the American. This is very reasonable. Specifically, the Judiciary bill says that the Government needs an individualized court order when a significant purpose of its surveillance is listening to an American at home. The DNI himself said that reverse targeting violates the Fourth Amendment; this provision simply codifies that principle. The administration continues to oppose this provision, and I have a simple question for it: ``Why?'' Why is it opposed to a provision that prohibits a practice that its own Director of National Intelligence says is unconstitutional? The Judiciary bill also prohibits bulk collection--that is, the sweeping up of all communications between the United States and overseas. The DNI said in public testimony that this type of massive bulk collection would be permitted by the Protect America Act. But he has also said that what the Government is seeking to do with these authorities is something very different. It is ``surgical. A telephone number is surgical. So, if you know that number, you can select it out.'' If the DNI has said it doesn't even need broader authorities, we should certainly should not be providing them. All this modest provision does is hold the DNI to his word. It ensures that the Government has some foreign intelligence interest in individual targets, and is not just vacuuming up every last communication between Americans and their friends and business colleagues overseas. Targets do not need to be known or named individuals; they can be anonymous phone numbers, which is how the DNI has described how the Government collects. And the Government does not have to identify or explain its interest in the targets to the FISA Court; it merely has to make a general certification that individual targets exist. Again, why does the administration oppose this provision? I have yet to hear a convincing answer. The Judiciary bill also has a sunset of 4 years rather than 6 years, ensuring that Congress will reevaluate this law before the end of the next Presidential administration. And, critically, it contains a strong statement that Congress intends for FISA to be the exclusive means by which foreign intelligence surveillance is conducted. It closes purported statutory loopholes that the Justice Department relied on to make its tortured arguments that the congressional authorization for use of force against al-Qaida somehow authorized the President's illegal wiretapping program. The Judiciary bill makes clear, once and for all, that the President must follow the law. Madam President, the Judiciary bill also does not contain the provision in the Intelligence Committee bill granting automatic, retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly cooperated with the President's illegal NSA wiretapping program. I supported an amendment to strike the immunity provision in the Intelligence Committee when it was offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson--I offered an amendment to strike the immunity provision in the Judiciary Committee-- and I will cosponsor Senator Dodd's amendment to strike the immunity provision on the Senate floor. The immunity provision does not belong in this bill. Granting immunity, first of all, is unnecessary. Current law already specifically provides immunity from lawsuits for companies that cooperate with the Government's request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. This current FISA immunity provision, contained in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511, already protects companies that act at the request of the Government, while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications by assuring that immunity is granted only if the law is followed. Some supporters of immunity argue that companies should not be penalized for relying in good faith on the legality of a request from the executive branch. This argument ignores the history of FISA. Private companies have a long history of receiving requests for assistance from the Government, and they worked with Congress when FISA was first enacted to devise a law that tells them exactly which Government requests they should honor. They also have experienced, well-trained lawyers to examine the written requests they receive from the Government and determine whether those requests comply with the clear requirements of the law or not. The idea that telephone companies could not have foreseen that the Government might overstep the law makes no sense. FISA's requirement of a court order or a valid certification was designed precisely to respond to Government abuses that took place in the 1960s and 1970s, and to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. The Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Mort Halperin, a former Nixon administration official who had himself been the subject of a warrantless wiretap, and was involved in drafting FISA in the 1970s. He testified that before FISA: Government communication with the telephone company . . . could not have been more casual. A designated official of the FBI called a designated official of [the company] and passed on a phone number. Within minutes all of the calls from that number were being routed to the local FBI field office and monitored. Not surprisingly, this casual, ad hoc system failed to protect Americans' privacy; the abuses that took place are well documented and quite shocking. FISA was supposed to give everyone involved a level of certainty about what was permitted and what was not. And the provision specifying the circumstances under which a Government request could be honored, in particular, was supposed to play a significant role in ensuring that certainty. AT&T, which was the only telephone company in existence at the time, was at the table when this provision was drafted. As Halperin described it in his testimony, the company: received the clarity that it sought and deserved. The rule, spelled out clearly in several places in the legislation and well understood by all, was this: If [the phone company] received a copy of a warrant or a certification under the statute, it was required to cooperate. If it did not receive authorization by means outlined in the statute, it was to refuse to cooperate and was to be subjected to State and Federal civil and criminal penalties for unlawful acquisition of electronic communications. This is the history. This is why we have the FISA statute. This is the whole point. This history should give all of us pause as we consider the immunity provision in this bill. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program this new form of automatic, retroactive immunity undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of actions that allegedly occurred here. Perhaps more importantly, it will undermine any new laws that we pass to govern Government surveillance. If we want companies to follow the law in the future, it sends a terrible message, and sets a terrible precedent, to grant a new form of retroactive, blanket immunity for alleged cooperation with an illegal program. We not only want companies to follow the law, we want the Government to follow the law. If we don't give the companies a solid basis for refusing to respond to a Government request that falls short of statutory requirements, we take away the incentive for the Government to follow the law. It would be irresponsible for Congress to allow this to happen. It is time for Congress to state clearly and unequivocally: ``When we pass a law, we mean what we say and we expect the law to be followed.'' But if we grant immunity to companies that may have broken the law, the message we send will be quite the opposite. We will be effectively making compliance with the law optional. We will be saying: ``If a high Government official asks you to ignore the law, go ahead. Congress can always change the law retroactively so you won't pay any penalty for your lawbreaking.'' I ask my colleagues to think long and hard about this as they consider this amendment. Is that the message that we really want to send? This retroactive immunity provision presents another serious problem. It could very well prevent the courts from ruling on the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. That may explain why the administration is pushing so hard for this part of the bill. This program is one of the worst abuses of executive power in our Nation's history, and the courts should be able to rule on it once and for all. For Congress to step in and likely wipe out the pending court cases, when the administration has stonewalled congressional oversight efforts for so long, would be an unacceptable capitulation to an administration that thinks it is above the law. Finally, I must emphasize that a vote to strike immunity is not a vote to hold telephone companies liable. Rather, it is a vote to let the courts decide whether the existing immunity provisions apply. If telephone companies received a directive from the Government and complied with well-established law, the courts will find that they are entitled to immunity and these cases will be dismissed. But if they failed to follow the law that applied specifically to them--a law they helped create and a law that their lawyers knew inside and out--we will have done American citizens a grave injustice by saying that sometimes it is just plain OK to break the law. In other words, Congress should not prejudge the guilt or innocence of the companies, especially without knowing the facts. Unfortunately, most of the Members of this Chamber have not had access to those facts. The members of only two committees have had the opportunity to study what happened. I happen to sit on both committees, and after seeing all the evidence, my firm view is we should leave this to the courts to decide under existing law. But it is wrong for the administration to ask my colleagues who do not serve on these committees to vote for immunity. They are effectively being asked to grant immunity without being told for what they are granting immunity. This is fundamentally unfair. The Senate can stand up for the rule of law and let the courts handle these cases as they see fit, or it can decide to change the rules in the middle of the game and block accountability for possible past law breaking. Voting to preserve retroactive immunity means they are blessing the behavior of the administration and the companies that allegedly cooperated with it. I urge my colleagues not to take that step. Before I close, I wish to respond briefly to the comments made by the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee concerning the President's so- called inherent constitutional power to order surveillance. Relying on a nonbinding statement made in passing in a FISA Court of Review decision on another issue and a 1980 circuit court case that addresses surveillance before FISA was passed, the vice chairman asserts that the President has inherent constitutional authority to wiretap without a court order. I am afraid to say that argument is an invitation to lawlessness. What he basically said is that because in his view the President has wiretapping authority that cannot be limited by statute, a company that complies with his request for assistance cannot be held accountable, no matter how unreasonable the request was. If that is the case, then Congress may as well pack up and go home because the laws we pass don't matter. Congress has spoken very clearly in FISA and limited Presidential power to conduct surveillance. Congress had the authority to take this action, and the courts have never upheld an assertion of Presidential power over statutory restriction in a case where Congress has acted within its authority. In this case, the President must follow the law that Congress passes, and so should the telecommunications companies. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to yield my remaining time to Senator Dodd.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his kind words, and I thank him for his important leadership on this issue. What he is doing today is extremely helpful to the preservation of the rule of law in this country.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would not object to that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his courtesy. Mr. President, I oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2248, as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee. This bill is deeply flawed, and I am very disappointed by the decision to take it up on the Senate floor rather than the better bill reported by the Judiciary Committee. Before leaving town for the August recess, Congress bowed to pressure from the administration, and vastly expanded the Government's ability to eavesdrop without a court-approved warrant. That legislation, the so-called Protect America Act, was rushed through this Chamber in a climate of fear--fear of terrorist attacks, and fear of not appearing sufficiently strong on national security. There was very little understanding of what the legislation actually did. But there was one silver lining: The bill had a 6-month sunset to force Congress to do its homework and reconsider the approach it took. The Senate should be taking this opportunity to fix its mistakes and pass a new bill that gives the Government all the tools it needs to spy on suspected terrorists but also protects Americans' basic freedoms. This time around, the Senate should stand up to an Administration that time and again has employed fear-mongering and misleading statements to intimidate Congress. The fact is, the Intelligence Committee bill doesn't fix those mistakes, and it is not the bill we should be considering on the Senate floor. I do agree with the administration on one point--Congress should make clear that when foreign terrorists are communicating with each other overseas, the U.S. Government doesn't need a warrant to listen in, even if the collection activity ends up taking place in this country because of the way modern communications are routed. Unfortunately, both the Protect America Act and the bill approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee go far beyond fixing that problem and also authorize widespread surveillance involving Americans--at home and abroad. The bill we should be considering is the Judiciary Committee bill, which 14 Senators urged the majority leader to take up, in a letter last week. The Judiciary Committee bill made critical improvements to ensure independent judicial oversight of these sweeping new powers and to better protect innocent Americans. The Judiciary bill does not contain a new form of retroactive immunity for companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal wiretapping program that lasted for more than 5 years. And, while the Intelligence Committee bill was drafted and debated behind closed doors and in close consultation with the administration, the Judiciary bill was the product of an open process with the input of experts from a variety of perspectives. The Judiciary Committee bill is not perfect. It needs further improvement. But it would be a vastly better starting point for Senate consideration than the bill that the majority leader has brought to the floor, which simply gives the administration everything it was demanding, no questions asked. The stakes are high. I want my colleagues to understand the impact that the Protect America Act and the Intelligence Committee bill could have on the privacy of Americans. These bills do not just authorize the 6 unfettered surveillance of people outside the United States communicating with each other. They also permit the Government to acquire those foreigners' communications with Americans inside the United States, regardless of whether anyone involved in the communication is under any suspicion of wrongdoing. There is no requirement that the foreign targets of this surveillance be terrorists, spies or other types of criminals. The only requirements are that the foreigners are outside the country, and that the purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information, a term that has an extremely broad definition. There is no requirement that the foreign targets of this surveillance be terrorists, spies, or any other kind of criminal. The only requirements are that foreigners are outside the country, that the purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information, a term that has an extremely broad definition. No court reviews these targets individually. Only the executive branch decides who fits these criteria. The result is that many law- abiding Americans who communicate with completely innocent people overseas will be swept up in this new form of surveillance, with virtually no judicial involvement. Even the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program, as described when it was publicly confirmed in 2005, at least focused on particular terrorists. What we are talking about now is a huge dragnet that will sweep up innocent Americans. In America, we understand that if we happen to be talking to a criminal or terrorist suspect, our conversations might be heard by the Government. But I do not think many Americans expect the Government to be able to listen into every single one of their international communications with people about whom there are no suspicions whatsoever. These incredibly broad authorities are particularly troubling because we live in a world in which international communications are increasingly commonplace. Thirty years ago, it was very expensive, and not common, for many Americans to make an overseas call. But now, particularly with e-mail, such communications are commonplace. Millions of ordinary, and innocent, Americans communicate with people overseas for entirely legitimate personal and business reasons. Parents of children call family members overseas. Students e-mail friends they have met while studying abroad. Businesspeople communicate with colleagues or clients overseas. Technological advancements combined with the ever interconnected world economy have led to an explosion of international contacts. We often hear from those who want to give the Government new powers that we just have to bring FISA up to date with new technology. But changes in technology should also cause us to take a look at the greater need for the privacy of our citizens. We are going to give the Government broad new powers that will lead to the collection of much more information on innocent Americans. We have a duty to protect their privacy as much as we possibly can, and we can do that. We can do that, as the Senator from Connecticut said, without sacrificing our ability to collect information that will protect our national security. To take one example, a critical difference between the Intelligence and Judiciary bills is the role of the court. The Judiciary bill gives the secret FISA Court new authority to operate as an independent check on the executive branch. It gives the court authority to assess the Government's compliance to wiretapping procedures, to place limits on the use of information that was acquired through unlawful procedures, and then gives the court, as most courts should have, the ability to enforce its own orders. The Judiciary bill also does a better job of protecting Americans from widespread warrantless wiretapping. It prohibits so-called bulk collection. What is that? Vacuuming up basically all the communications between the United States and overseas, which the DNI admitted is legal under the PAA. And it ensures that if the Government is wiretapping a foreigner overseas in order to really collect the communications of the American with whom that foreign target is communicating, what is called reverse targeting, well, in that case it has to get a court order on that American. Well, none of these changes hinders the Government's ability to protect national security. The process by which the Judiciary Committee considered, drafted, amended, and reported out its bill was an open one, allowing outside experts and the public at large the opportunity to review and comment. With regard to legislation so directly connected to the constitutional rights of Americans, I think the result of this open process should be accorded great weight, especially in light of the Judiciary Committee's unique role and expertise in protecting those rights. Now, I am certain that over the course of this week we will hear a number of arguments about why the Judiciary bill will hamper the fight against terrorism. Well, let me say now to my colleagues: Do not believe everything you hear. Last week I sat with many of you in the secure room in the Capitol and listened to arguments made by the Director of National Intelligence and by our Attorney General. I can tell you with absolute certainty that several of the examples they gave were simply wrong, simply false. I am happy to have a classified meeting with anyone in this body who wishes to discuss that. This is not about whether we will be effective in combating terrorism. Both bills allow that. This is about whether the court should have an independent oversight role and whether Americans deserve more privacy protections than foreigners overseas. All of this should sound familiar to those who followed previous debates about fighting terrorism while protecting American's civil liberties in the post-9/11 world. The administration says--and again, following on what the Senator from Connecticut said--the administration basically says: Trust us. We do not need judicial oversight. The court will just get in our way. You never know when they might tell us what we are doing is unconstitutional. We would prefer to make that decision on our own. Time and again, that has proved to be a foolish and counterproductive attitude, and sadly, despite the objections of many of us in this Chamber, too many times, Congress has just gone along. We do not have to make that same mistake again. In this case we have a factual record to help us evaluate whether we should simply trust the administration or whether we should write protections into the law. The Protect America Act has only been in effect for 4\1/2\ months, and we are still missing key information about it. The Intelligence Committee has recently been provided some basic information about its implementation. Based on what I have learned, I have very serious questions about the way the administration is interpreting and implementing the Protect America Act, including its effect on the privacy of Americans. I will shortly be sending the Director of National Intelligence a classified letter detailing my concerns which are directly relevant to the legislation we are considering. I regret this information is classified, so I cannot discuss it here. I regret that more of my colleagues have not been privy to this information prior to this floor debate, but I would be happy to share a copy of my letter in an appropriate classified setting with any Senator who wishes to review it. I have been speaking for some time now about my strong opposition to the Intelligence Committee bill, and I have not even addressed one of the more outrageous elements of the bill: the granting of retroactive immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an illegal wiretapping program that lasted for more than 5 years. This grant of automatic immunity is simply unjustified. There is already an immunity provision in current law that has been there since FISA was negotiated in the late 1970s, with the participation of the telecommunications industry. The law is clear. Companies already have immunity from civil liability when they cooperate with a Government request for assistance, as long as they receive a court order or the Attorney General certifies that a court order is not required and all statutory requirements have been met. So this is not about whether the companies had good intentions or acted in good faith; it is about whether they complied with this statutory immunity provision, which has applied for 30 years. If the companies follow that law, they should get immunity. If they did not follow that law, they should not get immunity. A court should make that decision, not Congress. It is that simple. Congress passed a law laying out when telecom companies get immunity and when they do not for a reason. Those companies have access to our most private communications, so Congress has correctly subjected them to very precise rules about when they can provide that information to the Government. If the companies did not follow the law Congress passed, they should not be granted a ``get out of jail free'' card after the fact. We have heard a lot of arguments about needing technical cooperation of carriers in the future. We do need that cooperation, but we also need to make sure carriers do not cooperate with illegitimate requests. We already have a law that tells companies when they should and when they should not cooperate, so they are not placed in the position of having to somehow independently evaluate whether the Government's request for help is legitimate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Instead of allowing the courts to apply that law to the facts, instead of allowing judges to decide whether the companies deserve immunity for acting appropriately, the Intelligence Committee bill sends the message that companies need not worry, they do not have to worry about complying with questionable Government requests in the future, because they will be bailed out. This is outrageous. Even more outrageous is the fact that if these lawsuits are dismissed, the courts may never rule on the NSA wiretapping program. So what this is is an ideal outcome for an administration that believes it should be able to interpret laws on its own without worrying about how Congress wrote them or what a judge thinks. For those of us who believe in three independent and coequal branches of Government, this is a disaster. For all of these reasons, I oppose closure on the motion to proceed to the Intelligence Committee bill. I fear we are about to make the same mistake we made with the PATRIOT Act. We passed that law without taking the time to consider its implications, and we did not do enough during the reauthorization process to fix it. As a result, three Federal courts have struck down provisions of the PATRIOT Act as unconstitutional, and that is right back where we are going to end up if we do not do our jobs now and fix the Protect America Act. I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the FHA Modernization Act of 2007, and I hope the House and Senate can quickly work together to get this legislation to the President. This bill is a good first step to helping address both housing affordability issues and problems in the subprime lending industry. I look forward to monitoring the legislation's implementation to ensure that the FHA reforms truly benefit low-income and middle-income homeowners. The rising rate of foreclosures and its broader impact on the nation's economy is a serious issue that requires the involvement of all levels of government as well as both private and non-profit organizations. Subprime lending and rising foreclosure rates are complicated issues to unravel and any response, whether legislative or regulatory, will bring with it a set of consequences, some intended and some unintended. We need to examine a variety of responses to the rising foreclosure rates and their consequences, including providing more housing counseling for borrowers and more effectively regulating lending practices to prevent some of the unscrupulous practices that have occurred. Some of the more egregious lending practices include high rates of predatory lending in minority communities, steering borrowers into subprime mortgage products even if the borrowers qualified for more conventional loans, and not ensuring that borrowers fully understood the terms of subprime loans. I was disappointed that the Senate FHA Modernization Act did not contain a provision directing some of the revenue realized by the FHA bill into an affordable housing fund as the House FHA reform bill did. I hope that conferees will work hard to find a fiscally responsible way to direct some of the increased revenue from the FHA bill into a national affordable housing trust fund. I also hope that Congress can pass stand-alone legislation creating a national affordable housing trust fund in the coming year. The creation of more affordable housing through a national affordable housing trust fund will also help to alleviate the affordable housing crisis we are facing throughout the country. Local communities around the country are creating such trust funds, including in my state of Wisconsin. Congress needs to act promptly so that a national affordable housing trust fund can complement the good work going on in states and local communities throughout the country. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation, the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act, which contained provisions designed to assist low-income Americans in affording safe and adequate housing, including authorizing 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers, authorizing new targeted funding for the HOME program, reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program, and calling on Congress to create a national affordable housing trust fund. I hope that Congress can take a step toward the creation of such a fund by including a provision in the FHA reform bill conference report to dedicate a fiscally responsible revenue stream toward such a national affordable housing trust fund. This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and, unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families. As Congress continues to take steps to deal with affordability issues, rising foreclosure rates, and reform of lending practices by banks and mortgage brokers, we need to ensure that any such reforms benefit those Americans most in need.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I support the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, H.R. 6, which sets the U.S. energy policy on the right path. I am particularly supportive of the critical improvements that were made in this bill to raise vehicle fuel economy standards while protecting American jobs. It is vitally important to my hometown of Janesville, WI, and to other hard-working communities across the country that Congress strike the right balance on this issue. Since the Senate considered the Energy bill earlier this year, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that the final version includes strong but reasonable CAFE standards. I am glad that together we have accomplished that feat, and the bill has the support of interests as varied as the UAW, General Motors, and environmental groups. I also support the bill's renewable fuel standard, which will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, of which 21 billion will come from advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. The bill also includes language I cosponsored urging that 25 percent of energy come from renewable sources by 2025 and setting requirements for improved energy efficiency for buildings, appliances, and lighting. The bill also includes an important provision, based on a bill I cosponsored, that makes it unlawful for an individual to knowingly manipulate the price of oil or gas. I am, however, disappointed that after hard work and negotiations that produced a good, balanced energy bill, a minority of Senators repeatedly blocked the bill. It is unfortunate that to overcome this Republican roadblock, we had to remove the renewable electricity standard and the energy tax provisions--these new or extended renewable energy tax incentives were fully offset, so they would not have added to our deficit. However, on balance, the version of the bill that the Senate passed is a positive step. It moves us away from our dependence on oil, increases our energy security, encourages renewable energy and energy efficiency, and supports hard-working families and communities around the country. This year's Energy bill finally moves past the misguided debates of previous Congresses and the fiscally and environmentally irresponsible proposals that were considered and passed in recent years. The United States is at an important juncture. By supporting the Energy bill, I am supporting a new direction for our Nation's energy policy: one that encourages renewable energy, conservation of the resources we have, and American innovation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I oppose the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization conference report because it does nothing to end the President's misguided, open-ended Iraq policy, which has overburdened our military, weakened our national security, diminished our international credibility, and cost the lives of thousands of brave American soldiers. There are certain provisions of the report that I support strongly, including a pay raise for military personnel. I am pleased that the conference report contains a number of provisions I supported, including Senator Webb's amendment creating a Commission on Wartime Contracting to examine waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the misuse of force by private security contractors, and Senator Lautenberg's amendment to create a Special Investigator General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. But on balance, I cannot vote to support a conference report that defies the will of so many Wisconsinites--and so many Americans--by allowing the President to continue one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in the history of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the last time I devoted a floor statement to Kenya it was to condemn the assault by elite police and paramilitary commandos armed with AK-47s on the offices of the Standard Group's offices in an attempt, by the government of that time, to prevent an independent newspaper from publishing a story on a sensitive political matter. That was nearly 2 years ago--in March 2006--when Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki and senior members of his government were facing serious charges of bribery, mismanagement of public funds, inadequate governance reform efforts, and political favoritism. Unfortunately, while some reform measures have been instituted, corruption continues to choke Kenya's government and permeate society as efforts to curb such practices have been significantly deprioritized. Transparency International's 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index shows Kenya sliding down to number 150 out of 179 countries, on par with Zimbabwe and Kyrgyzstan. More encouraging have been the increasingly engaged voices of the Kenyan people and the dynamic media that has developed since the last election. The last election showed the people of Kenya that their votes did count enough to bring about a change, and the independent press has simultaneously expanded and strengthened remarkably. Media outlets have not allowed themselves to be intimidated as they persist in exposing government mismanagement. Furthermore, while the courts are not entirely independent, they have taken up several high-profile cases, and some key ministers have been forced to resign. While Kenya's democracy is increasingly robust, it is nevertheless still quite young. The new few weeks may reveal just how much progress has been made--and how much progress is likely to be made in the future. In two weeks--on Thursday, December 27--Kenyans will go to the polls to vote for their President, Parliament, and local officials. Five years ago, the Kenyan people went to the polls and unambiguously rejected years of mismanagement, corruption, and declining economic growth by overwhelmingly electing the opposition National Rainbow Coalition, NARC, to power, ending more than 40 years of rule by the Kenya African National Union, KANU. President Kibaki and his administration deserve credit for advancing basic freedoms and permitting the emergence of a vibrant civil society, but his failure to rein in corruption in government ranks has him now just trailing Raila Odinga, his main contender in the presidential race. The fact that these elections are so close and hotly contested is a good sign for Kenya's democracy. For the first time, a number of parties appear to be taking small but noticeable steps away from ethnic loyalties and towards more legitimate political platforms. Such a development is an essential component as the country moves towards better governance, and I am so pleased by all the work the administration--and in particular the embassy in Nairobi--is undertaking by working closely with the Electoral Commission of Kenya, political parties, civil society organizations and other international partners through a new multidonor-funded, comprehensive electoral assistance program. Such initiatives are vital to help bring about a strong democracy. As the 2007 national elections approach, however, there are a number of challenges to a peaceful and fair multiparty process. Like other Kenyan polls before it, this campaign period has been fraught with violence and accusations of fraud. The electoral commission is investigating reports of voting cards being bought, and the primary conventions of the mainstream political parties were interrupted by violence and chaos. On balance, there are those who say security has gotten better, but violence continues at unacceptable rates and around 16,000 Kenyans have been displaced in election-related violence. Last May, the United States Ambassador to Kenya, Mr. Michael Ranneberger, addressed the Kenyan government and political community. He promised that the United States would be neutral in the elections and in building the capacity of political parties and civil society, but he made it clear that, and I quote, ``We are not neutral with respect to . . . the conduct of elections. We want to see an inclusive, fair, and transparent electoral process.'' As voting day draws near, it is essential that the international community speaks with one voice in calling for all parties to refrain from violence and fraud before, during, and after the upcoming polls. Kenya's political elite, military officials, judicial bodies, and 14 million registered voters must understand that the world is watching closely for signs that Kenya is truly committed to good governance and rule of law. Kenya's important leadership role in the region and throughout the continent make it particularly important that the government ensure the open flow of information, freedom of assembly, and nonpartisan conduct of the polls. Further, the government must refrain from any misuse of its resources or authorities in the runup to the election and on Election Day. All parties should renounce efforts to enflame tribal hatred, which means that politicians need to control their rhetoric, eschew violence, and avoid threats. International support for Kenya's upcoming polls includes a large number of foreign observers who will be dispersed across the country to witness the polling on Election Day. Reports from these monitors and independent media will inform opinions around the globe not only when it comes to assessing the past 5 years of President Kibaki's administration but also in determining the legitimacy of the next government. In 2 weeks, all eyes will be on a country that is an important role model of stability and growth in a region beset by natural and manmade disasters. It is not only Kenya's next president and other political leadership who will be decided on December 27, but it is also the state of its democracy.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, today I honor the memory of a man who served the State of Wisconsin, and its veterans, with great skill and dedication for more than two decades. John Moses served as secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs from 1962 to 1984. I had the great pleasure of knowing John personally, and having him serve as a member of my Veterans' Advisory Committee. I saw firsthand how committed he was to ensuring that Wisconsin's veterans, who have given so much to our country, get the care and services they deserve in return. In fact, John was a veteran himself, who bravely served in World War II. He came under attack twice as part of an antiaircraft unit in the Aleutian Islands, and later, in the European theater, led the point platoon in General Patton's drive across the Moselle River to Siegfried line. He also survived a severe wound he received in combat on the German border, which put him in the hospital for more than a year. John's heroic military service said volumes about the kind of man he was and how devoted he was to serving our country. Service of every kind defined John's life, from his time in the U.S. military to his tenure at the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, and through other efforts, such as his 10 years as president of the Gays Mills School Board. John came from a tradition of public service; his father was Governor of North Dakota, and he was then elected to the Senate. He briefly served in this body before he passed away in 1945. John Moses was a man of outstanding character and uncommon commitment to both his State and his country. I feel fortunate to have known him, and I know that the State of Wisconsin is a better place for his dedicated efforts. That is a lasting legacy and one to which I am proud to pay tribute today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007. Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect. In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice. Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories. Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks. A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.'' The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement. Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations. Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong. It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill. This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective. This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras. Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection. Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime. The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America. I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007. 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 the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007. Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect. In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice. Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories. Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks. A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.'' The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement. Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations. Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong. It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill. This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective. This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras. Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection. Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime. The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America. I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.