Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past few months, I have addressed the Senate on a number of occasions about the administration's flawed Iraq policies. I have discussed a number of problems with those policies. But the most important problem is that they are undermining our ability to counter a wide range of transnational threats that face our country. In too many cases, these threats have been overlooked or insufficiently addressed because of this administration's misguided emphasis on policies in Iraq. Today I will explain why we need to refocus our national security strategy on the global campaign against terrorist networks, and I will briefly identify five areas on which we need to focus. A clear, targeted strategy to strengthen our national security is not an option but a necessity in the face of the growing threats posed by jihadist terrorist networks. The President is spending a lot of time talking about success in Iraq. Unfortunately, he fails to recognize that success in Iraq will not be achieved by a massive and indefinite U.S. military presence. He appears to fail to understand the limited role that the U.S. military can play in Iraq's long-term political and economic reconstruction efforts. I am afraid to say, he fundamentally fails to understand that success in Iraq, as important as it is, is secondary to success in our larger campaign against global terrorists. Iraq--simply put--is not the be all and end all of our national security. Our brave service men and women won a resounding victory in the initial military operation in Iraq. They have performed magnificently under very difficult circumstances. Now their task is largely over. The current massive U.S. military presence, without a clear strategy and a flexible timetable to finish the military mission in Iraq, is actually fueling the insurgency and will ultimately prevent the very economic and political progress that the Iraqis are demanding and that the President has started to talk about in his speeches. This isn't a strategy for success in Iraq or a strategy for success in the fight against global terrorism. That is why we need a flexible timeline for meeting clear benchmarks and also withdrawing U.S. troops. I am not talking about an artificial timetable, a phrase the President likes to use. I am calling for a public, flexible timetable with clear benchmarks. I have suggested the end of December 2006 as a target date for completion of that mission. But I have made clear that any date will have to be flexible to respond to unforeseen circumstances. The administration has a unique opportunity this week to set our Iraq policy on track. Iraqis will return to the polls on December 15 to choose their leaders. Spelling out a plan for the timely withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will signal U.S. support for an autonomous, independent, and self-sustaining Iraqi government. There is no better way to empower the new Iraqi government and the Iraqi people than by showing that the U.S. military mission in Iraq is not indefinite. If we don't heed the advice of a growing chorus of experts to set a timetable for withdrawal, it will be impossible to recenter our priorities and reengage in the global campaign against terrorist networks. And that is what we need to do in order to defeat those networks. We have not kept our eye on the ball, Mr. President. We have focused on Iraq to the exclusion of these critical priorities, and we have done so at our peril. It is far past time for us to engage in a serious dialogue about the threats we face, and come up with a tough, comprehensive national security strategy to defeat them. What are these threats and where do they come from? As we all know, the jihadist network is global in its reach, and it is showing no signs of slowing its recruitment and organization in every region of the world. Since we waged war against the Taliban in the fall of 2001--a war I supported, by the way--we have seen the network of extremist jihadist movements proliferate throughout the world. We have seen it surface in Madrid, London, Amman, Bali, and in places such as the Philippines, Algeria, Pakistan, Somalia, and Nigeria. And while it has spread throughout the world, it holds certain similar characteristics wherever it appears. It is good to turn to the definition that the 9/11 Commission report itself gave of what this threat is: ``the enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam.'' The report reads: [t]he enemy goes beyond Al-Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement inspired in part by Al-Qaeda that has spawned other terrorists groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the Al-Qaeda network and in the long term prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism. In order to reduce the danger of Al-Qaeda and radical jihadism all over the world, we must invest our time, our attention, and our best minds on this global threat. And we can't defeat it with just one aspect of American power. We need to develop and execute a national security strategy that utilizes our entire arsenal of political, economic, diplomatic and military power in order to counter the primary threats against us. I want to lay out five major areas of concern today. They are (1) addressing the conditions in which terrorists thrive; (2) enhancing our military's ability to wage the campaign against global terrorists; (3) improving our public and private diplomacy; (4) strengthening our non-proliferation efforts; and (5), finally finishing the job in Afghanistan. First, we must combat the conditions that make extremist ideologies attractive and that allow terrorist networks to take root and grow. Failed and weak states, such as Somalia, allow terrorism, narcotics trade, weapons proliferation, and other forms of organized crime to take root and grow. By not addressing these conditions, we allow warlords and terrorists to thrive and we leave people suffering from poverty and oppression susceptible to their rhetoric, promises, and pressure. Let us not forget that three of the poorest and most isolated countries in the world--Somalia, Sudan, and Afghanistan--served as the starting blocks for the terrorist network that delivered the most lethal attack ever on the U.S. If it wasn't clear before September 11, 2001, it is now--we ignore these places at our national peril. Over 4 years after 9/11, places like Somalia continue to be large, black holes on our radar, and continue to create the conditions that allow terrorist networks to recruit, train, and export their lethality at will. While Somalia has remained a failed state for over a decade now, recent examples of the lawlessness that exist within that country made headlines when freely operating pirates attacked a civilian cruise ship 25 miles off of the Somali coast. We can expect more headlines like that if we continue to think that supposedly small, marginal states are not worth our attention. That is why we should be taking seriously the inability of Uganda, the new government of southern Sudan, or the U.N. to defeat the Lords Resistance Army, which continues to commit atrocities around the Great Lakes region of central Africa. And we do not always have to look far for failed states. Right here in our backyard, Haiti endures rampant political violence and a festering humanitarian crisis, and has served as a base for narcoterrorists and criminal power structures throughout the region for over a decade. Unfortunately, this administration has failed to develop a comprehensive policy to help Haiti lift itself from chaos and to create livable conditions for the citizens of Haiti. That is a mistake because leaving a country to suffer under chaos only creates a platform for further threats to the region and to our country. If we fail to address weak and failed states, the lawlessness displayed by warlords, pirates, bandits, thugs, and thieves there will eventually be exploited by our enemies. After all, terrorists find active and passive support among the alienated and the disaffected. Addressing failed and failing states is not easy, but turning a blind eye to them is naive and dangerous. My second area of concern today is the need to prepare and equip our military for a global campaign against terrorist networks. The war in Iraq has had a devastating affect on our military's readiness and capabilities. I have voted for an increase in the military's end strength, but this is a long-term solution and does not address the immediate problems we face as we continue to over-burden the brave men and women of our armed forces. It also does not address our failure to prioritize military spending. Right now, courageous servicemembers are too often required to do their jobs without the right equipment. While we continue to spend billions of dollars on Cold War-era weapons systems, we are not fully funding the needs of the military personnel fighting our current wars. It is a national shame that the Department of Defense budget, which so dwarfs our spending in any other sector, still has failed to pay for the timely provision of adequate armor for our men and women in the battlefield. Mr. President, waging a successful global campaign against terrorism also will require us to counter new and growing terrorist tactics. Improvised Explosive Devices, IEDs, continue to increase in lethality and complexity in Iraq and elsewhere. I was pleased that Secretary Rumsfeld recently appointed a retired general to lead a joint task force on countering the threat of IEDs. As the death of 11 marines in Iraq on December 5 showed, the U.S. military has yet to develop a strategy or technology to sufficiently defend our servicemen and women from these troubling weapons. More troubling is the fact that we are now seeing the use of increasingly sophisticated IEDs outside of Iraq. This know-how and technology is being proliferated throughout the global network of terrorists who seek to harm the United States. The IED task force needs to identify a strategy, tactics, technology, and training to defend from these weapons, but it also needs to figure out ways of countering the proliferation of IED technology, know-how, and tactical training that are currently being exported from Iraq. Tragically, Iraq has turned in to a testing-ground for these new weapons, and the administration needs to explain not just how it is countering the lethality of IEDs in Iraq, but also how it is mitigating or preempting the use of these weapons by terrorist networks globally. My third area of concern is our woefully inadequate diplomatic efforts, public and private. As the recent 9/11 Commission report card showed, we need to do much better in communicating our principles and goals to the international community. In part we are failing because this administration has not consistently adhered to the core American values that have made us a model around the world, that helped defeat communism, and that have inspired democracies globally. The administration's approach to detainees, torture, and secret prisons, to name a few issues, has jeopardized this country's unique moral authority as a country that upholds the rights, liberties, and freedoms of every individual. I believe that we can combat terrorism while remaining true to those values. Mr. President, we need a new, sustained and comprehensive public and private diplomacy, and a concerted effort to tell the rest of the world who we really are and what we really believe in. This diplomatic effort is essential if we are going to prevail in what is in part a battle of ideas--and one that we cannot afford to lose. I am not talking about giving lectures or showing videos, but about engaging in genuine dialogue with other peoples and countries. Listening, and responding to, their concerns is one of the most effective ways to improve our image, and thus our relationship, with the international community. Diplomacy also involves looking for opportunities to demonstrate our core values. One such opportunity was lost in the response to the recent tragic earthquake in Pakistan where hundreds of local religious organizations--many of them linked to extremist or anti-American ideologies--beat out American relief efforts with quick, appropriate, and thoughtful responses. A CEO of a U.S.-based relief agency, having just returned from Pakistan, relayed to me his frustration that ``the United States lost a significant opportunity to win the hearts and minds of a core population in Pakistan vulnerable to extremist ideologies because we responded with standard, boxed solutions.'' We also need to engage our international partners not only in the campaign against terrorist networks, but also in the challenge to eradicate malaria, address HIV/AIDS, help rebuild countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, bring peace to the Darfur region in Sudan, and help counter the impact that illicit power structures and the absence of rule of law have on societies around the world, to give just a few examples. We need to work hand in hand with those partners in developing strategies to isolate rogue states and to advance democracy and respect for human rights. The fourth area we need to focus on is the proliferation of weapons, large and small. We need to do much more to stop nuclear proliferation and ensure that terrorist organizations do not obtain access to nuclear weapons. We must deal with the threats of loose nukes as an urgent priority both at home and abroad. This administration unfortunately has failed to do so. More nuclear weapons were secured in Russia in the 2 years before 9/11 than in the 2 years after. That is an alarming fact. And we should not have missed the opportunity at the last Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty conference to start moving forward on a new global regime; one that does a better job of protection and punishing cheating so that states cannot take their nuclear programs right up to the line of compliance and then withdraw from the treaty when they are ready to become new nuclear weapons states. We should also reverse the foolish decision to ease export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium that was part of the massive and misguided Energy bill signed by the President this summer. We must also focus on smaller weapons that continue to fall into the hands of terrorist networks at a cost of tens of thousands of lives each year. I applaud the recent announcement by my distinguished colleagues, Senators Lugar and Obama, of their initiative to make more funding and new authorities available for new proliferation programs and to counter the growing threat that light weapons, such as the Man Portable Air Defense System, pose to the United States. Unfortunately, we are behind the ball on this issue, and we need to drastically improve our ability to hunt down, shut down, and capture the networks of arms dealers that are getting rich by selling weapons to our enemies. Fifth and finally, we must refocus our energies on Afghanistan. The President spends a lot of time discussing Iraq, but not much time on Afghanistan which was and maybe still is home to Osama bin Laden. Unlike our presence in Iraq, our presence in Afghanistan is contributing to increased stability in the country and region and is delivering progress in the war on al-Qaida. Success in Afghanistan is essential for making progress in the campaign against terrorist networks, and it is where we must show the commitment, resolution, and capabilities of America. It is one of the first battlefields in this war. We now have the opportunity to turn what was once a despotic and broken country into a thriving democracy. It needs a lot of work, though, and disproportionate attention to Iraq has drained many of our positive and appreciated efforts in Afghanistan. I see three major areas that need further attention in Afghanistan. First, as part of assuring long-term success in Afghanistan, we need to ensure that international assistance, much of it from the United States, continues to be targeted, coordinated, and appropriate. We are running the risk of creating a ``Donor's Republic of Afghanistan'' by creating an unsustainable Afghan Government that the Afghans themselves cannot afford or manage. At this time, annual recurring costs to maintain the U.S.-developed Afghan National Army outweigh the central Government's revenue streams by a multiple of two or three. And this is not taking into consideration the police force and other essential public services that are in drastic disrepair or in need of further development. Second, we need to continue burden sharing throughout the international community and encouraging a greater role for NATO, the United Nations and, most importantly, the Afghan Government, as it struggles to fight resurgent terrorist and obstructionist threats. I was glad to receive news last week that NATO will increase its presence in southern Afghanistan, but we need to assure that long-term development and security aid is tied to measurable benchmarks for success. Third, we need to continue to pressure countries such as Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and others to be constructive partners in the development of Afghanistan's new and fragile government and economy. Afghanistan is suffering from porous borders which make it an ideal environment for a thriving illegal drug trade, illegal imports and exports, and terrorists and insurgents who want to prevent the new Afghan Government from developing. We have to succeed in Afghanistan. If we allow the new Afghan Government to become weak, feckless, and corrupt, we will risk losing everything we have invested. We will lose a partner in the campaign against terrorist networks, and we will lose the opportunity to point to Afghanistan as an accomplishment. I have tried to identify five crucial areas in which we are not doing enough to protect our national security. We are not doing enough for a number of reasons, but foremost among them is the administration's single-minded and self-defeating emphasis on Iraq. The President's debilitating and misguided Iraq policy is preventing us from focusing our attention, our resources, and our efforts on the global campaign against terrorist networks. That is why we need a plan to wind down our military presence in Iraq and bring our focus back to the threat of radical jihadist-based terrorism. While this administration talks and thinks about Iraq, our enemies are growing stronger around the globe. Those enemies are disparate, diffuse, and relentless. They operate in ungoverned spaces, on the Internet, in cities, mountains, and jungles. Left unchecked, they will continue to plot against the United States. Our national security policy is adrift, but we have the power to change it, to correct our course. We must tackle these challenges and build a security strategy that protects our Nation from the most dangerous threat that it faces. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. As the Senator well knows, on the floor we passed this bill by unanimous consent, without debate, but I and others raised our concerns in the Judiciary Committee. The Senator well knows I was not pleased with the outcome on this provision in the Senate. I fought hard to get as many changes as possible, but we did not get the changes we needed with regard to national security letters, and the conference report failed to improve this provision as it should have done. The Senator is correct, as I understand it, that the Senate version did not change much of existing law in this area, and the conference report is essentially the same. The conference report did not include the national security letter standard that a bipartisan group sought, three Democrats and three Republicans, as well as other cosponsors of the SAFE Act, which is that the Government can only obtain records that pertain to a terrorist and spy. In addition, in answer to the Senator's question, the judicial review of the NSL gag rule in the conference report also is inadequate. In the SAFE Act, we included meaningful judicial review of national security letters and the NSL gag rule. Under the Senate version, there is judicial review of national security letters and gag rule, but there again, disappointedly, even the Senate version of the bill failed to create a standard that was realistic. It created a standard for the gag rule that would be virtually impossible to meet. Of course, the areas that caused me to vote for the Senate bill were the improvements it contained, especially the change to Section 215, which we have lost; on sneak and peak search warrants, which was largely pulled back; and on John Doe roving wiretaps, which have been only partially preserved. The point is that I was not happy with this portion, but in light of some of the other changes in the Senate bill, I did work, as the Chairman knows, cooperatively with him to create a document that at least had some balance. What has happened now is we have lost the positive changes we gained in the Senate bill, and we continue to have a very inadequate provision relating to the national security letter authority.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, because of the last exchange, that will not be----

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would say to the chairman through the Presiding Officer, I did respond to his question, and I can tell him that I was aware of the changes that occurred in the conference report vis-a-vis the Senate bill. They are not adequate. We are still very far away from the SAFE Act with regard to this provision. I note that the chairman cosponsored the SAFE Act and yet did not object, apparently, to the significant withdrawal from the SAFE Act provisions in this area. What we need in this provision on these national security letters to prevent potential abuses, as well as the abuses that may well be already occurring--the Washington Post suggested some 30,000 national security letters per year--is a clear standard that these provisions can only be used to obtain records that pertain to a terrorist or a spy. Neither the Senate version nor the version in the conference report achieves that. So, yes, I acknowledge there are some language differences, but I do not believe they achieve what we need to achieve with regard to national security letters.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to say----

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield so I can respond to his comment?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the first thing I want to say is that the Senator from Pennsylvania is not the problem here. Everything he has said is accurate. He fought tenaciously in the committee, and I think brilliantly, to bring us together in a balanced package. I say to the Senator, through the Presiding Officer, I am grateful for his efforts in the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole, and for his efforts in the conference committee, because I know the Senator tried. What happened in the Senate was that the will of this body as a whole, which we all compromised on, prevailed. The Senator from Pennsylvania correctly points out that I had to give, unfortunately, on this national security letter issue, to get the important changes regarding library records, sneak-and-peek searches, and sunsets. The fact is, I say to the Senator that of course I objected to that provision. But I was trying to work with the Senator to come up with a balanced package, as Senator Sununu and I were commenting earlier, a package we could support as a whole. The Senator is now suggesting that after we made some gains and we lost some issues, I should now accept the one part we did not prevail on and give up the parts I did prevail on. That strikes me as a rather odd deal. It was, as the Senator knows, a very difficult vote for me to support the Senate package. I was the only Member of this body to vote against the original PATRIOT Act because it was deeply flawed, and the Senator from Pennsylvania and many others have acknowledged there were such flaws and we have worked together to fix what we could. I was determined, as I said at the time we passed the Senate bill, to work with my colleagues to fix the other flaws, especially those in the national security letters. But this idea that when you get the package back and it only includes the things you don't like and it doesn't include the things you did like, that you should keep your mouth shut and you should not oppose it, that to me is ridiculous. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, and I mean it absolutely sincerely, he has been a tremendous chairman. He has been one of the real keys to us having any chance at all to fix this legislation. But I am very disappointed with what we got back from the conference committee. I know very well that the chairman did not want this document to look like this. He wanted it, I assume, to look like the very document he crafted in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I yield back to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FEINGOLD. In response to the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator knows very well I am familiar with what went on in that briefing. You and I spoke here outside this Senate Chamber about these very provisions. I indicated to the Senator that I had my staff, who received this briefing, go over with me, in a secure setting, exactly the hypotheticals that those who wanted this additional provision in the conference report raised. My staff and I looked at those hypotheticals and were very unpersuaded. Here is the significance. What the Senator from Pennsylvania is suggesting is that it is not a major change to add, on top of the three-part test of the Senate, an additional provision that merely requires relevance. This is a big deal, because the other three provisions require that the records pertain to a terrorist or spy, or records of people in contact with or known to a terrorist or spy, or relevant to the activities of a terrorist or spy. All three of those tests require something closer to the connection that the Senator from Pennsylvania and I demanded in the SAFE Act. The additional item put in the conference report is the loophole, the exception, that swallows that three-part test. It does not require the connection to the terrorist or spy, even though this legislation, from the very outset, was supposed to be a response to what happened on 9/ 11, to terrorism. This does gut the changes to section 215 that are in the Senate bill. This does render meaningless the efforts you and I and others made to get a good provision in the Senate. And, yes, it is a sufficient reason not to go forward. The feelings the American people have about this poorly drafted section 215 cannot be answered by a provision that simply demands general relevance and does not require a connection to terrorism or espionage. It is unacceptable. And on that ground alone, although there are other grounds, it is very disturbing. I want to say that the Senator, my colleague and friend, did try hard. He said earlier that if he had his druthers he would have preferred a better provision. This isn't about druthers. This is about a devastating power of the Government to be able to go and take your library records on some general notion of relevance that has nothing to do with any connection to terrorism or espionage. That is unacceptable in America, and under our Bill of Rights.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that I meant what I said about his efforts and his sincere desire to try to fix these provisions, and that is what we started to do in the Senate version. Second, I do think this is an excellent process, that we need to come out here on the floor and be very specific about what is right and what is wrong about these provisions. It is neither sufficient to say to our colleagues that we have to pass it as it is because the time is running out, nor is it sufficient for somebody on my side to say, look, this is an enormously dangerous, unfixable provision and the whole thing should go down. Neither of those positions is defensible. What is defensible is to look at each of these provisions as we have been doing and ask if we have done enough to protect law-abiding Americans. I come to the conclusion that we were very close, had maybe even achieved that with regard to section 215. But the conference report failed in that regard, and it brings us back far too close to the original mistake. On the national security letters, I am not impressed by the improvements of the Senate version, which I didn't find to be adequate in the first place. So with regard to both of those, not to mention the sneak-and-peek searches that we will discuss later on, the conference report simply does not do the job. I do recognize the Senator's sincere desire to make sure the Senate is well informed about the remaining issues that could affect how Members vote on the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I could make one remark, and then I will have to leave. If the Senator will yield.

Mr. FEINGOLD. On the national security letters, we will have to agree to disagree and continue to debate this and come to a similar conclusion with regard to what the conference report did vis-a-vis the Senate bill. Perhaps we could agree on how valuable it would be in light of how serious these concerns are about the national security letters, for that provision at least to be part of the group of provisions subject to a sunset. I want to point out to my colleagues with regard to these national security letters that there may have been 30,000 issued, according to the Washington Post, per year. That power is not sunsetted. That is troubling. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I appreciate that. I need to leave briefly. I will be right back, but I enjoy this process. I need to take care of one matter, and I look forward to returning to continue this discussion.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am thoroughly enjoying this, and I came out here and described the Senator again as valiant on this issue. But I am getting a little worried as we start reviewing each of these provisions. The Senator from Pennsylvania voted for every single one of these provisions that I have talked about as part of the Senate version. There was a reason we drafted it that way. When the Senator properly puts me through my paces on each of these issues and I identify my remaining objections and he minimizes the objections--keep in mind he already voted for those very provisions; he voted for exactly these provisions in the Senate bill. So when I point out on section 215 that a general relevance standard is not a sufficient protection and he agrees on the record that was troubling to him, it seems to me that is a valid issue to be concerned about. With regard to the sneak-and-peek provision, the Senator did not vote, when he voted in the Senate, for 30 days' permission for a sneak and peek and a 90-day extension after that; he voted for 7 days, because the Senator from Pennsylvania knows as well as any Member in this Senate that the idea of a sneak-and-peek search in the first place is a very troubling exception to the fourth amendment protection that every American has against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a very narrow exception. When the Senate voted in the Senate, he did not vote for 30 days. He did not vote for a period of time that is over four times larger than 7 days; he voted for 7 days. To now suggest this is somehow a trivial concern is not consistent with either the Senator's record on this particular legislation or consistent with his apparent cosponsorship of the SAFE Act in the past. This debate is valuable, but when the Senator actually lists these all together as he has done, the only thing I can agree with him on is--and I am grateful--that the sunsets have been preserved. That is positive. Let me say, the Senator cosponsored the SAFE Act. He knows some of the things we are sunsetting potentially permit the violations of the rights of innocent and law-biding Americans. A sunset is only a secondary level of protection that essentially says, Look, people's rights might be violated now, but at least we will have a chance to change it later. The idea of simply prevailing on the sunsets, which allow violations to continue without changing the substance of the law to protect Americans' rights and civil rights liberties, is not a sufficient reason to vote for the conference report. But I do look forward to further exchange with the Senator on this as the week goes on. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I have no desire to take the floor away from the Senator from Pennsylvania, but back where I live, when the Government comes into your home and you do not know they have been rummaging around in your house and you find out 7 days later that they did this, you are upset. If you do not find out for 30 days, where I come from that is not a scintilla; that is a big deal. The U.S. Government coming into your house without giving you notice, as people expect under the fourth amendment, is not a triviality. It is at the very core of one of the most important provisions of the Bill of Rights. I am not sure I am, in the end, even comfortable with this concept of a sneak and peek search. I think it has been demonstrated it may be needed in some cases, but why in the world can't a judge have to renew that every 7 days? It is not a matter of trivia to the people of my State that the Government can come into their house without notice under the fourth amendment. And I reject the idea that it is a minor difference between 7 and 30 days.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, one of the major items that we will be taking up prior to the end of the year is the issue of the renewal of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. There was quite an effort in the last couple of years in the Senate to try to fix the problems with the PATRIOT Act that led me to vote against it originally. That was a very difficult time, obviously, after 9/11/2001. The PATRIOT Act got through on a very accelerated basis, and a number of us identified serious problems that other people didn't have a chance to analyze at the time. But the situation now has changed. We have had years to look at this. Thankfully, the Senate worked together to do its job on this bill. In the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate as a whole, we passed changes to the USA PATRIOT Act, along with renewing the provisions scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. It was a unanimous vote. People from very different philosophies came together and said: Let's get this right. Let's make sure law enforcement has the power and the ability to go after the terrorist network. But, at the same time, let's do what we have to do to protect the civil liberties and rights of absolutely law-abiding Americans. Sadly, the conference committee did just the reverse. The conference committee ignored the will of the Senate. The conference committee did not make changes in critical areas such as library records and business records, so-called sneak-and-peek searches, and national security letters, changes that were essential to reaching the changes that were agreed to in the Senate. I didn't think the Senate version did as much to protect civil liberties and the rights of innocent Americans as we should have, but it was a move in the right direction. Regrettably, the conference report is nothing of the kind. I join Senator Sununu, who spoke eloquently about this earlier today, in saying that the conference report that will be before the Senate is not acceptable in its current form. The conference committee needs to go back to the drawing board and make the changes that are needed. The changes are very easy to find. They were contained in the unanimously approved Senate reauthorization bill. Clearly, there will be much more to say about this as the week goes on, but we are prepared to use whatever means we are allowed to use under the Senate rules to try to prevent this conference report from becoming law in its current form.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment in the cuts that the conference report for H.R. 2862, the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, made to important grant programs that assist State and local law enforcement agencies. I voted in favor of H.R. 2862 because of the other important programs that it funds, but I have grave concerns about these particular grant funding cuts. I believe that Congress, in partnership with States and local communities, has an obligation to provide the tools, technology, and training that our Nation's law enforcement officers need in order to protect our communities. I have consistently supported a number of Federal grant programs, including the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Program, which is instrumental in providing funding to train new officers and provide crime-fighting technologies. I also have long supported funding for the Byrne Grant Program, which provides funding to help fight violent and drug-related crime, including support to multijurisdictional drug task forces, drug courts, drug education and prevention programs, and many other efforts to reduce drug abuse and prosecute drug offenders. I know how important these programs have been to Wisconsin law enforcement efforts, in particular with regard to fighting the spread of methamphetamine abuse. Both of these programs suffered major funding cuts in the conference report for H.R. 2682, which the Senate passed on November 16, 2005. Funding for the COPS Program has been reduced dramatically in recent years. In fiscal year 2003 the COPS Program received $929 million in Federal funding. In fiscal year 2004, that level was reduced to $756 million, only to drop again in fiscal year 2005 to $606 million. And now, for fiscal year 2006, the funding level has again been reduced to a mere $487.3 million, a dramatic decrease just over the last 3 fiscal years. This is unacceptable. Funding for these grant programs has continually dropped even as the needs of law enforcement officers, our first responders, grow. Funding cuts like the ones to the COPS Program have been mirrored in cuts to Byrne grants. For fiscal year 2006, the administration's budget proposal would have completely eliminated this critical law enforcement program in full. Congress rightly rejected the administration's unjustified attempt to entirely do away with this important program, but unfortunately the funding level provided this year is inadequate. In fiscal year 2003, Byrne and the local law enforcement block grants, which have now been merged into one program, received a total of $900 million in Federal funding. By fiscal year 2005, that number was reduced to $634 million. This year, the Byrne program will receive a meager $416 million in Federal funding. It is irresponsible to habitually take the rug out from under our hard-working law enforcement officers by taking away their access to the funding they need to keep our communities across the country safe. It is my hope that in the next fiscal year, the administration and Congress will work together to repair the damage done and increase critical funding to these and other programs that assist our State and local law enforcement officers on a daily basis.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to express my deep concern regarding recent news reports about piracy off the coast of Somalia. As we all know, Somalia has been without a central, recognized government for well over a decade. It has been over 3 years since I chaired a series of hearings in the Foreign Relations African Affairs Subcommittee on weak and failing states in Africa, one of which focused on the dire situation in Somalia and inadequate U.S. policy there. Years later, U.S. policy is still stagnant, I am sorry to report, and the danger persists, as these news reports indicate. The time is long overdue for the U.S. to make a long-term commitment to addressing this potential trouble spot. I have consistently urged the Administration to be vigilant in focusing on weak states as part of the global fight against terrorism. All the characteristics of some of Africa's weakest states-- manifestations of lawlessness such as piracy, illicit air transport networks, and traffic in arms and gemstones and people--can make the region attractive to terrorists and international criminals. Regrettably, Somalia is still not on the administration's radar. According to recent press reports, pirates off the coast of Somalia are building strength and growing comfortable in expanding their attacks. Despite a lull in pirate attacks over the last 2 years, in just the last 6 months there have been 25 attacks off the coast of Somalia, according to the International Maritime Bureau. Attacks are no longer confined to the coast but reportedly include raids on ships hundreds of miles from the coast of the Indian Ocean. The resources and the audacity of the pirates appear to be growing. The attacks pose a tremendous threat to stability and economic development in the region, including neighboring countries such as Kenya and Djibouti that rely on maritime trade and tourism. The more organized the pirates become, and the more lucrative their crimes, the more we are faced with another potential front in the fight against terrorism, one involving a state- less network of some of the worst international actors. The State Department 2004 report on counter terrorism in Africa states that the Somalia-based al-Ittihad al-Islami, AIAI, ``has become highly factionalized and diffuse, and its membership is difficult to define'' and that ``some members are sympathetic to and maintain ties'' with al-Qaida. State Department officials also acknowledge that AIAI is financing basic civil society needs in Somalia, including schools and basic health care. The international community is failing to empower Somali civil society. Without our attention and support, how long do we expect this community to refuse basic human needs funded by terrorist organizations? And what are the consequences of groups like AIAI being perceived by the Somali people as generous benefactors? The U.S. must work harder at providing an alternative to such extremist influences in Somalia. We can no longer insulate ourselves from weak states. We must engage. It is in our own national security interests that we work to strengthen institutions and empower civil society in weak and failing states in Africa in order to curtail opportunities for terrorists and other international criminals. A multifaceted approach is necessary for the future of Somalia and for the future of our own campaign against terrorism. We cannot stand by as terrorist threats cross borders and destabilize the Horn of Africa. The international community must intensify its maritime vigilance. The U.S. long-term policy should include coordinating with regional actors in Africa and the international community to aid positive actors working in Somalia, build institutional capacity and legitimacy, promote national reconciliation, and sever community dependency on terrorist funding for basic services. These are difficult challenges, but Somalia is not hopeless. A transition government and opposing factions are requesting international mediation and attention. They are asking us to act, and we must answer the call, for their sake as well as ours.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will promote openness and fair competition in the radio and concert industries. I have followed the changes in the radio and concert industries since the 1996 Telecommunication Act with great concern. For years, I have heard complaints from my constituents about the increasing concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industries and, in turn, the increasingly uneven playing field for small radio stations and independent concert promoters. For consumers this has meant less diversity, less local content and growing dissatisfaction with the radio and concerts they are offered. Most recently in the last Congress, I introduced broad legislation to address ownership consolidation and the anti-competitive practices common in the industry. These practices include tacit or explicit pay- for-play, or ``payola,'' payments, and corporate radio stations putting untoward pressure on artists to play at the same corporation's venues use affiliated concert promoters. While I continue to be concerned by consolidation and believe this centralization exacerbates the potential for abuse, the bill I introduce today focuses instead on the anti- competitive practices, whether they occur at a radio station group of a handful of stations or one that owns thousands of stations. Some might question why we need added scrutiny and accountability for the radio and concert industries specifically. Besides the unique role radio plays for communication and entertainment in each American's life, radio also is, in a sense, a public-private partnership. With radio's use of the public airwaves, it also has a responsibility to serve the public good. The abuses within the radio and concert industry are not entirely new. In fact, problems have occasionally sprung up almost throughout the entire history of the medium. There almost seems to be a cyclical pattern as the payola is rooted out and then several years later is reincarnated in slightly different form to grow to become pervasive again. So while the original payola practices predated the recent rapid consolidation in the industry, the concentration of power has made the problem more widespread and its effects possibly more severe on local stations, promoters, artists and consumers. While paying a radio station or radio station employee to play a certain song without telling the audience has a long history in radio, this does not make the fraud and bribery any more acceptable. In the 1950s, the practice was relatively simple. Artists, their labels or managers would often directly bribe DJs to play their songs either in cash or through other consideration. When this practice became public, there were investigations and Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took actions to block this payola. The most recent incarnation of payola takes a more complicated and sophisticated--corporate, if you will--approach to skirt the current rules that prevent direct pay-for-play. Indirect payments through independent music promoters have been an open secret, as have more direct payments, as the ground-breaking investigation of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer demonstrates. While the Spitzer investigation is ongoing, he has already uncovered significant abuses and this summer reached a $10 million settlement with a record label. While not traditionally considered payola, there are other abuses of power over airplay decisions by radio stations and their corporate parents, especially when the conglomerate also owns concert promoters and venues. This cross- ownership sets up a situation where the same corporation that is negotiating a contract for an artist to perform at its concert also controls the lifeblood of that artist's success--airplay of his or her songs. The result can be intense pressure on artists to play radio station-promoted shows and, often, to do so for less than the normal rate. This practice hurts the artist, hurts competing independent stations and promoters and, ultimately, hurts the listening public, which ends up choosing from songs on the radio that have been selected based on where and for whom the artist is performing a concert, and for the songs' artistic merit. Moreover, for any artist who deigns to refuse the direct or implied extortion from the conglomerate, as Don Henley's courageous testimony in a 2003 Commerce Committee hearing clearly explained, there is the risk of retaliation--either immediately or by boycotting the next single or album the artist produces. And with the consolidation in the industry, that boycott might not just be in one station in one market; it could be forty stations in many markets. Facing this kind of potential threat, you can see why even the most popular acts are afraid to speak publicly. The bill I introduce today proposes a multi-faceted approach to the various entrenched forms of payola. The bill would simultaneously strengthen the FCC's ability to prove and punish violators, close the loophole allowing indirect payola, prevent cross-ownership from hindering fair competition, and, perhaps most importantly, increase transparency through disclosure of the payments to radio stations from artists, labels, promoters and others who may have an interest in improperly influencing airplay decisions. The bill improves the FCC's ability to enforce payola violations through several means. It requires radio stations to make transactions with entities like record labels that might have an interest in influencing airplay on an ``arm's length basis.'' Moreover the bill requires record-keeping of such transactions and makes the records available to the FCC in the event of an investigation. In addition, the bill significantly increases penalties for payola violations and allows the FCC to consider revoking a station's license. As we have seen in the realm of indecency, multimillion dollar companies do not blink at the current fines of $10,000 per violation, but the prospect of putting a license in jeopardy will get their attention. As I've already mentioned, the current payola rules were put in place for an earlier, simpler incarnation of the practice--the direct bribing of DJs and stations. Payola has changed, often going through third parties such as independent music promoters or under the guise of a legitimate transaction. The bill broadens the current rules to include these indirect payments, so no matter what tortured path money or other consideration travels, if it is for airplay and not disclosed, it is payola. Cross-ownership of radio stations and concert promoters or venues poses a serious problem for fair competition. Without controls, the relationship injects the profitability of a concert and not artistic merit into airplay decisions. The bill would either prohibit this, in the case of cross-ownership, or place controls to ensure fair competition in the concert promotion industry. The final element of the bill--increased transparency--hopefully will have the biggest impact by deterring payola in all its past, present and future incarnations. The bill requires radio stations to disclose all receipts of payments or consideration that could be used as a front for payola along with a list of the songs played every month, broken down by label and artist. While corporations may not fear the current hard-to-prove $10,000 fines, they do understand public relations. The potential for consumers and the media to use these records to connect the dots should have a chilling effect on the practice and may mean that the FCC Enforcement Bureau will rarely even need to be involved. But if problems persist, this bill will provide the Bureau with better powers and evidence to combat payola in all its forms. Finally let me put this in context and remind my colleagues that radio stations use a public resource, the airwaves, to reach their listeners. With this use comes a responsibility to the public and an understanding that they accept a degree of increased scrutiny. My legislation strives to ensure that the public knows when it hears a song on the radio that it is because the station, the DJ, the public, or even a focus group, believes it has artistic merit and that it is something the listeners will enjoy. Too often, today's radio listeners are left to wonder whether a song was played because the station manager got a new laptop or because the station's parent company is producing the artist's upcoming concert. It boils down to choices. This bill will reinstate choices, the fundamental basis of competition; choice for the artists to pick which concerts to play and who they want to promote their concerts; choices for the radio stations to play songs based on merit, or at least not based on narrow financial interests; and ultimately choices for consumers as artistic merit instead of the ability to pay carefully disguised bribes broadens the field of artists who can compete. I am pleased that my bill has been endorsed by the following groups, and I am grateful for the input they have provided about problems in the radio and concert industries: the American Association of Independent Music/A2IM; the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada; Consumers Union; Free Press; the Future of Music Coalition; the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Inc.; and the Recording Artists' Coalition. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation to promote fair competition in the radio and concert industries. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation to promote fair competition in the radio and concert industries. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will promote openness and fair competition in the radio and concert industries. I have followed the changes in the radio and concert industries since the 1996 Telecommunication Act with great concern. For years, I have heard complaints from my constituents about the increasing concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industries and, in turn, the increasingly uneven playing field for small radio stations and independent concert promoters. For consumers this has meant less diversity, less local content and growing dissatisfaction with the radio and concerts they are offered. Most recently in the last Congress, I introduced broad legislation to address ownership consolidation and the anti-competitive practices common in the industry. These practices include tacit or explicit pay- for-play, or ``payola,'' payments, and corporate radio stations putting untoward pressure on artists to play at the same corporation's venues use affiliated concert promoters. While I continue to be concerned by consolidation and believe this centralization exacerbates the potential for abuse, the bill I introduce today focuses instead on the anti- competitive practices, whether they occur at a radio station group of a handful of stations or one that owns thousands of stations. Some might question why we need added scrutiny and accountability for the radio and concert industries specifically. Besides the unique role radio plays for communication and entertainment in each American's life, radio also is, in a sense, a public-private partnership. With radio's use of the public airwaves, it also has a responsibility to serve the public good. The abuses within the radio and concert industry are not entirely new. In fact, problems have occasionally sprung up almost throughout the entire history of the medium. There almost seems to be a cyclical pattern as the payola is rooted out and then several years later is reincarnated in slightly different form to grow to become pervasive again. So while the original payola practices predated the recent rapid consolidation in the industry, the concentration of power has made the problem more widespread and its effects possibly more severe on local stations, promoters, artists and consumers. While paying a radio station or radio station employee to play a certain song without telling the audience has a long history in radio, this does not make the fraud and bribery any more acceptable. In the 1950s, the practice was relatively simple. Artists, their labels or managers would often directly bribe DJs to play their songs either in cash or through other consideration. When this practice became public, there were investigations and Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took actions to block this payola. The most recent incarnation of payola takes a more complicated and sophisticated--corporate, if you will--approach to skirt the current rules that prevent direct pay-for-play. Indirect payments through independent music promoters have been an open secret, as have more direct payments, as the ground-breaking investigation of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer demonstrates. While the Spitzer investigation is ongoing, he has already uncovered significant abuses and this summer reached a $10 million settlement with a record label. While not traditionally considered payola, there are other abuses of power over airplay decisions by radio stations and their corporate parents, especially when the conglomerate also owns concert promoters and venues. This cross- ownership sets up a situation where the same corporation that is negotiating a contract for an artist to perform at its concert also controls the lifeblood of that artist's success--airplay of his or her songs. The result can be intense pressure on artists to play radio station-promoted shows and, often, to do so for less than the normal rate. This practice hurts the artist, hurts competing independent stations and promoters and, ultimately, hurts the listening public, which ends up choosing from songs on the radio that have been selected based on where and for whom the artist is performing a concert, and for the songs' artistic merit. Moreover, for any artist who deigns to refuse the direct or implied extortion from the conglomerate, as Don Henley's courageous testimony in a 2003 Commerce Committee hearing clearly explained, there is the risk of retaliation--either immediately or by boycotting the next single or album the artist produces. And with the consolidation in the industry, that boycott might not just be in one station in one market; it could be forty stations in many markets. Facing this kind of potential threat, you can see why even the most popular acts are afraid to speak publicly. The bill I introduce today proposes a multi-faceted approach to the various entrenched forms of payola. The bill would simultaneously strengthen the FCC's ability to prove and punish violators, close the loophole allowing indirect payola, prevent cross-ownership from hindering fair competition, and, perhaps most importantly, increase transparency through disclosure of the payments to radio stations from artists, labels, promoters and others who may have an interest in improperly influencing airplay decisions. The bill improves the FCC's ability to enforce payola violations through several means. It requires radio stations to make transactions with entities like record labels that might have an interest in influencing airplay on an ``arm's length basis.'' Moreover the bill requires record-keeping of such transactions and makes the records available to the FCC in the event of an investigation. In addition, the bill significantly increases penalties for payola violations and allows the FCC to consider revoking a station's license. As we have seen in the realm of indecency, multimillion dollar companies do not blink at the current fines of $10,000 per violation, but the prospect of putting a license in jeopardy will get their attention. As I've already mentioned, the current payola rules were put in place for an earlier, simpler incarnation of the practice--the direct bribing of DJs and stations. Payola has changed, often going through third parties such as independent music promoters or under the guise of a legitimate transaction. The bill broadens the current rules to include these indirect payments, so no matter what tortured path money or other consideration travels, if it is for airplay and not disclosed, it is payola. Cross-ownership of radio stations and concert promoters or venues poses a serious problem for fair competition. Without controls, the relationship injects the profitability of a concert and not artistic merit into airplay decisions. The bill would either prohibit this, in the case of cross-ownership, or place controls to ensure fair competition in the concert promotion industry. The final element of the bill--increased transparency--hopefully will have the biggest impact by deterring payola in all its past, present and future incarnations. The bill requires radio stations to disclose all receipts of payments or consideration that could be used as a front for payola along with a list of the songs played every month, broken down by label and artist. While corporations may not fear the current hard-to-prove $10,000 fines, they do understand public relations. The potential for consumers and the media to use these records to connect the dots should have a chilling effect on the practice and may mean that the FCC Enforcement Bureau will rarely even need to be involved. But if problems persist, this bill will provide the Bureau with better powers and evidence to combat payola in all its forms. Finally let me put this in context and remind my colleagues that radio stations use a public resource, the airwaves, to reach their listeners. With this use comes a responsibility to the public and an understanding that they accept a degree of increased scrutiny. My legislation strives to ensure that the public knows when it hears a song on the radio that it is because the station, the DJ, the public, or even a focus group, believes it has artistic merit and that it is something the listeners will enjoy. Too often, today's radio listeners are left to wonder whether a song was played because the station manager got a new laptop or because the station's parent company is producing the artist's upcoming concert. It boils down to choices. This bill will reinstate choices, the fundamental basis of competition; choice for the artists to pick which concerts to play and who they want to promote their concerts; choices for the radio stations to play songs based on merit, or at least not based on narrow financial interests; and ultimately choices for consumers as artistic merit instead of the ability to pay carefully disguised bribes broadens the field of artists who can compete. I am pleased that my bill has been endorsed by the following groups, and I am grateful for the input they have provided about problems in the radio and concert industries: the American Association of Independent Music/A2IM; the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada; Consumers Union; Free Press; the Future of Music Coalition; the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Inc.; and the Recording Artists' Coalition. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation to promote fair competition in the radio and concert industries. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this legislation to promote fair competition in the radio and concert industries. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring an old friend back to this body--the pay-go rule. I am even more pleased to say this is not some new pay-go, but rather good old-fashioned ``Classic'' pay-go. This is the pay-go we used to have in the Senate--a rule that said you had to pay for what you wanted. If you want to increase entitlement spending, you have to pay for it. If you want to increase tax expenditures or cut tax rates, then you have to pay for it. In offering this amendment, I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, and in particular I am pleased to, of course, have the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, as a cosponsor. As I said during the debate over the first part of the reconciliation scheme that was included in the budget resolution, there is no Senator more dedicated to a fiscally responsible Federal budget and to restoring sound budget rules than Senator Conrad. He is an acknowledged expert on the budget and the rules that govern its consideration, but as I also said during that debate, you do not have to be a Kent Conrad to understand the pay-go rule. It is a straightforward, commonsense requirement that whenever Congress wants to increase spending through entitlements or wants to reduce revenues from the Tax Code, then we have to pay for it or find 60 votes to make an exception to the rule. I say to the Presiding Officer, as you well know--and I thank you for your help on this amendment--that rule was an effective restraint on the fiscal appetites of Congress and the White House, and it was critical to our ability to actually balance the Federal books. We balanced the Federal books during the 1990s using the pay-go rule. Of course, when this body stopped following that rule, the bottom dropped out from under the budget. We went from a projected 10-year unified budget surplus of $5 trillion to massive projected deficits and backbreaking debt. I marvel at how rapidly this institution loses its fiscal bearings. In 1992, thanks in great part to the remarkable campaign of Ross Perot, the budget deficit became the No. 1 domestic priority of the Nation. I ran on that issue in my 1992 campaign for the Senate. Perhaps a little naively, I offered a plan to balance the budget with over 82 specific proposals to cut wasteful programs in just about every area of Government. As optimistic as I was, I was surprised at how passionately many in the Senate actually embraced that cause. And because of a tough deficit reduction package in 1993 and a more modest package in 1997, we put the budget on track to be balanced. We actually balanced the Federal budget without using the Social Security surpluses. We actually started paying down the Federal debt, most of which had been run up during the 1980s. Central to our ability to get on the right fiscal track was this pay- go rule. But all that work, all those tough decisions were squandered in the blink of a budgetary eye. The Federal budget is now in disastrous shape. Worse, we are on a track for even darker times. As Al Jolson famously said, ``You ain't seen nothin' yet.'' As the Senator from North Dakota has tirelessly said: We are in the sweet spot right now. That means the retirement of my generation, the baby boom generation, is around the corner. And with it, we will witness enormous new demands on the budget. If we can't get our act together now, there is little hope that we can face those demands responsibly. We have to stop running deficits. Running deficits caused the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. As Senator Conrad has noted, it isn't just the annual budget deficits that are the problem, it is our debt as well. Every dollar that we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes for fewer Government benefits. As I have noted before during previous pay-go debates, when the Government in this generation, in our generation, chooses to spend on current consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. That is not right. That is why this amendment is so critical. We absolutely must reinstate the pay-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert fiscal discipline. When the pay-go rule was in effect, that tough fiscal discipline actually governed the budget process. Under the current approach, it is the other way around. The annual budget resolution actually determines how much fiscal discipline we are willing to impose on ourselves. That simply has not worked, and it won't work. When Congress decides that it would be nice to create a new entitlement or enact new tax cuts and then adjust its budget rules to permit those policies, we are inviting a disastrous result. That is exactly what has happened. This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would simply return us to the rule under which Congress operated for the decade of the 1990s. It was instrumental in balancing the Federal budget. Many of us lived under that rule, and we know how effective it was. A real pay-go rule by itself would not eliminate annual budget deficits and balance the budget, but we will never get there without a real pay-go rule. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, time-tested amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Amendment No. 2651

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer my strong support for Senator Feinstein's amendment to change section 263(C) of the Tax Code, and I thank her for her work on it. The provision that her amendment targets allows large, integrated oil companies to expense, instead of capitalize, intangible drilling and development costs, such as fuel costs, workers' wages, and drilling equipment. This is a complicated way of saying that U.S. taxpayer dollars have been subsidizing the regular costs of integrated oil companies doing business, something that doesn't make sense. Repealing this provision of the Tax Code could result in upwards of $2 billion more dollars in the Treasury over the next 5 years. Two billion dollars instead of simply transferring this significant amount of money to companies we all know are currently experiencing record profits, these funds could support a variety of important programs or could be used to reduce our skyrocketing deficit so that our children don't inherit our fiscal mess. Integrated oil companies are some of the largest corporations in the world--they simply don't need this tax break. This amendment makes common sense and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of it.