Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join the many Senators who have paid tribute to our colleague Craig Thomas. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor since Senator Thomas's passing, and it is clear how many friends he had in this Chamber and how well everyone thought of him and the work he did. We all knew him as a hard-working Member of the Senate who quickly earned his colleagues' respect. That respect was grounded in the way Craig Thomas served his country throughout his life. He spent 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and served in the Wyoming State Legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives, and since 1995, the U.S. Senate. During his years in the Senate, Senator Thomas served Wyoming with great dedication. Raised on a ranch, Senator Thomas understood the concerns of rural Americans, and I appreciated his efforts in the Senate to stand up for the people who keep our rural communities strong. That is an important concern in my State, and I know it is in Wyoming as well. I was very pleased to work with him to improve competition and fair treatment for farmers and ranchers. I know that he was committed to giving farmers and ranchers a fair shake in the marketplace, and his constituents appreciated that dedication. Senator Thomas also worked on a range of health care issues important to rural Americans. He well understood the challenges that people in rural areas face as they seek access to health care services and helped to address those concerns. The Senate benefited from his leadership as cochair of the Senate's Rural Health Caucus, where he showed tremendous commitment to these issues. He led the push to maintain full funding for several rural health discretionary programs, and I am grateful for his efforts. That was just one of the many ways he contributed to the work of the Senate and served the people of Wyoming. As we remember Senator Thomas, we can all be grateful for the life he led and his outstanding service to the Senate and to our country. To his wife, his family, his staff, and his many friends, I offer my condolences and my deepest sympathies.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, earlier this week in a special chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, based in The Hague, proceedings began in the trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, who is accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and serious violations of international law committed during Sierra Leone's 11-year civil war. Tens of thousands died in this conflict that ended in 2002, and more than a third of Sierra Leone's 6 million people were forced to flee. His trial is expect to have significant impact across Sierra Leone but also throughout neighboring countries as his raging brutality was in no way confined by national borders. For over a decade, the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia not only suffered from deprivation and displacement at the hands of Charles Taylor, but they also endured forced recruitment of child soldiers, widespread and brutal sexual violence, and horrifying murders and mutilations. Those responsible for these crimes abandoned all human decency in their quest for power and wealth. I have long been a strong supporter of accountability mechanisms around the world--and in particular Sierra Leone's Special Court and Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I have worked to ensure that the United States provides appropriate financial and political support for such important institutions, which are crucial to building a framework for the rule of law in postconflict countries. I commend the court for taking its mandate seriously and for following the evidence where it led--directly to a sitting head of state. Despite Charles Taylor's unwillingness to appear at the opening of yesterday's trial, the message this critical trial sends--to current and would-be corrupt, violent, and brutal leaders--is momentous: the international community will no longer stand silently by but will support efforts to break the worst cycles of violence and impunity. When the trial continues later this month in The Hague, it is essential that international fair trial standards are adhered to, that robust and transparent outreach programs continue uninterrupted so the trial remains as accessible as possible to those most affected by the conflict and that great care is taken to ensure the security of victims, witnesses, and their families. While I welcome the proceedings in The Hague, more needs to be done on behalf of the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia. True accountability for the horrific atrocities they endured will only be achieved when the rule of law is respected at every level in the governments of both countries and all citizens have access to justice. Great steps forward have been taken, but much more work remains. I will continue to press the United States and the international community not to desert the people of Sierra Leone--or the region--as they work to reconcile their grievances and seek to heal from one of Africa's worst conflicts.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 1176. This amendment contains the language of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bipartisan bill I have introduced with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. This amendment would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This amendment would help us to learn more about how recent immigrants and refugees were treated during World War II. The United States fought a courageous battle against the spread of Nazism and fascism. But we should not let justifiable pride in our Nation's triumph in World War II blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government. Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066 and the Alien Enemies Act, the U.S. Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and into relocation and internment camps. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians created by Congress in 1980, this unfortunate episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgment and condemnation it deserved. But that same respect has not been shown to the many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans who were taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps. This amendment would simply create a commission to review the facts and circumstances of the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans during World War II. It is time for a full accounting of that sad chapter in our history. A second commission created by this amendment would review the treatment by the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide and tried to come to the United States. German and Austrian Jews applied for visas, but the United States severely limited their entry due to strict immigration policies, policies that many believe were motivated by fear that our enemies would send spies under the guise of refugees and by the unfortunate antiforeigner and anti-Semitic attitudes that were, sadly, all too common at that time. It is time for the country to review the facts and determine how our immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is urgent that we pass this legislation. We cannot wait any longer. The injustices to European Americans and Jewish refugees occurred more than 50 years ago. Many of those who were harmed are no longer with us, the rest are very elderly. Americans must learn from these tragedies now, before there is no one left. These people have suffered long enough without the comfort of an official, independent study of what happened to them, and without knowing that this Nation recognizes their sacrifice and resolves to learn from the mistakes of the past. This amendment does not call for reparations. All it does is ensure that the public has a full accounting of what happened. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bipartisan Wartime Treatment Study Act as an amendment to this immigration legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I assume we will not have the time before the vote, then. This is the remaining time we have, correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, my amendment, again, contains the language of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bill I have introduced with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. It is not controversial. It would simply create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. These commissions would complete the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980 to study the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Thanks to that commission, this unfortunate episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. My amendment would simply allow that work to be completed. It is time to pass this legislation, now, before all the individuals affected by these policies are gone. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment contains the language of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, which is a bill I have introduced with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. It is noncontroversial.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from West Virginia. This bill would simply create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. These commissions would complete the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians created by Congress in 1980 to study the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Thanks to that commission, this unfortunate episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgment and condemnation it deserved. My amendment would simply allow that work to be completed. It is time to pass this legislation now before all of the individuals affected by these policies are gone. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from New Jersey. I rise today to express my disappointment, both in the final version of the supplemental spending bill that we expect to consider today, and in the process that led to this badly flawed bill. Those two concerns are linked because the flawed procedure the Senate adopted when we passed a sham supplemental bill last week, without debate or amendments, helped grease the wheels for a final bill that contains no binding language on redeployment. While our brave troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, we have a bill with political benchmarks that lack meaningful consequences if they are not reached. Legislation as important as this funding bill should have been openly considered in this body. I am talking about an open and on-the-record debate with amendments offered and voted upon. That is the way the Senate is supposed to operate. I shared the desire of my colleagues to pass this important bill as quickly as possible, but that was no excuse for us avoiding our responsibilities as legislators. Unquestionably, it was easier and faster for us to send a place holder bill back to the House. By doing that, the real work could be done behind closed doors where all kinds of horse trading can occur and decisions are unknown until the final deal is sealed. That process makes it a lot easier for most Members of Congress to avoid responsibility for the final outcome--we didn't have to cast any votes or make any difficult decisions. In short, we didn't have to do any legislating. Now that we face a badly flawed, take-it-or-leave-it bill, we can simply shrug, apparently, and tell our constituents we did the best we could. That is not good enough, not when we are talking about the most pressing issue facing this country. In the 5 months we have been in control of Congress, a unified Democratic caucus, with the help of some Republicans, has made great strides toward changing the course in Iraq. We were able to pass the first supplemental bill, supported by a majority of the Senate, that required the phased redeployment of our troops to begin in 120 days. Last week, a majority of Democrats supported ending the current open- ended mission by March 31, 2008. It has been almost 1 year since 13 Senators supported the proposal I offered with Senator Kerry that would have brought our troops out of Iraq by this summer. Now, 29 Senators support an even stronger measure, enforced by Congress's power of the purse, to safely redeploy our troops. Unfortunately, after that strong vote, we are now moving backward. Instead of forcing the President to safely redeploy our troops, instead of coming up with a strategy providing assistance to a postredeployment Iraq, and instead of a renewed focus on the global fight against al- Qaida, we are faced with a spending bill that just kicks the can down the road and buys the administration time. But why, I ask you, would we buy the administration more time? Why should we wait any longer? Since the war began in March 2003, we have lost more than 3,420 Americans, with over 71 killed since the beginning of this month. Last month, we lost over 100 Americans. Last weekend, the media reported that 24 bodies were found lying in the streets of Baghdad, all of whom had been killed execution style. Nineteen of them were found within parts of the city where the troops have ``surged.'' The administration's policy is clearly untenable. The American people know that, which is why they voted the way they did in November. They want us out of Iraq, and they want us out now. They don't want to give the so-called surge time. They don't want to pass this problem off to another President and another Congress. And they sure don't want another American servicemember to die or lose a limb while elected representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes of their constituents. It was bad enough to have the President again disregard the American people by escalating our involvement in Iraq. Now, too, Congress seems to be ignoring the will of the American people. If the American people cannot count on the leaders they elected to listen to them and to act on their demands, then something is seriously wrong with our political institutions or with the people who currently occupy those institutions. I urge my colleagues to reject the weak supplemental conference report and to stand strong as we tell the administration it is time to end the war that is draining our resources, straining our military, and undermining our national security. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I might call up an amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1176.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this amendment contains the language of S. 621, the Wartime Treatment Study Act, a bill I have introduced with my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. This amendment would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. Government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Inouye, have agreed to cosponsor this amendment. They are also cosponsors of my bill, and I appreciate their continued support for this important initiative. This amendment would help us to learn more about how, during World War II, recent immigrants and refugees were treated. It is an appropriate and relevant amendment to this immigration bill. I would have preferred to have moved this bill on its own. Senator Grassley and I have introduced the Wartime Treatment Study Act in the last four Congresses, and the Judiciary Committee has reported it favorably each time, including just last month. It has been cleared for adoption by unanimous consent by my Democratic colleagues. But I am forced to offer this as an amendment because the Wartime Treatment Study Act has not cleared the Republican side in this Congress or any of the last three Congresses. It is time for the Senate to pass this bill. During World War II, the United States fought a courageous battle against the spread of Nazism and fascism. Nazi Germany was engaged in the horrific persecution and genocide of Jews. By the end of the war, 6 million Jews had perished at the hands of Nazi Germany. The Allied victory in the Second World War was an American triumph, a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all of us. But we should not let that justifiable pride in our Nation's triumph blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own Government. Sadly, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. Government was curtailing the freedom of some of its own people here, at home. While it is, of course, the right of every Nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government can and should respect the basic freedoms that so many Americans have given their lives to defend. Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066 and the Alien Enemies Act, the U.S. Government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and ultimately into relocation and internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities. They were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own Government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians created by Congress in 1980, this unfortunate episode in our history finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. Congress and the U.S. Government did the right thing by recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II. But our work in this area is not done. That same respect has not been shown to the many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans who were taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps. Most Americans are probably unaware that during World War II, the U.S. Government designated more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000 German-born U.S. resident aliens and their families as ``enemy aliens.'' Approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps. Some even remained interned for up to 3 years after the war ended. Unknown numbers of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans had their property confiscated or their travel restricted, or lived under curfews. This amendment would not-- would not--grant reparations to victims. It would simply create a commission to review the facts and circumstances of the U.S. Government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans during World War II. Now, a second commission created by this amendment would review the treatment by the U.S. Government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide and trying to come to the United States. German and Austrian Jews applied for visas, but the United States severely limited their entry due to strict immigration policies-- policies that many believed were motivated by fear that our enemies would send spies under the guise of refugees and by the unfortunate antiforeigner, anti-Semitic attitudes that were sadly all too common at that time. It is time for the country to review the facts and determine how our immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible truth that the United States turned away thousands of Jewish refugees, delivering many to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime we were fighting. It is so urgent that we pass this legislation. We cannot wait any longer. The injustices to European Americans and Jewish refugees occurred more than 50 years ago. The people who were affected by these policies are dying. In fact, one of them died earlier this month. Max Ebel was one of the thousands of German Americans who were interned during World War II in the United States. He died on May 3, 2007. His death brings me great sadness. Max Ebel was only 17 when he came to America in 1937. He fled Germany after he was assaulted for refusing to join the Hitler Youth. When he came to the United States, he lived with his father in Massachusetts. He learned English. He joined the Boy Scouts. He completed high school. When the war broke out, he registered for the draft. Nonetheless, in 1942, this new American was arrested by the FBI and interned under the Alien Enemies Act because of his German ancestry. He spent the next 18 months in a series of detention facilities and internment camps and ultimately was transferred to a camp in Fort Lincoln, ND, where despite the way he had been treated, he found a way to help the war effort. He volunteered for a government work detail and spent a North Dakota winter laying new railroad track on the Northern Pacific Rail Line. Max Ebel's crew boss saw how hard he worked and petitioned for his release. Finally, in April of 1944, the Government let him go home. Despite everything that had happened, he remained loyal to his new country and became a citizen in 1953. A few years ago he told a journalist: I was an American right from the beginning, and I always will be. Max Ebel's death is a loss not only to his family and friends but also to our country. But losing Max Ebel does more than bring me sadness; it also makes me a bit angry. It makes me angry because he did not live to see the day that Congress recognized what he went through: his internment at the hands of his newfound country. I have been trying for years to pass this legislation creating a commission to study what happened to Max Ebel and to other German Americans and other European Americans and to Jewish refugees during World War II. I am gravely disappointed that Max Ebel and many others affected by these policies will not be here to see that legislation become law. Americans must learn from these tragedies now, before there is no one left. We cannot put this off any longer. These people have suffered long enough without official, independent study of what happened to them and without knowing this Nation recognizes their sacrifice and resolves to learn from the mistakes of the past that caused them so much pain. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board put it, Congress must move forward with this legislation: Lest the passage of time deprive more Americans of the justice that they deserve. Let me again repeat that this amendment does not call for reparations. All it does is ensure that the public has a full accounting of what happened. We should be proud of our victory over Nazism, as I am. But we should not let that pride cause us to overlook what happened to some Americans and refugees during World War II. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act that is an amendment to this immigration legislation, and I hope the managers of the bill can accept it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Service Fellowship Program Act. This important bill would provide more Americans the opportunity to volunteer overseas and strengthen our existing Federal international education and exchange system. I believe the U.S. government needs to be taking a greater leadership role in providing opportunities for U.S. citizens to volunteer overseas and my bill will enhance U.S. efforts to be a global leader in people-to-people engagement. People-to-people engagement is one of the United States' most effective public diplomacy tools and, today more than ever, we need to be investing in every opportunity to improve the perception of the U.S. overseas. Bad policy decisions by this administration have led to an alarming increase in negative opinions of the United States and we have not done enough to reverse this trend. Studies have shown that, in areas where U.S. citizens have volunteered their time, money, and services, opinions of the United States have improved. A 2006 Terror Free Tomorrow poll found that, ``In Indonesia, almost two years after the tsunami, American aid to tsunami victims continues to be the single biggest factor resulting in favorable opinion towards the United States. Almost 60 percent of Indonesians surveyed nationwide in August 2006 said that American assistance made them favorable to the United States. This number has remained solid following tsunami relief, despite a growing number of Indonesians who oppose American-led efforts to fight terrorism.'' Greater investment in volunteer opportunities has significant potential to improve the image of the U.S. overseas and while we have important programs already in place, the Peace Corps and programs administered through the Department of State's Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, we can and should be doing more. My bill would not only provide more opportunities for people-to- people engagement, but it reduces barriers that the average citizen faces when trying to volunteer internationally. First of all, my bill would reduce financial barriers by awarding fellowship awards designed to defray some of the costs associated with volunteering. The fellowship awards can be applied towards airfare, housing, or program costs, to name a few examples. By providing financial assistance, the Global Service Fellowship program opens the door for every American to be a participant, not just those with the resources to pay for it. Secondly, my bill reduces volunteering barriers by offering flexibility in the length of the volunteer opportunity. I often hear from constituents that they do not seek opportunities to participate in Federal volunteer programs because they cannot leave their jobs or family for years at a time. The Global Service Fellowship Programs offers volunteers the opportunity to volunteer on a schedule that works for them, a month up to a year. My bill provides a commonsense approach to the time limitations of the average American. Not only does this bill open the door for any U.S. citizen to apply for fellowship consideration, it calls on Congress to be part of the decision-making process. The Global Service Fellowship Program integrates members of Congress by calling on them to nominate volunteer applicants to the Department of State for consideration. Through this process, Congress will see firsthand the benefit international volunteering brings to their communities and the nation. My bill would cost $150 million, which is more than offset by a provision that would require the IRS to deposit all of its fee receipts in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. CBO has estimated that this offset will save $559 million over 5 years for net deficit reduction of approximately $409 million. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Voinovich, Casey, Menendez, and Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill. This program would be a valuable addition to our public diplomacy and humanitarian efforts overseas and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Global Service Fellowship Program Act. This important bill would provide more Americans the opportunity to volunteer overseas and strengthen our existing Federal international education and exchange system. I believe the U.S. government needs to be taking a greater leadership role in providing opportunities for U.S. citizens to volunteer overseas and my bill will enhance U.S. efforts to be a global leader in people-to-people engagement. People-to-people engagement is one of the United States' most effective public diplomacy tools and, today more than ever, we need to be investing in every opportunity to improve the perception of the U.S. overseas. Bad policy decisions by this administration have led to an alarming increase in negative opinions of the United States and we have not done enough to reverse this trend. Studies have shown that, in areas where U.S. citizens have volunteered their time, money, and services, opinions of the United States have improved. A 2006 Terror Free Tomorrow poll found that, ``In Indonesia, almost two years after the tsunami, American aid to tsunami victims continues to be the single biggest factor resulting in favorable opinion towards the United States. Almost 60 percent of Indonesians surveyed nationwide in August 2006 said that American assistance made them favorable to the United States. This number has remained solid following tsunami relief, despite a growing number of Indonesians who oppose American-led efforts to fight terrorism.'' Greater investment in volunteer opportunities has significant potential to improve the image of the U.S. overseas and while we have important programs already in place, the Peace Corps and programs administered through the Department of State's Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, we can and should be doing more. My bill would not only provide more opportunities for people-to- people engagement, but it reduces barriers that the average citizen faces when trying to volunteer internationally. First of all, my bill would reduce financial barriers by awarding fellowship awards designed to defray some of the costs associated with volunteering. The fellowship awards can be applied towards airfare, housing, or program costs, to name a few examples. By providing financial assistance, the Global Service Fellowship program opens the door for every American to be a participant, not just those with the resources to pay for it. Secondly, my bill reduces volunteering barriers by offering flexibility in the length of the volunteer opportunity. I often hear from constituents that they do not seek opportunities to participate in Federal volunteer programs because they cannot leave their jobs or family for years at a time. The Global Service Fellowship Programs offers volunteers the opportunity to volunteer on a schedule that works for them, a month up to a year. My bill provides a commonsense approach to the time limitations of the average American. Not only does this bill open the door for any U.S. citizen to apply for fellowship consideration, it calls on Congress to be part of the decision-making process. The Global Service Fellowship Program integrates members of Congress by calling on them to nominate volunteer applicants to the Department of State for consideration. Through this process, Congress will see firsthand the benefit international volunteering brings to their communities and the nation. My bill would cost $150 million, which is more than offset by a provision that would require the IRS to deposit all of its fee receipts in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. CBO has estimated that this offset will save $559 million over 5 years for net deficit reduction of approximately $409 million. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Voinovich, Casey, Menendez, and Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill. This program would be a valuable addition to our public diplomacy and humanitarian efforts overseas and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot support the procedure that the majority and minority leaders have concocted to speed a supplemental spending bill to conference without debate or amendments--and without even writing the actual bill. I share the desire of my colleagues to pass this important bill as soon as possible. But that is no excuse for us avoiding our responsibilities as legislators. Passing a symbolic resolution is not an acceptable alternative to writing, considering and working to improve legislation that provides tens of billions of dollars for a broad range of programs and that addresses the most pressing issue facing the country--the President's disastrous policies in Iraq. When it comes to legislation as important as this, we need full debate and votes. We can do this quickly--I am prepared to have this debate and consider amendments right away, and to stay as long as it takes to get it done. But we should do it openly and on the record. The votes we had yesterday on Iraq amendments to an unrelated bill are no excuse for bypassing the regular legislative process today. I admit, it is easier and quicker if we just send a placeholder bill to conference, so that the real work can be done there. But we do a disservice to our constituents, and to this institution, by passing the buck like that. The American people are calling on us to end the war in Iraq. They deserve to see this debate, even if it slows us down by a few hours. They deserve to know where their Senators stand, and which amendments they support. A decision about whether to continue our involvement in this misguided war should be made in open debate, not behind closed doors--particularly since neither house will have the opportunity to amend whatever final legislation emerges from conference. The first supplemental that Congress recently passed was a step forward toward ending this war. I am concerned that the bill that emerges from the upcoming conference, thanks to this expedited procedure, will be a step back. Passing a weak supplemental bill that expresses disapproval of the President's policies but doesn't do anything to fix them may make some of us feel better. But this debate should not be about providing political comfort for folks here in Washington. It is about responding to the wishes of the American people and the needs of our national security. And it should take place on the Senate floor, before the American people, right here, right now. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week, amid great fanfare, several Members of the House and Senate announced they had reached an agreement with the administration on language that facilitates the implementation of two trade agreements, and paves the way for the possible consideration of additional trade agreements as well as the extension of so-called fast-track trade agreement implementing authority. No sooner had the announcement been made than questions were raised about just what the agreement was. A comparison of the representations made by the parties to the agreement revealed several potentially contradictory interpretations of the deal. And when details of the agreement were sought, it was discovered that there really weren't any, that what the parties had agreed to was a set of principles. We now understand that the actual details of the agreement may not be fully spelled out until legislation implementing the trade agreements is presented to Congress for approval. Until then, everyone is free to spin this agreement as they wish. Given the parties that were involved, hearing the announcement was a bit like hearing that the foxes and wolves had reached a deal on guarding the hen house. For the most part, the people who were negotiating this agreement have a nearly unbroken record of supporting the deeply flawed trade policies of the past decade and more. From the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, which created the World Trade Organization, to granting China permanent Most Favored Nation status, to the more recent agreements like the Central America Free Trade Agreement, the actors in this deal have all been singing from the same hymn book. While I don't question the good intentions of those who were involved, no one should have expected last week's announcement to produce significant changes to that hymn book. Our trade policy has been disastrous. It has contributed to the loss of several million family-supporting jobs in this country. It has left communities across my State devastated, and I know the same is true in communities around this country. Our trade deficit reaches new heights every year, as we send more and more of our wealth overseas, much of it in the form of factories that provided entire communities with decent, good-paying jobs. I hold listening sessions in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year. This is my 15th year holding those listening sessions, listening to tens of thousands of people from all over Wisconsin. I completed my 1000th of those sessions last fall, and I can tell you that there is nearly universal frustration and anger with the trade policies we have pursued since the late 1980s. Even among those who would have called themselves traditional free-traders, it is increasingly obvious that the so-called NAFTA model of trade has been a tragic failure. I voted against NAFTA, GATT, and permanent most favored nation status for China, in great part because I felt they were bad deals for Wisconsin businesses and Wisconsin workers. At the time I voted against those agreements, I thought they would result in lost jobs for my State. But, as I have noted before, even as an opponent of those trade agreements, I had no idea just how bad things would be. Nor does the problem end with the loss of businesses and jobs. The model on which our recent trade agreements have been based fundamentally undermines our democratic institutions. It replaces the judgment of the people, as reflected in the laws and standards set forth by their elected representatives, with rules written by organizations dominated by multinational corporations. Food, environmental, and safety standards set by our democratic institutions are subject to challenge if they conflict with those approved by unelected international trade bureaucracies. Even laws that require the government to use our tax dollars to buy goods made here, rather than overseas, can be challenged. Our trade policy is a mess, and it needs to be fixed. As bad as our trade policies have been, they have not been partisan policies. I wish they were. I wish I could lay the blame at the feet of our colleagues in the other party. But Members of both parties have aided and abetted these flawed policies. Presidents of both parties have advanced them, and Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have approved them. It should not come as a shock to anyone, then, that while the agreement announced last week was bipartisan, because it was negotiated by people who largely supported the flawed trade agreements of recent years, it fails to address in a meaningful way the concerns of those who have opposed those same agreements. It is noteworthy that while the announced agreement is primarily related to enhancing international worker standards, not a single union has endorsed it. While the agreement reportedly enhances international environmental standards, no environmental groups have endorsed it. Nor have those business groups that have been critical of our trade policies. We are making progress, albeit slow progress, in educating the public and policymakers on the true nature of our trade agreements. In the past, when opponents of these flawed trade deals raised questions about the actual provisions in those agreements, supporters were quick to play the free trade card and label those who questioned the agreements as ``protectionist.'' This charge resonated with many of our newspaper editorial boards, who have parroted the elegant theories of 18th century economist Adam Smith. But the trade agreements into which we have entered in recent years are not simply reductions in tariffs, as Adam Smith envisioned. If these agreements were just reductions in tariffs, they could be implemented by a bill that is only one or two pages long. Of course, that is not the case. These agreements are lengthy. The bills that implement them are so massive as to be almost bullet proof. And the reason is that they go far beyond merely lowering tariffs. As Thea Lee wrote in the Wall Stree Journal: We should all understand by now that modern, (post-NAFTA) free-trade agreements are not just about lowering tariffs. They are about changing the conditions attached to trade liberalization, in ways that benefit some players and hurt others. These are not your textbook free-trade deals. These are finely orchestrated special-interest deals that boost the profits and power of multinational corporations, leaving workers, family farmers, many small businesses, and the environment more vulnerable than ever. Increasingly, some who blindly accepted these trade agreements in the past now are beginning to read the fine print. They recognize the role these agreements have played in our skyrocketing trade deficits and the loss of millions of jobs. They understand that if we are to have a sustainable trade policy, then we must dramatically alter the NAFTA model of trade on which our recent trade agreements are based. The agreement announced last week does not do that. And until our trade agreements better reflect a more sustainable relationship with our trading partners as well as the broader interests of our own national priorities--keeping businesses and good-paying jobs here, ensuring strong protections for our environment, our food safety, and even the ability of our democratic institutions to set those national priorities--I will continue to oppose them.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Menendez and Brownback this week in introducing a resolution that recognizes the unique diplomatic and economic leverage that China possesses, and that offers that country a rare opportunity to be a force for peace in the troubled Darfur region of Sudan. By now, we are all aware of the devastation being wrought upon the innocent people of Darfur. Over the past 4 years, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and more than 2.5 million displaced as a result of the ongoing and escalating violence caused by the Sudanese Government, associated Janjaweed militia attacks, and even the numerous rebel factions. Congress declared the Sudanese Government's atrocities to be genocide nearly 3 years ago, and my colleagues and I have been actively demanding that the United States do everything in its power to bolster the hard-working but inadequate African Union peacekeeping mission, support the efforts of courageous humanitarian workers, hold those responsible accountable for their actions, and persuade all parties to commit to a legitimate political resolution that can end the conflict and ensure people can safely and voluntarily return to their homes. Although I am frustrated that the United States' efforts to achieve these key objectives have been inadequate, I am even more upset by the Sudanese Government's persistent obstruction of all efforts to address Darfur's deep security, humanitarian, and political crises. The United States and other Western governments have made significant political and material investments in Sudan in an attempt to bring peace to that conflict-torn country, but as long as Khartoum continues to thwart its international obligations and pursue its violent campaign, these investments will not bring Sudan closer to peace. All parties agree that the tipping point in Sudan will come when the government there sees the costs of continuing to break existing promises and obstruct new agreements as greater than the benefits it can achieve by doing so. The country perhaps best positioned to affect the calculus of this cost-benefit analysis is China. Over the last decade, Beijing's energy firms have invested between $3 billion and $10 billion in the Sudanese energy sector, and China now exports seventy percent of Sudan's oil. China recently cancelled over $100 million in Sudanese debt and is building roads, bridges, an oil refinery, a hydroelectric dam, government offices and a new $20 million presidential palace. With these debt savings and oil revenues, Sudan has doubled its defense budget in recent years, spending 60 percent to 80 percent of its oil revenue on weapons--arms mostly made in China. I was very disturbed to see that the chief of Sudan's armed forces was so warmly welcomed in Beijing last week and promised increased military exchanges and cooperation. Eleven States, half a dozen cities, and more than 30 academic institutions across the United States have decided to divest from companies that do business with the Sudanese Government. Many of these companies are Chinese, which sends a signal to both Beijing and Khartoum that Americans--and others around the world--are willing to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to defending the people of Darfur. Africa can benefit from Chinese investment, but China's increasingly important role on the continent also carries responsibilities. As the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing approach, China is keen to be perceived as a key player on the world stage, but that means it needs to play by the rules. According to a recent Amnesty International report, China is, and I quote ``allowing ongoing flows of arms to parties to Sudan that are diverted for the conflict in Darfur and used there and across the border in Chad to commit grave violations of international law.'' This is, I note, also in violation of the U.N. arms embargo. Recently, China has begun to play a more constructive role in Sudan, by offering to contribute an engineering unit to the U.N.-led peacekeeping force that awaits admission into Darfur and by appointing a special representative to Africa who will focus specifically on the Darfur issue. These are notable, and welcomed developments, but they are not sufficient. We need to see a substantial policy shift in China's relationship with Khartoum that is reflected in both their public and their private efforts. China must send an unequivocal message that the relentless violence is unacceptable--and it must do so by working collaboratively and constructively with the rest of the international community to ensure a consistent message. The resolution introduced today urges China to be more constructive, consistent, and collaborative in its policy towards Sudan. It is our hope that through political messages like this resolution, diplomatic communication through formal and informal channels, and economic signals sent by the divestment campaign, China will be persuaded to take advantage of the unique opportunity it possesses to change the political calculus of the government in Khartoum so that the equation results in peace for the people of Darfur.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2 minutes that remain allocated to Senators Whitehouse and Leahy be allocated to me for my presentation.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we speak, more than 150,000 brave American troops are in the middle of a violent civil war in Iraq, with more troops on the way. Meanwhile, the President has repeatedly made it clear that nothing--not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of members of both parties--will discourage him from pursuing a war that has no end in sight. Congress cannot wait for the President to change course--we must change the course ourselves. Iraq's problems will not be solved by an open-ended, massive U.S. military engagement. And our own national security will be weakened until we bring this war to a close. That is why I am pleased to join the majority leader and Senators Dodd, Whitehouse, Sanders, Leahy, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Wyden and Harkin in introducing an amendment to bring this war to a close. Our amendment, which is the same as the Feingold-Reid bill, would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days of enactment, and would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008. At that point, with our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with three specific and limited exceptions: protecting U.S. infrastructure and personnel; training and equipping Iraqi security forces; and, perhaps most important, conducting ``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al-Qaida and other international terrorist organizations.'' By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can finally focus on what should be our top national security priority--defeating al- Qaida. Some have suggested that cutting off funds for the war could mean cutting off funds for the troops. They would have people believe that, under my approach, our brave troops will be left to fend for themselves in Iraq, without training, equipment, or resources. Nothing could be further from the truth. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war would in no way endanger our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated--as this amendment proposes--Congress can ensure that our troops are safely redeployed without harming our troops, as we did in Somalia in 1993. While Feingold-Reid is not the only amendment we are considering, it is the only amendment that would bring this war to a close. I regret to say that the Levin-Reid amendment accomplishes very little, once the President gets through certifying and waiving whatever he needs to certify and waive to keep his policies in place. Levin-Reid and the Warner amendment would ensure that Congress receives more reports on Iraqi progress in meeting benchmarks. We don't need reports to tell us that the President's policy isn't working. And we don't need reports to show us that our continued military presence in Iraq is a mistake, one that the America people overwhelmingly oppose. It is long past time for benchmarks, let alone benchmarks that aren't tied to meaningful consequences. Feingold-Reid will move us toward ending the war. Levin-Reid will move us backward. As long as the President's Iraq policy goes unchecked, our courageous troops will continue to put their lives on the line unnecessarily, our constituents will continue to pour billions of their dollars into this war, our military readiness will continue to erode, and our ability to confront and defeat al-Qaida will be jeopardized. I urge my colleagues to support Feingold-Reid and oppose Levin-Reid. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Feingold-Reid amendment would finally bring this disastrous war to a close by safely redeploying our troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008. We can't afford to keep ignoring the rest of the world while we focus solely on Iraq. By redeploying our troops from Iraq, we can create a more effective, integrated strategy to defeat expanding terrorist networks whether they be in Afghanistan, Somalia, Algeria, Morocco, or even here at home. It is time to end a war that is draining our resources, straining our military and undermining our national security, and the way to do that is by using our power of the purse to safely bring our brave troops out of Iraq. That is what the Feingold-Reid amendment does. Over 6 months ago, the American people voted to bring this war to a close. Today, by passing the Feingold-Reid amendment, the Senate can finally do the same thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I voted in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. While I have concerns about the $15 billion price tag of the Senate bill and Congress' failure to prioritize these new projects and the nearly $60 billion of authorized but unconstructed Corps projects, I strongly support the reform provisions in the underlying bill. These reforms are absolutely essential for improving the Nation's water resources planning and should be the baseline of reforms coming out of conference. These important reform provisions include independent peer review of costly or controversial Corps projects; dramatic improvements to the Corps' mitigation process; modernizing the Corps' woefully out of date planning guidelines; establishing a new national policy that directs the Corps to avoid impacts to floodplains; and requiring an interagency assessment of the nation's vulnerability to flood and related storm damage and recommendations to improve the Nation's various flood prevention programs. Senator McCain and I have long championed these reforms, and I thank him and his staff for their continued commitment to this important issue. I also appreciate the support from my colleagues--and the cosponsorship by Senators McCain, Coburn, Carper, Gregg, Sununu, and DeMint--for the prioritization amendment that I offered. Prioritization is essential to ensure Congress has the information it needs to assess the relative importance of Corps projects. This is not only our fiscal responsibility, but is important to the country's economic development and transportation systems, and our ability to protect citizens and property from natural disasters. I am very pleased that Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, Senator Baucus, and Senator Isakson reported a WRDA bill that retained the hard-fought reforms from last Congress. Through negotiations and a successful independent review amendment on the floor, we took the first step to ushering in critical reforms to the Corps of Engineers in more than 20 years. As we look ahead to conference, I particularly appreciate Chairman Boxer's commitment to retain these reforms in conference. I thank Chairman Boxer and Majority Leader Reid for joining me in a colloquy to this effect. ``Corps reform'' has been an ongoing effort over the years. Many of my current and former colleagues, staff, and numerous taxpayer and environmental groups have played a role and I am grateful for all of those efforts. It is my hope that we can honor these efforts and recognize the importance of instituting significant policy changes by enacting a final bill that retains the Senate's strong reforms and keeps the cost to the taxpayer at the current level or less. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.