Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4083.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, everybody in this Chamber, I hope, will consider supporting this amendment. I urge its adoption. I reserve the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 List of Organizations that Support Feingold-Brownback Amendment No. 4083 American Bar Association American Civil Liberties Union American Immigration Lawyers Association American Jewish Committee Amnesty International Asian American Justice Center Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Los Angeles, CA Bernardo Kohler Center, Inc., Austin, Texas Casa de Esperanza, Bound Brook, New Jersey Catholic Charities USA Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, Univ. of California, Hastings College of the Law Center for National Security Studies Chicago Bar Association Church WorId Service Immigration and Refugee Program Episcopal Church Episcopal Migration Ministries Families for Freedom, Brooklyn, NY Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society Hispanic National Bar Association Human Rights First Human Rights Watch Immigrant Law Center, St. Paul, MN Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Portland, ME Immigrant Legal Resource Center Immigration Unit of Greater Boston Legal Services Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of America Jubilee Campaign USA, Inc. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Legal Momentum Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd National Council of La Raza National Immigration Forum National Immigration Law Center National Immigration Project National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women New York State Defenders Association Immigrant Defense Project Open Society Policy Center Opening Doors Immigration Services, Denton, TX Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office Refugee Resource Project Service Employees International Union Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund Sikh Coalition South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow Tahirih Justice Center Union for Reform Judaism United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society Unitarian Universalist Service Committee U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Washington Defenders Association Immigrant Defense Project, Seattle, WA World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals USA

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful to the chairman, especially for his support of this amendment but also for his leadership on this legislation. It is extremely important to this country. I know he worked so hard in committee to come up with a good package that I am able to support. I particularly thank him for his support of the amendment. I yield such time as the Senator from Kansas requires. I thank him for his tremendous help on this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would like to use the time to respond to the Senator from Oklahoma, whom I greatly respect. He is right, we can't be perfect about this. This is a complicated situation. He is also right that our goal here should be to achieve the right balance, and that is the challenge before us. My amendment certainly doesn't strike all the changes that are made in the bill; it just tries to address one particular mistake that was made that I think was almost borderline unintended. The bill as it now reads greatly expands expedited removal. I am not objecting to that, and I am not suggesting that we should not do so. I want to do exactly what the Senator from Oklahoma has suggested, which is to introduce another element of common sense and balance into this. So I want to respond to a couple of things he said. He began his remarks by saying this is about expedited removal; we wouldn't have a problem here if we were only talking about expedited removal. That is not the point. As I understand this provision, it goes well beyond expedited removal to all removals. So that is the problem. In fact, we even suggested at the staff level on the floor in recent days, we wouldn't have a problem if this change was honed and limited to expedited removals. So it is simply incorrect--and I want the record corrected on this--to suggest that this somehow deals with expedited removals. Secondly, the Senator says, Well, all we are doing here is broadening the concept and expanding it to stays. That is a big deal. It is not a minor thing. What we are talking about here, and Senator Brownback and I gave real, human examples of what we are talking about, is situations where if somebody can't get a stay so they can stay in this country and not be rushed to a situation where they may be harmed, that stay may be definitive for them in the form of death or serious injury or persecution. What we are talking about here is what is the standard for that temporary stay so that they get the opportunity to make their substantive case on whether they should stay here on the merits. Finally, the Senator suggested that this would lead to approvals of meritless claims. Our judges know how to handle this sort of thing. Under the current system, they don't just hand out injunctions on no basis. As I read the standard for injunctions, they evaluate four factors: No. 1, the likelihood of success on the merits; No. 2, whether there will be irreparable injury if the stay is denied; No. 3, whether there will be a substantial injury to the party opposing a stay if the stay is issued; and No. 4, the public interest. If those standards aren't met, these judges don't just hand out stays. It is based on a long-standing tradition in the law in this area. So the idea that somehow this change would lead to meritless or automatic granting of stays is simply incorrect under the law. So I hope that responds to the points that my friend from Oklahoma made, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to use a couple of minutes of my time to respond to my friend from Arizona. I want to be clear there is no intention here to get in the way at all of the expedited removal cases or Secretary Chertoff's program. That is exactly what I was saying a few minutes ago. Were this limited to expedited removal, I probably would not be offering this amendment. In fact, we tried at staff level to suggest that this kind of change be made. It was rejected. We were forced to do this, which I do not think involves, as the Senator from Arizona suggests, outlier cases. These are dramatic, serious matters that could involve life-or-death situations for people all over the world who have come to this country and fear returning to their own countries or the countries where they may be persecuted-- which the Senator from Kansas and I illustrated. The Senator began his remarks by suggesting his position was existing law. Obviously, it couldn't be existing law if you had to propose it in committee. More important, he neglected to mention it wasn't just the ninth circuit, which of course is frequently held up as somehow a court we should not listen to--it is not just the ninth circuit that agrees with my interpretation of this, it is the first, second, third, fifth, six, seventh and ninth circuit that have all said this standard should not apply to stays. This is not some renegade court. It is an amazing array of courts of appeals around the United States. Only one circuit has taken the other position, and here is why. The Senator suggests that somehow these courts have inappropriately interpreted the statute. But there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history that suggests that this was supposed to apply to stays. So let's talk about what existing law is. The vast majority of circuits in the country have done a proper job of interpreting the statute. It was not supposed to apply to stays. So I again urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I don't believe that is impacted because that refers to the actual proceeding. It does not, according to the interpretation of the circuits, apply to the standard for stays. That is what the circuits have all said, except for one. That language, of course, applies to the main cases but does not apply in the case of stays. There is nothing in the legislative history that supports the notion that it would apply to stays, and that is how the circuits have come down.

Mr. FEINGOLD. There is no intention to remove the language, or the requirement of the injunction standard. I said repeatedly here that I believe, on the stays, the person who is trying to avoid removal and trying to get the stay has to meet the standard for injunction. That is not the intent of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if the Senator is agreeable, I would be willing to yield all time. I yield my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside and be voted on later.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Brownback amendment. This amendment will ensure that asylum seekers, victims of trafficking, and other immigrants can have meaningful judicial review of removal orders. The amendment would strike from the bill a provision that would have the absurd result of making it harder, in many cases, for an immigrant to get a temporary stay of removal pending appeal than to actually win on the merits of the case. Let me state this in very clear terms. If this provision is not struck from the bill, people with meritorious asylum claims will be sent back to countries where they will face persecution or even death before a Federal court can even hear their arguments. Current law allows courts to deny stays to people with frivolous claims who are using delay tactics. This provision, then, is a solution in search of a problem, and one that creates potentially devastating problems of its own. The Senate should strike it from the bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took an important step on the issue of global climate change by passing a resolution, introduced by Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Biden, that expresses the need for the United States to address global warming through the negotiation of fair and effective international commitments. While it remains to be seen whether the full Senate will take up and pass the resolution, I am encouraged by the growing awareness in Congress of the need to face the facts on global climate change. Just last week, a report was released by a nonprofit group, Christian Aid, which suggests that climate change could lead to millions of deaths in Africa. In my role as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have paid significant attention to the challenges faced by the continent of Africa, and as we look to the future, we must address the consequences our global energy habits will have on less developed nations, in addition to the consequences on our own constituents. I applaud the leadership of Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Biden on Senate Resolution 312 and I hope that the Senate will move quickly to adopt it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Libya's decision to abandon its illegal weapons programs, and today's news that the verification process has been successfully completed, and the fact that Libya is cooperating in international counterterrorism efforts, are tremendously positive developments that make our world safer. Libya's experience demonstrates that countries have more to gain by acting responsibly and abiding by international norms than by seeking weapons of mass destruction. However, the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries does not mean that Libya's progress on all fronts has been satisfactory. According to the State Department's 2005 human rights report, Libya's human rights record remained poor last year, with Libyan citizens unable to change their government and subject to severe restrictions of their civil liberties. As we begin developing a new relationship with Libya, we must continue to press Libya to improve its human rights record and governance problems, and to address the cases pending in U.S. courts with regard to its terrorist activities of the 1980s.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose H.R. 4297. It fails in nearly every aspect to justify enactment, but among the biggest of its defects is that it adds $70 billion to our already mounting deficits. The last thing we should be doing is adding to the burden already facing our children and grandchildren. What are we getting in exchange for this fiscal recklessness? Are we addressing some urgent tax need? Perhaps this bill finally gives us the kind of reform of the alternative minimum tax that is so clearly needed. No, we get another 1-year patch on the AMT problem, and that is it. This bill does nothing further to fix the AMT because the real tax agenda in this bill is to enact dividend and capital gains tax cuts of dubious merit, and which do not take effect for 2 years. Two years, Mr. President. We are running up a $70 billion credit card tab, and handing it over to our kids to pay, just so we will have a tax cut that takes effect in 2 years. Worse, the body is once again abusing the reconciliation process in order to shield these questionable tax cuts from the kind of scrutiny they so clearly need. Make no mistake: This bill would never pass without this abusive use of reconciliation. The benefits of this bill are grossly skewed to the most well off. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that this tax bill provides middle-income households with an average tax cut of $20, about the price of two medium sized pizzas. By contrast, households with incomes over $1 million will get an average tax cut of $42,000, the price of a Lexus. Altogether, more than half of the benefits from this bill will go to the top 3 percent of households, those making $200,000 or more. Moreover, in order to squeeze those questionable tax cuts into the limited space afforded by the reconciliation maneuver, the conferees have resorted to an outrageous bookkeeping gimmick which shifts revenues that would have been collected in the future to the current budget window. The Roth IRA conversion provisions permit individuals with incomes over $110,000 and married couples with incomes over $160,000 to shift savings into tax sheltered Roth IRAs. The net result is to spend revenues from future budgets to shoehorn through grossly unbalanced tax cuts now. The Center on Budget and Policy priorities notes that by 2050, the Roth IRA provision, which is being used as a temporary revenue enhancer, will actually reduce revenues by $14 billion in present value terms. As I have had to note too many times, when we choose to spend on current consumption--through appropriated accounts, mandatory spending, or tax cuts--without paying for that spending, we are robbing our children of their own choices. When we spend on our wants, by cutting taxes or through government programs, without paying for those decisions, we are saddling our children and even grandchildren with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. That is exactly what this bill does. The Roth IRA maneuver, along with the billions in pure deficit spending contained in this bill, comes out of our children's wallets. By digging the deficit ditch even deeper, and by spending future revenues on tax cuts today, we are adding even more debt to the bill with which we are passing on to our children and even grandchildren. As a result, our children will have to forego program benefits or pay higher taxes. This tax bill is an abuse of the reconciliation process, a process designed to reduce the deficit not aggravate it. The tax policy it encompasses is fiscally reckless and economically regressive. And this legislation fails to address a tax problem that is truly urgent, the mounting problems with the alternative minimum tax. The Senate should reject this bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join the American public and the international community in congratulating the signatories of the recent peace agreement signed in Abuja, Nigeria on May 5, 2006. I hope that this peace agreement marks a dramatic turning point in bringing about a solution to the genocidal conflict that has ravaged the Darfur region of Sudan. The administration deserves to be commended for getting the Sudanese government and the Sudan Liberation Army to the table and for maintaining a commitment to completing this peace process. This does not mean, however, that we or the international community can return to complacency, satisfied that we have done our part. Quite the contrary. At this point, it is essential that the peace agreement be expanded to include those parties that have not yet signed. Those without a stake in the current political power and wealth sharing agreements will have few incentives to help build peace in the region, and will most likely be spoilers to the peace agreement. These parties must be encouraged to join and abide by the accord. Additionally, it is critical that the international community, working with the African Union, the United Nations, and regional partners, develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that the peace agreement is implemented and adhered to by both the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Liberation Army. The Darfur region is facing an extremely fragile period. Now is the time to show international resolve for quelling the remaining instability throughout the region and for kick-starting all of the elements of the peace agreement. We must also move quickly to institute and strengthen mechanisms and systems to ensure that the parties to not backslide in to full-scale conflict. In addition, we must strengthen the peacekeeping capabilities of the African Union and ensure that it has the capacity to help monitor and enforce the peace agreement. The African Union has worked hard to execute its broad and far-reaching mandate with limited resources and experience, and it will need support to be a contributor to establishing a lasting peace in the region. We must also work to introduce a United Nations peacekeeping mission into the region as quickly as possible. I applaud President Bush's decision to send Secretary Rice to the United Nations to seek a resolution authorizing a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. I supported the recent amendment to the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental appropriations bill adding $60 million to fund a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur, matching similar legislation in the House. With this clear message of support from the U.S. Congress, it is now up to the administration to work with our friends and allies at the U.N. to reach agreement on a resolution authorizing a peacekeeping force, and exert robust diplomatic pressure on those who would try to block it. We must not forget the massive humanitarian tragedy that is still unfolding. Even as the peace deal was being finalized, the U.N. World Food Program, WFP, announced that it would have to cut rations by over 50 percent in Darfur beginning in May. Many of the over 2 million refugees who have been forced from their homes and their livelihood are on the brink of starvation, and this already massive tragedy could yet take an even more devastating turn. Systematic gender-based violence against women and girls continues unabated and basic safety and security continue to be denied to Darfurians. Humanitarian organizations trying to work in the region face increasing difficulties in fulfilling their mission, and safe areas have diminished to unprecedented levels. The situation, in short, remains disastrous and the lives and well-being of millions hang in the balance. If anything, we must increase our efforts to protect the region most vulnerable, and to support Darfurians in this fragile period. Failure to do so could have a negative impact on the peace agreement. Looking ahead to the implementation of the peace agreement and to establishing peace in the region, it will be critically important to address the crimes against humanity that have been committed, and to take a stand against the cycle of impunity and injustice that we have seen occur over the last 3 years. Those who commit crimes against humanity must know that the world is watching, and that they will be held accountable for their actions. In conclusion, we have reasons to be optimistic. We must not ignore, however, the fact that now the hard work begins.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. I opposed the final version of the legislation that created the Part D drug benefit, the Medicare Modernization Act, because I believed that it would not provide adequate relief for Medicare beneficiaries. I was concerned about the structure of the program, and worried that it would negatively affect Wisconsinites and other Americans who must quickly and affordably access prescription drugs. I have been trying to fix some of these problems since the program was enacted, but supporters of the program have been unwilling to consider these reforms. Instead, they have allowed these problems to remain, and the results, since the benefit was implemented in January, have been disastrous. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites who found the prescription drug plan enrollment process exceedingly confusing. Many people had difficulty finding a plan that would cover their prescriptions, while others could not get through to Medicare representatives to ask questions about the enrollment process. There have been breakdowns in the entire information process, and these failures by the insurance companies and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have sometimes completely blocked beneficiaries from accessing essential medications such as insulin, antipsychotics, and even immunosuppressants. We can't afford to wait any longer in improving the Part D program so that it can better serve its beneficiaries. We need to minimize the negative effects of Part D's implementation problems and high costs. As part of this effort, I strongly support S. 1841, Senator Bill Nelson's, Medicare Informed Choice Act. This plan would allow beneficiaries extra time to navigate this confusing system by extending the enrollment period through the end of 2006. In addition, it would allow a one-time penalty-free change of programs for beneficiaries who have made a mistake in choosing their prescription drug plan. Supporters of the Medicare prescription drug benefit have touted it as the vehicle that would supply affordable, easily accessible prescription drugs for seniors. The program has so far fallen far short of that goal. The outcry that I have heard from pharmacists, beneficiaries, and health care providers over the past couple months makes clear that the implementation of the program has been a disaster. This program has not provided either affordable or easily accessed drugs to many Medicare beneficiaries. Instead it has presented providers and beneficiaries with frustration, confusion, expensive medications, and sometimes no medications at all. It is unacceptable for individuals to go without life saving medications. Yet this is what has been happening in Wisconsin and across the country since this program commenced. Since the beginning of January, I have received panicked phone calls from people in my State saying they were unable to receive drugs that they had been routinely getting at their pharmacy every other month. At the same time as I was hearing from people suffering from pain because they did not receive their pain medications, I read press releases from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid that expressed satisfaction with the launch of the program, and boasted of the millions of participants in the program. There may be millions participating in the program, but too many of them cannot receive their drugs and too many pharmacists are unable to comply with the complicated regulations in the program. CMS should be focusing its efforts on addressing this emergency rather than disseminating public relations messages. I have written Secretary Leavitt and Dr. McClellan repeatedly to express my concerns about Medicare Part D, including the approaching deadline. I hope that the administration will soon realize that it cannot continue to ignore these problems or hope they go away on their own, and that significant changes in the program are needed to better serve beneficiaries. I think it is time that CMS remember who this plan is supposed to serve: the people, not the drug and insurance companies. We cannot sustain a great nation if we do not care for our elderly, sick, disabled, and home-bound. These are the people this drug plan is supposed to be serving, but they have been dismally let down. Let us make a simple change to the drug plan that will provide immense help to this group--extend the May 15 deadline. I urge the majority leader to bring up S. 1841 for a vote before the deadline passes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, once again we are faced with ill-advised medical malpractice bills coming to the Senate floor without any committee consideration. Some argue that we have a malpractice insurance crisis that is driving doctors from the practice of medicine, particularly in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, or OB/GYN. But we haven't yet explored these issues in the Senate at all. No committee has held hearings or marked up a bill on this topic. Instead, extreme proposals have been brought directly to the floor and Senators are expected to vote for them. Indeed, motions to proceed to two different bills are being considered at the same time because no one really expects them to succeed. This is just a show. That is not how the legislative process should work on an issue of importance to so many people. I will vote no on cloture, as I have repeatedly in the past and will do in the future, until this issue is addressed in a serious way. I would like very much for Congress to address the problem of malpractice insurance premiums once we understand the causes of the problem and the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. But by bringing these bills directly to the floor, the majority simply demonstrates that it is not serious about addressing the problem. It just wants to play a political card. To the extent that there really is a malpractice insurance problem, what is going on here is a cynical exercise, designed only to fail and to provide fodder for political attacks. These bills, in my judgment, will not solve the problem that they supposedly have been designed to address. What they will surely do is harm innocent Americans who have suffered horrible and permanent injury at the hands of negligent medical practitioners. There are many provisions of S. 22 and S. 23 with which I have serious disagreement. Let me just mention a few. In a provision called the ``fair share rule,'' the bills eliminate joint and several liability in the lawsuits covered by the bills. What that means is that if one responsible defendant is insolvent and has no insurance coverage, the victim of malpractice ends up without a full recovery of his or her damages. This is not fair. Most state laws provide that the risk of one defendant being insolvent or judgment-proof is borne by the other responsible defendants. There is no reason to change this longstanding principle of law. All it does is make it more likely that injured mothers and children will not recover the damages that a court has decided they are due. Another problem with these bills is a new statute of limitations that applies only in States that are more protective of the injured party than the new Federal standard. Shorter statutes of limitation don't discourage frivolous claims, they encourage them. Lawyers facing a looming statute of limitations are more likely to file lawsuits to protect their clients' options. Imposing a statute of limitations of as little as one year, as these bills do, does not allow adequate time to investigate a case and determine if it really should be brought. But perhaps the most ill-advised provision in these bills is the cap on noneconomic damages. These caps have been modified from previous bills and are designed to look more generous, although they actually won't be in most cases. Indeed, it will be very rare for a plaintiff to reach the new maximum caps because most lawsuits don't name at least one doctor, and least two hospitals or other institutions as defendants. We have held no hearings on the medical malpractice issue in this Congress, but at the one hearing held on this issue in the last Congress, the Judiciary and HELP Committees heard from Linda McDougal, a 46-year-old Navy veteran from Woodville, WI. Several years ago, Ms. McDougal underwent a double mastectomy after her biopsy results were switched with those of another patient. She didn't have cancer, she never had cancer. We can be thankful for that. But her life, and her family's life, will never be the same. I hope everyone in the Senate will read Linda McDougal's testimony and learn about her experience. It is a powerful cautionary tale for those of us who are charged with voting on legislation concerning medical malpractice. I find it hard to believe that anyone in this body can look Linda McDougal or any of the thousands of victims of catastrophic medical malpractice in the eye and say, ``all your pain and suffering is worth only $250,000, or maybe $750,000 if you sue enough people.'' Would any of us be able to tell our mothers or our wives or our daughters that their damages should be limited in this arbitrary way if they were the victims of the unspeakable pain and lifelong sadness that Linda McDougal will endure? Remember, Linda McDougal didn't have extraordinary medical bills or lost wages. Her damages are noneconomic. But her loss is real, it is permanent, it is unfathomable. There is no question that we have a problem in this country over the cost of malpractice insurance. But the solution cannot be to penalize innocent victims like Linda McDougal, to prolong and extend their suffering by denying them adequate compensation. Caps on noneconomic damages are a cruel hoax. They are advertised as a disincentive to frivolous lawsuits. But they have the most impact on the most serious and nonfrivolous cases, cases where unimaginable pain has been inflicted on someone by a careless health professional. In addition, we have virtually no evidence that caps on economic damages will actually lower insurance rates. Indeed, in States that have caps on noneconomic damages, insurance premiums increased 48 percent from 1991 to 2002. But in States without caps, the increase has been only 36 percent. So the case has simply not been made that the caps in this bill will lower malpractice premiums. But more importantly, the case has not been made, and in my view cannot be made, that these caps are fair to victims like Linda McDougal. There very well may be solutions that we in the Senate can develop to address the cost of medical malpractice insurance in this country and the effect on patient care that rising premiums are causing. And there certainly are things we can do to address the disturbing problem of medical error in this country. The Institute of Medicine estimates that between 44,000 and 98,000 adverse medical events occur in hospitals every year. Other studies suggest that those numbers may be a vast underestimate. If we want to reduce malpractice insurance premiums we must address these problems as well as looking closely at the business practices of the insurance companies. What we shouldn't do is limit the recovery of victims of horrible injury to an arbitrarily low sum. This is obviously a complicated issue. This is the kind of issue that needs to be explored in depth in our committees so that a consensus can emerge. It is certainly not the kind of issue that should be brought directly to the floor with such a great gulf between supporters and opponents. So I will vote no on cloture today on both S. 22 and S. 23, and I hope that these bills will go through the HELP Committee and the Judiciary Committee before we begin floor consideration of this important topic. Cloture Motion

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that the Senate did not get the chance to vote on my amendment to strengthen the oversight and monitoring of over $1.6 billion included in this supplemental for Iraq reconstruction. This amendment, designed to extend the oversight of the Special Inspector General for Iraq, SIGIR, over reconstruction funding in the supplemental, would have helped the SIGIR continue its valuable work in ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively. We should not be spending money on Iraqi reconstruction without ensuring there is appropriate oversight and auditing. My amendment would have strengthened the capabilities of the Special IG to monitor, audit, and inspect funds made available for assistance for Iraq in both the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, IRRF, and in other important accounts. It is frankly baffling to me that anyone would oppose this amendment being included in the supplemental. As we continue to pour tens of billions of dollars in to Iraq, I believe that we must not lose oversight of U.S. taxpayer dollars. American taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going in this costly war and that it is being used effectively and efficiently and ending up in the right hands. The Iraq IG's work to date has been extremely valuable to the U.S. Government and to Congress. The Iraq IG has now completed 55 audit reports, issued 165 recommendations for program improvement, and has seized $13 million in assets. In its latest report, released over the weekend, the Iraq IG indicated that it has completed 29 audits and released 58 recommendations for program improvement in this quarter alone. Overall, the SIGIR estimates that its operations have resulted in saving $24 million. Throughout 2005, the Iraq IG provided aggressive oversight to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the at-times lethal operating environment in Iraq. Its emphasis on real-time auditing-- where guidance is provided immediately to management authorities upon the discovery of a need for change--provides for independent assessments while effecting rapid improvements. In its January report to Congress, the SIGIR concluded that massive unforeseen security costs, administrative overhead, and waste have crippled original reconstruction strategies and have prevented the completion of up to half of the work originally called for in critical sectors such as water, power, and electricity. The Iraq IG's work has resulted in the arrest of five individuals who were defrauding the U.S. Government, and it has shed light on millions of dollars of waste. It is this kind of investigation and reporting that helps shape the direction of reconstruction funding and ensures that the money is being used and allocated as transparently and effectively as possible. Mr. President, I originally drafted legislation to create the Special Inspector General for Iraq, known as SIGIR, in order to ensure that there is critical oversight of the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, IRRF, allocated for Iraq reconstruction projects. I believed then, and I believe now, that it is crucial that we have an effective oversight capability over American taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq. Last year, I fought to extend the life of this office, which has been recognized by the Department of State and Defense as a valuable and necessary office. I do not intend to let this week's setback prevent me from pushing for continued transparency and accountability in the administration's policies in Iraq.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am voting for this legislation because it provides important funding for our troops and for the people recovering from the devastation caused by last year's hurricanes. Unfortunately, I do so with great reluctance because of two fundamental problems with this measure. First, this bill continues the administration's fiscally irresponsible practice of funding our Iraq and Afghanistan operations outside of the regular budget process. That problem is compounded by the administration's failure to enunciate a clear policy for how we will conclude our military mission in Iraq. Our country needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq and refocusing our attention on the global terrorist threats that face us. As I noted earlier in the week, when I was prevented from offering an amendment that would have required redeploying the bulk of our troops in Iraq by the end of the year, we should not be appropriating billions of dollars for Iraq without debating--and demanding--a strategy to complete our military mission there. Not when the lives of our soldiers and the safety of our country are at risk. Second, this bill has become the most recent vehicle for the explosion of unauthorized spending that is finding its way onto appropriations bills. In addition to providing funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, this bill was supposed to be limited to addressing the very real needs arising from Hurricane Katrina and other disasters. Unfortunately, there seems to be an attitude in Congress that is reflected in the comments of one former Member of the other body, who was especially skilled at advancing spending items: ``I never saw a disaster that wasn't also an opportunity.'' Regrettably, this bill has provided just such an opportunity to interests seeking to circumvent the scrutiny of the authorizing committees or of a competitive grant process. As a result, this measure is larded up with spending for unauthorized programs. Worse, none of this spending is paid for. It is all added to the already massive tab we are leaving our children and grandchildren. I supported efforts on the floor to strip some of the funding that does not belong in the bill. I opposed efforts to table an amendment by Senator Thomas and a motion by Senator Ensign that would have forced the Senate to consider a bill with a smaller, and more reasonable price tag. I also supported several amendments offered by Senator Coburn and Senator McCain to eliminate funding in the bill for projects that, while they might have some merit, do not necessarily warrant emergency spending. If we are going to pass emergency appropriations bills that aren't offset, we should be sure that the spending in those bills is fully justified. A portion of the floor debate on this legislation was devoted to skyrocketing energy prices. While significant increases in fuel costs have affected all Americans, they have put the American farmer in an especially tough situation. Unfortunately, I have serious concerns with how this problem has been addressed in this bill. Under this bill, growers of program crops--rice, feed grains, oilseeds, wheat, cotton and peanuts--who are only about a quarter of farm income receive $1.5 billion or 90 percent of assistance, while only $74.5 million is provided for specialty crops, dairy and livestock producers through a block grant to States. Moreover, only the producers of program crops will receive assistance directly. The remaining 75 percent of farmers will not receive direct assistance, nor will they be assured that any funds will find their way to them since those funds can also be used for nutrition programs or marketing. Clearly there is a disconnect between the avowed purpose of this farm assistance and the details of how the program will operate, which is why I supported Senator McCain's amendment to strike a portion of this program. I urge my colleagues in conference to take a close look at the details of this program. If the program's intent is to help all farmers with their spiraling fuel-related costs, the proposal falls seriously short. Even the modest step of placing a payment limit on the $1.5 billion for direct payments could provide hundreds of millions of dollars for both a more equitable program and savings for taxpayers. I am pleased that a compromise was reached among my colleagues regarding the K-12 educational funding for schools that have taken in displaced students. Schools across the country, including some in Wisconsin, have opened their doors to the hundreds of thousands of students who were displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I strongly support continued efforts to assist the schools that are educating these students. I am glad that this funding will be provided through title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allows local school districts to provide specific educational services to the schools, rather than direct funding to private schools. This agreement will best serve our educators and students as they continue to recover and heal from the devastation wrought by the hurricanes. This legislation also includes significant funding to address critical foreign policy concerns. An amendment introduced by Senator Biden sets aside funding for a special envoy for Sudan. A special envoy is desperately needed to help bring peace to Darfur and to help ensure that the peace agreement between the north and south is adhered to. This bill also includes key funding needed for strengthening a peacekeeping mission in Darfur to help bring an end to what has become one of the world's greatest tragedies. This bill also includes funding for Liberia's fragile postelection period, and support for Haiti's tentative transition to a democracy and for the Democratic Republic of the Congo's upcoming elections. This funding is needed urgently to help these countries make the much-needed transition to peace and democratic rule. I have noted some of the important measures funded in this emergency supplemental and there are many more. Emergency supplemental spending measures are needed at times to deal with true emergencies. However, to borrow a line from the President, this Congress is addicted to supplementals. I am glad that the Senate adopted Senator Byrd's sense- of-the-Senate amendment insisting that future war costs be included in the regular budget. With this bill, total war-related funding paid for through supplementals will reach approximately $440 billion. That is an enormous sum of money and that does not even include the nearly half trillion dollar annual defense budget. I hope the Senate will stand firm on this issue and insist that any future spending for the Iraq war goes through the regular budget process. Mr. President, I will vote for this measure with the hope that the administration will work with conferees to eliminate the unjustified spending slipped into this bill, and with a renewed determination to make sure that this body fully debates and votes on my proposal to redeploy our troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, and refocus our resources on the fight against terrorism.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and I believe it starts by redeploying our U.S. forces from Iraq and refocusing our attention on the global terrorist threats that face us. I filed an amendment that requires the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2006. Unfortunately, the Senate will not be given the opportunity to vote on this amendment if we invoke cloture on the emergency supplemental bill we will be considering shortly. I am afraid this body has failed time and time again to debate the direction of our country's policy in Iraq. Three years ago, the President landed on an aircraft carrier and, as we all remember, declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq. Today, with thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, we are still no closer to a policy that lifts the burden from our troops and taxpayers and actually makes our country safer from the terrorist networks that seek to hurt us. By failing to discuss alternatives to the administration's failed Iraq policy, we have let down this institution and our constituents. We simply cannot continue to avoid asking the tough questions about Iraq. We should not be appropriating billions of dollars for Iraq without debating and demanding a strategy to complete our military mission there, not when the lives of our soldiers and the safety of our country are at risk. Our military has performed heroically in Iraq, but the continued and indefinite presence of large U.S. forces there significantly weakens our ability to fight the global terrorism networks that threaten us today. That is why I filed an amendment requiring the Pentagon to draw up a flexible time line for redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year. The President has repeatedly failed to spell out for the American people when we can expect our troops to redeploy from Iraq. He has refused to provide a vision for ending our military mission in Iraq, and as a result a growing majority of Americans have lost confidence in our purpose, our direction, and our presence in Iraq. Last August, I proposed a target date for withdrawal when I suggested U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of 2006. This amendment in part reflects the fact that the administration has made no progress--no progress whatsoever--in developing a clear vision for ending our military mission, redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq, and refocusing on the real national security threats that face our country. My amendment spells out what an increasing number of military intelligence and diplomatic officials have been saying for a very long time: that a massive and seemingly indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq is destabilizing and potentially damaging to Iraqi efforts to rebuild their government and their country. Our presence in some ways is generating instability in Iraq, and the less we make it clear that our intent is to leave and to leave now, our presence can become more harmful than it is helpful. More important, though, is the fact that our current Iraq policy is making the United States weaker, not stronger. We need to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq because, as a result of our current costly and burdensome presence in Iraq, we are unable to direct our resources worldwide to defeat the wide and growing network of terrorist organizations that seek to harm Americans and America. This administration has compounded its misguided decision to wage war in Iraq by refusing to recognize the consequences of its actions, the tremendous cost to our brave troops and their loved ones, the drain on our financial resources, and the burden on our Nation's national security sources and infrastructure, which are unable to focus on new and emerging threats to our country. I don't have to point very far to show how imbalanced and burdensome are our policies in Iraq. While we have spent, according to the Congressional Research Service, upwards of $6 billion per week during Operation Iraqi Freedom and $1.3 billion per week during Operation Enduring Freedom, we are spending a little more than $2 million--$2 million--annually--not weekly, annually--in Somalia, a known haven for terrorists and criminals and a true threat to our national security. This supplemental appropriation, if passed, will increase the cost of this war to $320 billion, and rising. This is simply unsustainable, and because the President has failed to provide us with any semblance of a vision for when our troops will be redeployed, we can expect more of the same in years to come; that is, unless the Congress finally requires the administration to develop an Iraq strategy that includes a flexible time line for redeploying our troops by the end of 2006. My amendment recognizes the need to maintain a minimal level of U.S. forces in Iraq beyond 2006. Those forces will be needed for engaging directly and targeting counterterrorism activities, training Iraq in security forces, and protecting essential U.S. infrastructure and personnel. It is time for Members of Congress to stand up to an administration that continues to lead us astray on what has become an extremely costly and mistaken war. We need to hold this administration accountable for its neglect of urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq. We need to tell the administration that it can't continue to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way without a clear and convincing strategy for success. Some have suggested that we should tie our military presence in Iraq to whether Iraqis are able to form a unity government. While I share their frustration with the status quo, I think the decisions about troop presence should be based on what is best for our country's national security. Making decisions about our troop levels contingent on a political solution in Iraq doesn't make sense. Our troops should not be held hostage to the failure to bring about a political solution in Iraq. So here is the bottom line: We need to refocus on fighting and defeating the terrorist network that attacked this country on September 11, 2001, and that means placing our Iraq policy in the context of a global effort rather than letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time. The President's Iraq-centric policies are preventing us from effectively engaging serious threats around the world, including Iran, global terrorist networks, and other emerging threats. We must change course in Iraq, and we must change course now. It is in this spirit that I filed this amendment to this supplemental spending bill. If I am not allowed a vote on my amendment to the supplemental, I can assure my colleagues that I will be looking for the next opportunity to bring this amendment to the floor for debate and a vote. My colleagues are, of course, entitled to disagree with my approach. I welcome their suggestions and their advice. But what I really want is for the Senate to live up to its responsibility and engage in a serious debate about the topic that is on the mind of every American: how to put our Iraq policy right and our national security policy right. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the increased funding for border security that is provided by the Gregg and Reid amendments. This funding for replacing and upgrading the equipment and vehicles that we need to protect our borders is vital to our security. Of course, border security alone will not solve our immigration problem, and I am committed to working toward comprehensive immigration reform. But providing much needed resources to those who are working to secure our borders is a critical part of guaranteeing our national security and dealing with our broken immigration system. Although both amendments would provide this funding, only Senator Gregg's was offset. The spending of this Republican-controlled Congress has been out of control, and it is beyond time to rein it in. The Gregg amendment is a start. The 2.75-percent cut to the defense portions of this bill will not come out of important items to protect our troops. I would never consider supporting any measure that threatened their safety. This is supposed to be an emergency funding bill, but there are billions of dollars of nonemergency items in the bloated defense portion of this bill that have nothing to do with protecting our troops and have no business in this supplemental--items that can be cut to pay for the real border security needs funded in both amendments. Some examples include the unrequested funding for V-22 Ospreys and C-17s and the clearly nonemergency Army modularity program. Our spending on our national security is also completely imbalanced, with almost all resources going to the Department of Defense and very little to other important national security priorities such as border security and the U.S. Coast Guard. The Gregg amendment brings back some balance to our spending.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this past weekend we celebrated Earth Day. That celebration, begun in 1970 by the late Gaylord Nelson, a great environmental leader whose U.S. Senate seat I hold today, provides us the chance to reflect on our environmental past, take stock of our present environmental situation, and formulate a vision for our environmental future. We have much to be proud of in our past, especially the bipartisan initiatives that were produced in the 1970s, including the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, our present environmental circumstances show we have a lot of work to do. Mercury pollution contaminates our waterways and threatens the health of our citizens, increased greenhouse gas emissions feed global climate change, and the majestic Great Lakes, a natural resource of particular interest to me and my fellow Wisconsinites, face such threats as invasive species and loss of wetlands. It is the future, though, that I urge Americans from all walks of life and from all across the country to focus on as they celebrate Earth Day this year. Quite frankly, over the next few years we will face major decisions that will shape our relationship to our natural resources. We can make decisions that demonstrate we want a future that recognizes that when we disrespect and dishonor the planet, we, in fact, disrespect and dishonor ourselves, or by failing to act or by making shortsighted choices, we can turn our backs on our responsibility to pass on to future generations a vibrant and living planet. Despite what is at stake, there is reason for hope. One of the most pressing challenges we face is that of making a commitment--both individually and collectively--to adopting sustainable energy habits that will serve the country for years to come. Our Nation, throughout its history, has faced challenges that we have overcome based on our ingenuity and our unwillingness to fail. It is this attitude that must be embraced today as we look to our energy future. We must challenge ourselves to adopt a new energy vision for the 21st century. This new vision involves moving away from our dependence on oil, a source of energy that puts our environment, our national security, and our economy at risk. We all know that the burning fossil fuels, like oil, emits tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere and that these gases fuel global warming. We all also know that global climate change is a problem plagued by a lack of leadership by the current administration and by its allies in Congress. Getting real about global warming--which must happen soon--will require a commitment to reducing our dependence on oil as opposed to continually fighting about opening up pristine areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for oil drilling. Reducing our dependence on oil will also make us more secure. Given that we have less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves here in the United States, we will be dependent on others for our fuel until we get serious about using biofuels that can be produced here at home. A new energy future will not create itself--it will require a dedicated effort by individuals across the country and by decision makers at all levels. This new energy future can be built on efforts to be more efficient, efforts to only use only what we need, and efforts to use renewable sources of energy. While the Federal Government has failed to take bold action, Americans are forging ahead, actually leading the way. For example, students at universities are holding competitions to reduce energy use, and nearly 200 cities are part of a nationwide movement to reduce greenhouse emissions in their cities to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But more must be done, and Americans must demand accountability and leadership from their Federal elected officials. So as we come together on Earth Day 2006, let's make a commitment to each other and to future generations to rise to the challenge of securing a new energy future for our country, for this is not only one of the most important environmental commitments we can make to each other, but it is also a decision about our national security and our economy. Let's work toward an environmental future that our children's children will, years from now, reflect upon as a turning point in our history, a time during which we came together and worked for the best interest of humanity, across the globe.