Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Computer Trespass Clarification Act of 2005, which would amend and clarify section 217 of the USA-PATRIOT Act. This bill is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 2783. Section 217 of the PATRIOT Act addresses the interception of computer trespass communications. This bill would modify existing law to more accurately reflect the intent of the provision, and also protect against invasions of privacy. Section 217 was designed to permit law enforcement to assist computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking. The original Department of Justice draft of the bill that later became the PATRIOT Act included this provision. A section by section analysis provided by the Department on September 19, 2001, stated the following: ``Current law may not allow victims of computer trespassing to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring unauthorized attacks as they occur. Because service providers often lack the expertise, equipment, or financial resources required to monitor attacks themselves as permitted under current law, they often have no way to exercise their rights to protect themselves from unauthorized attackers. Moreover, such attackers can target critical infrastructures and engage in cyberterrorism. To correct this problem, and help to protect national security, the proposed amendments to the wiretap statute would allow victims of computer attacks to authorize persons `acting under color of law' to monitor trespassers on their computer systems in a narrow class of cases.'' I strongly supported the goal of giving computer system owners the ability to call in law enforcement to help defend themselves against hacking. Including such a provision in the PATRIOT Act made a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the drafters of the provision made it much broader than necessary, and refused to amend it at the time we debated the bill in 2001. As a result, the law now gives the government the authority to intercept communications by people using computers owned by others as long as they have engaged in some unauthorized activity on the computer, and the owner gives permission for the computer to be monitored--all without judicial approval. Only people who have a ``contractual relationship'' with the owner allowing the use of a computer are exempt from the definition of a computer trespasser under section 217 of the PATRIOT Act. Many people-- for example, college students, patrons of libraries, Internet cafes or airport business lounges, and guests at hotels--use computers owned by others with permission, but without a contractual relationship. They could end up being the subject of government snooping if the owner of the computer gives permission to law enforcement. My bill would clarify that a computer trespasser is not someone who has permission to use a computer by the owner or operator of that computer. It would bring the existing computer trespass provision in line with the purpose of section 217 as expressed in the Department of Justice's initial explanation of the provision. Section 217 was intended to target only a narrow class of people: Unauthorized cyberhackers. It was not intended to give the government the opportunity to engage in widespread surveillance of computer users without a warrant. I should note that there is no specific evidence that the provision is being abused. But, of course, unless criminal charges are brought against someone as a result of such surveillance, there would never be any notice at all that the surveillance has taken place. The computer owner authorizes the surveillance, and the FBI carries it out. There is no warrant, no court proceeding, no opportunity even for the subject of the surveillance to challenge the assertion of the owner that some unauthorized use of the computer has occurred. My bill would modify the computer trespass provision in the following ways to protect against abuse, while still maintaining its usefulness in cases of denial of service attacks and other forms of hacking. First, it would require that the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizing the interception has been subject to ``an ongoing pattern of communications activity that threatens the integrity or operation of such computer.'' In other words, the owner has to be the target of some kind of hacking. Second, the bill limits the length of warrantless surveillance to 96 hours. This is twice as long as is allowed for an emergency wiretap. With four days of surveillance, it should not be difficult for the government to gather sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant if continued surveillance is necessary. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to annually report on the use of Section 217 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Section 217 is one of the provisions that is subject to the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act and will expire at the end of 2005. We in the Congress need to do more oversight of the use of this and other provisions of PATRIOT Act in order to evaluate their effectiveness. The computer trespass provision now in the law as a result of section 217 of the PATRIOT Act leaves open the possibility for significant and unnecessary invasions of privacy. The reasonable and modest changes to the provision contained in this bill preserve the usefulness of the provision for investigations of cyberhacking, but reduce the possibility of government abuse. We must continually seek to balance the need for effective tools to fight crime and terrorism against the civil liberties of our citizens. The Computer Trespass Clarification Act strikes the right balance, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past several years, we have witnessed a disturbing erosion in Russia's democracy. Checks and balances, essential to the functioning of any democracy, have been undermined in Russia through the elimination of the independent media, the weakening of the judiciary, and the decline of a political opposition and citizen participation. In his inauguration speech, President Bush spoke about the ``force of human freedom'' and stated that it is the policy of the United States ``to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.'' But, the President has been unable to capitalize on his friendship with President Putin to prevent a backsliding in Russia's democracy. While President Putin speaks about his commitment to move down the path of democracy, his actions demonstrate otherwise. From 2000 until the present day, President Putin has tightened his grip on Russia, increasing the authoritarian nature of the Russian state. While many Russian experts understand that President Putin inherited a state mired in corruption and political violence, and dominated by powerful, unaccountable oligarchs, they have called Putin's approach to establishing security ``flawed and unfair.'' A Washington Post article in March 2004 described how fear was creeping back into Russia, reminiscent of the Soviet Union. A week before the Russian Presidential election in 2004, the article states: Scholars, journalists, reformist politicians, human rights activists and even business moguls describe an atmosphere of anxiety that has left them wary of crossing the Kremlin. The imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Russia's richest man and an oil tycoon, the disappearances of critics of Putin, as well as the flawed parliamentary elections in 2003, have been disturbing signs for those who care about democracy in Russia. The U.S. State Department in its Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2003 raise concerns over human rights abuses committed by the Government of Russia in Chechnya, as well as by Chechen rebels, the failure of the 2003 parliamentary elections to meet international standards, the impunity of law enforcement officials responsible for abuses, poor prison conditions, and a weakening of freedom of expression and the independence and freedom of some media. In the global survey, ``Freedom in the World,'' published by Freedom House in December 2004, Russia was downgraded to ``Not Free,'' the only country to register a negative category change in 2004. On all fronts, Russia's democracy appears to be weakening. In January 2002, the last significant independent Moscow TV station was shut down, many believe due to government pressure. Furthermore, radio and print media have increasingly been restricted. It was widely reported that during the parliamentary elections of 2003, television coverage was heavily biased toward the propresidency party, largely ignoring or criticizing Putin's opponents. In May 2004, the nongovernmental organization, the Committee to Protect Journalists, CPJ, named Russia one of the 10 worst places to be a journalist. CPJ states: A shift from blatant pressures to more subtle and covert tactics, such as politicized lawsuits and hostile corporate takeovers by businessmen with close ties to Putin, has allowed the Kremlin to stifle criticism of the president and reports on government corruption and human rights abuses committed by Russian forces in Chechnya. Furthermore, they note that journalists in Russia's provinces are murdered with impunity. As President Putin moves from ``managed democracy'' to soft authoritarianism, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, and others argue that Putin appears to be cracking down on civil society, a vital element of any thriving democracy. In May 2004, Putin used his state- of-the-nation speech to attack nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, accusing them of ``receiving financing from influential foreign foundations and serving dubious groups and commercial interests.'' The very real need to stop terrorist financing through charities or other organizations does not justify targeting legitimate civic groups and NGOs. Following Putin's state-of-the-nation speech, masked intruders ransacked the office of a major human rights organization in Tatarstan that provides legal support for victims of torture. In addition, the state-owned Center TV criticized NGOs, accusing them of being tied to anti-Russian interests. And, in June 2004, Russia's Foreign Minister met with several NGOs and urged them to rebut criticisms of the Council of Europe regarding Russia's human rights policies. Russia's judicial system is also believed to be far from independent, failing to serve as a counterweight to other branches of government. Human Rights Watch has expressed concern that the government under President Putin has conducted ``selective criminal prosecutions against perceived opponents . . . and scientists working with foreigners on sensitive topics.'' President Putin has proposed establishing executive control over the nomination of members of a key supreme court body that supervises the hiring and dismissal of judges. Furthermore, despite progress in implementing trial by jury, the Putin government appears to have manipulated jury selection in several high-profile cases or otherwise tried to influence jury deliberations. Chechnya continues to be an area of particular concern. While Russia has the right to combat terrorist threats on its territory, Russian and proxy forces regularly violate basic human rights of Chechen civilians. Disappearances, extrajudicial executions, rape, and torture of detainees all continue with disturbing frequency and with absolute impunity. Russian forces regularly conduct sweeps and cleansing operations, resulting in death, injury and abductions in what many call a . disproportionate use of force. These human rights abuses must end and those responsible should be held accountable. Since President Putin's reelection in March 2004, he has taken more steps to exert control over the state. In September 2004, following the tragic deaths of 330 people in Beslan, half of whom were children, President Putin undertook a set of political reforms that concentrated power in Moscow and decreased the power of Russia's regions. He proposed that regional governors no longer be popularly elected but instead be appointed by the President and ratified by regional legislatures. Legislation to this effect was introduced in October 2004 and signed into law by President Putin on December 12, 2004. Putin also decided that all Duma deputies be elected on the basis of national party lists, based on the proportion of votes each party gets nationwide. As Human Rights Watch states in its recent World Report 2005: The proposals would give the president de facto power to appoint governors, even more sway over the parliament, or State Duma, and increase the executive's influence over the judiciary. While it is clear that President Putin must act to confront a legitimate threat to security, a marginalization of different regions outside of Moscow may create an even greater political backlash. President Putin faces a challenging political environment in Russia. However, human rights and political freedoms must not be ignored in an attempt to establish security; their neglect will only lead to greater political turmoil. The United States must stand by its commitment to democracy in its relations with Russia. If Russia wants to be a member of the community of democracies, it must demonstrate a meaningful commitment to democratic principles.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the decision on whether to vote to confirm Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General of the United States has been difficult. As all of my colleagues know, I believe that Presidents are entitled to a great deal of deference in their cabinet nominations. I have voted in favor of a number of this President's nominees, including the current Attorney General, with whom I had serious disagreements on matters of policy and general ideology. My votes may not have always pleased my political supporters or my party's leadership. But in carrying out my part in the constitutional scheme, as one who is asked to advise on and consent to a President's nominations, I am guided by my conscience, and by the history and practices of the U.S. Senate. Rejecting a Cabinet nominee is a very rare event. The decision to do so must never be taken lightly. After a great deal of thought and careful consideration, I reached the conclusion that I could not support Judge Gonzales's nomination. Let me take a few minutes to explain my decision. The Attorney General of the United States is the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. The holder of that office must have an abiding respect for the rule of law. A formative experience for me, and for many of my generation, was the Watergate scandal, and particularly the Saturday night massacre on October 20, 1973. On that night, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy William Ruckelshaus both resigned from office rather than carry out President Nixon's order to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Those acts of courage remain for me a shining example of the role that the Attorney General plays in our government. They give me the unshakeable conviction that his or her ultimate allegiance must be to the rule of law, not to the President. As Judge Gonzales himself said as he stood next to the President on the day he was nominated The American people expect and deserve a Department of Justice guided by the rule of law. I am pained to say that Mr. Gonzales's performance as White House Counsel and, particularly, his appearance before the Judiciary Committee and his responses to our questions, have given me grave doubts about whether he meets that test. Judge Gonzales too often has seen the law as an obstacle to be dodged or cleared away in furtherance of the President's policies. Judge Gonzales has held the position of White House Counsel since the beginning of this administration and through a very difficult and challenging period in our history. The response of the administration to the September 11 attacks and the fight against terrorism have brought some very difficult legal issues to his desk. Some of these issues touch on the very core of our national identity. What kind of nation are we going to be during times of war? How will we treat those we capture on the battlefield? How will we live up to our international treaty obligations as we fight terrorism? Time after time, Judge Gonzales has been a key participant in developing secret legal theories to justify policies that, as they have become public, have tarnished our Nation's international reputation and made it harder, not easier, for us to prevail in this struggle. He requested and then disseminated the infamous Office of Legal Counsel memo that for almost 2 years, until it was revealed and discredited, made it the position of the Government of the United States of America that the International Convention Against Torture, and statutes implementing that treaty, prohibit only causing physical pain ``equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury; such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'' Under that standard, the images from Abu Ghraib that revolted the entire world would not be considered torture, nor, according to some, would the shocking interrogation technique called ``waterboarding.'' Judge Gonzales advised the President that he could declare the entire legal regime of the Geneva Conventions inapplicable to the conflict in Afghanistan. Secretary of State Powell rightly pointed out the danger of this course, but Judge Gonzales persisted. This theory could actually have given greater legal protection to terrorists, by taking away a key part of the legal regime under which war crimes can be prosecuted. The idea that the Geneva Conventions protect terrorists who commit war crimes, which Judge Gonzales repeated in his hearing, is a dramatic misunderstanding of the law, and it was very troubling to hear it from the person who would coordinate our legal strategy in the fight against terrorism. Judge Gonzales was also an architect of the administration's position on the legal status of those it called ``enemy combatants,'' a position that was soundly rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States last year. In all of these areas, Judge Gonzales served as the President's lawyer, and facilitated the President's policies. I believe that he failed the President and the Nation badly. But these past mistakes need not have been conclusive in my assessment of his suitability for the office of Attorney General. For example, I also have serious concerns about the role that the national security adviser--and now Secretary of State--Dr. Condoleezza Rice, played in crafting and implementing the administration's badly flawed foreign policy. But I do not think that taking part in a policy I strongly oppose is sufficient grounds for me to oppose a cabinet nomination. As I have indicated, the President--any President--is entitled to be advised by those who share his beliefs and confidence. Had Judge Gonzales in his testimony before this Committee recognized the serious problems with the judgments he made on these issues and given convincing assurances that he understands that his new role will require a different approach and a new allegiance to the rule of law, I might have been convinced to defer to the President once again. Attorney General Ashcroft, for example, was unequivocal in expressing his commitment, under oath, to enforcing laws with which he disagreed as a Senator--laws and court decisions that he, I think, abhored, but he made it very clear that his role was to uphold the law as it stands. But Judge Gonzales's appearance before the Judiciary Committee was deeply disappointing. When given the opportunity under oath to show that he would be adequately committed to the rule of law as our Nation's chief law enforcement officer, he failed to do so. He indicated that the infamous OLC torture memo is no longer operative, but that he does not disagree with the conclusions expressed in it. He reiterated erroneous interpretations, of the effect that applying the Geneva Conventions to the war on Afghanistan would have on the treatment of members of al-Qaida captured in combat. Most disturbingly, he refused time after time to repudiate the most far-reaching and significant conclusion of the OLC memo--that the President has the authority as Commander-in-Chief to immunize those acting at his direction from the application of U.S. law. This failure goes directly to the question of his commitment to the rule of law. Under our system of government, the Attorney General of the United States may be called upon to investigate and even prosecute the President. We cannot have a person heading the United States Department of Justice who believes that the President is above the law. I and other members of the Judiciary Committee questioned Judge Gonzales closely about this issue. He hid behind an aversion to hypothetical questions, he conjured up his own hypothetical scenarios of unconstitutional statutes, but he simply refused to say, without equivocation, that the President is not above the law. On the torture issue in particular, Judge Gonzales repeatedly told us that he opposes torture and that the President has never authorized torture. Thus, he indicated, the question of whether the President acting as Commander in Chief can authorize torture has never and will never come up. I certainly hope that we can rely on those assurances, but the Founders of this Nation designed a system where even the President is bound by our laws--precisely so that we would not have to rely on trust alone that the President will act in accordance with them. I think the Judiciary Committee, and the American people, deserved to hear whether the next Attorney General agrees that the President has the power to disobey laws as fundamental to our national character as the prohibition on torture. Judge Gonzales refused to address this question unequivocally, and that left me deeply troubled. Mr. President, Judge Gonzales has a compelling personal story, and many fine qualities as a lawyer. If he is confirmed by the Senate, there are many issues on which I hope we can work together for the good of the country. But I cannot support his nomination. Not because he is too conservative, or because I disagree with a specific policy position he has taken, but because I am not convinced that he possesses the abiding respect for the rule of law that our country needs in these difficult times in its Attorney General. I will vote ``No.'' I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the United Nations' Commission of Inquiry on the crisis in Darfur reported to the Security Council on Monday of this week. Like every credible account of what has happened in Darfur, the report makes for grim reading. The Commission pointed to the ``killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence'' in its discussion of the violations of international law that have occurred in the area, and also found that there may have been Sudanese Government officials and others who acted ``with genocidal intent.'' This report stands in stark contrast to the positive news that emerged from Sudan last month, when a comprehensive agreement to end the decades-long, devastating north-south civil war was signed. I welcomed that agreement, and I hope it is successful. But the truth is that I have little confidence in the Government of Sudan, and I see no reason to believe that a north-south peace agreement will awaken that government to its responsibility to protect all of its citizens. Just days after the historic peace agreement was signed, I visited the refugee camps of eastern Chad and spoke to Sudanese citizens who had fled Darfur. They spoke of their desperate need for basic security back at home, and they are right. Consistent reports indicate that the violence in Darfur has continued. The Commission of Inquiry's recent report serves to remind all of us, Mr. President, that tragedy persists in Sudan, and the world has not done enough to stop it. Much of the attention surrounding this report, Mr. President, has focused on the Commission's recommendation that the International Criminal Court, or ICC, take up the Darfur issue with the intention of trying those responsible for atrocities. Just as the question of whether or not to use the word ``genocide'' was, for some time, a debate that distracted attention from the need to take meaningful action to bring security to the people of Darfur, I fear that a new issue--the question of whether or not the crimes committed in Darfur should be taken up by the International Criminal Court--may soon dominate the debate. Mr. President, the administration is implacably opposed to the ICC. Frankly, this is a subject on which the President and I share some common ground. I have not supported joining the ICC as it stands. I want more protection for our troops to ensure that they will not be targets of unjust and politically motivated prosecutions. But I do believe that it was a mistake to walk off in a huff as the ICC was taking shape. It is hard to protect our troops from unfair prosecutions if we aren't at the table to win those protections. I also believe that threatening our allies and trying to bully them into changing their position on the ICC, rather than sitting at the table to work these issues out, was a mistake. There are ways to protect our interests that do not involve infuriating the allies that we need to win the war on terrorism. Certainly there are better ways to protect our interests than to stand in the way of trying people guilty of what our own administration has called genocide. The American Servicemembers Protection Act, which Congress passed to give concrete form to the objections that many have to the ICC, contains a provision stating: Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. It seems to me that the crisis in Darfur may be precisely the kind of situation that such a provision was intended to cover. We have an interest--a moral interest and a political interest--in refusing to accept impunity for the grave abuses that have been committed in Darfur and in promoting long-term stability by insisting on accountability. There is no question of American troops or political figures being involved. The legitimate concerns that we have with the ICC simply are relevant to this situation. The administration's position today, as I understand it, is that we should create an entirely new international tribunal for Sudan. If that is what it takes to bring some justice to the people of Darfur, so be it. But it is not really difficult to understand why other members of the international community would be resistant to creating an entirely new structure, potentially every time that serious crimes against humanity occur, when a structure already exists for the express purposes of dealing with these issues. Particularly when our own administration has been pressing existing ad-hoc tribunals to wrap up their costly but important work, it seems odd to create another ad-hoc mechanism when the ICC exists. Most worryingly, it gives those who would rather continue to wallow in endless reviews and deliberations while people in Darfur die another opportunity to delay reviews and meaningful action. So I believe that the administration should think about what makes good sense in this case. Efforts to bring an end to the crisis in Darfur have faltered, time and again, due to a lack of multilateral political will. Security Council members were unable to do more than contemplate the possibility of sanctions in the face of a terrible man- made catastrophe. We must continue to build a solid international coalition to pressure the Sudanese regime. I know that many of my colleagues and many in the administration share my frustration with the grace periods, the delays, the empty threats, and the hesitations. It is well past time, then, to do something about that. If we can send a former Secretary of State around the world to encourage others to relieve Iraqi debt, then we can appoint a very senior Presidential envoy to focus on this problem, to drum up support in capitals around the world, to squeeze every drop of potential cooperation from others with intense discussions and negotiations. The Government of Sudan should feel intense pressure every day, not hear mild scoldings and mixed messages every month or so. And the U.S. should not muddle our message by getting tangled up in our contorted position on the ICC. Now the Commission of Inquiry's report has the potential to prod other states into action. It would be a terrible shame if the United States, once at the forefront of urging action on Sudan, now became a part of the problem.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senator from Maine, Olympia Snow, and the Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden as an original cosponsor of the bipartisan Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs (MEND) Act. This bill takes necessary steps to ensure that our seniors, and our taxpayers, receive the best price possible on prescription drugs under the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. One of the primary reasons I voted against the Medicare Modernization Act was because I felt that it did not go far enough in addressing the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs. Without strong, proactive measures to keep the prices of prescription drugs in check, seniors will continue to struggle to afford their prescription drugs, even with Medicare's help, and the overall cost of the Medicare Program will continue to mushroom. There is bipartisan agreement that by prohibiting the Medicare Program from negotiating the prices of prescription drugs, the Medicare Modernization Act is actually failing to utilize the purchasing power of the Medicare Program. The MEND Act will repeal this prohibition, and allow--and in some circumstances mandate--the Secretary to negotiate the prices of prescription drugs. This type of negotiation will save taxpayers' dollars while reducing the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. The MEND Act also provides Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers with valuable information on the prices of prescription drugs under the new Medicare benefit. This reporting will ensure that the prices of the drugs most used by seniors do not go up just as the Medicare prescription drug benefit goes into effect. It will also ensure that seniors and others who depend on Medicare have the complete, accurate information they need when deciding upon a prescription drug plan under Medicare. It is important that we act now, in a bipartisan manner, to fix the flaws included in the Medicare Modernization Act before the prescription drug benefit begins next year. The MEND Act will help both those who depend on the Medicare Program, and those who have to pay for it, by acting to rein in the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to again be an original cosponsor of Senator Collins' Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act. This important legislation will coordinate and simplify the often complicated and confusing homeland security grant process. This bill will make it much easier for local first responders to get funding by reducing the many, and often redundant, grant applications steps. The amendment also gives local officials far more flexibility in spending homeland security dollars, including paying for overtime costs associated with homeland security tasks and training. Successful programs, such as FIRE Act grants, the COPS program, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant program, are protected in this legislation. The legislation also tackles the controversial topic of how to allocate funding. I believe it has struck a fair balance by both allocating funding based on threat, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission and others, and maintaining baseline funding so that States and local officials can have a predictable stream of funding to meet the homeland security needs faced by all jurisdictions. As Senator Collins noted, the support this bill has gotten from Senators from both large and small States is indicative of the balanced approach taken by this legislation. The Senate adopted this measure by voice vote in the last Congress as an amendment to the intelligence reform bill and it is my hope that the Senate will soon take up and pass this important bill. Simplifying and rationalizing the current homeland security grant system should be a top priority. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to adequately allocate resources to meet our homeland security needs.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, as I did in the Foreign Relations Committee, I cast my vote in favor of the confirmation of Dr. Rice to be Secretary of State. I did so not because I endorse Dr. Rice's views but because, barring serious concerns about a nominee's qualifications or serious ethical lapses, the President has the right to appoint Cabinet officers who share his ideology and his perspective. In keeping with Senate practices and precedents, my inclination is to give the President--any President--substantial deference in his Cabinet choices. I do not agree with many of the President's foreign policy choices. But as President, he generally has a right to a Cabinet that shares his perspective and agenda. However, I want to be clear that I was troubled by some of Dr. Rice's statements in the hearing. Our most senior diplomat, our emissary to the entire world, should be able to represent our core values. Dr. Rice's failure, and the failure of the administration, to categorically reject tactics that the average American would acknowledge to be torture is more than disappointing. It is dangerous, and it is shameful. I also want to restate my view that the President's foreign policy over the last 4 years has been, on many fronts, misguided and self- defeating. I have discussed these issues in much greater detail on the Senate floor and in the Foreign Relations Committee. I am troubled by the damage done to our image around the world, I am concerned by our loss of focus in fighting terrorism, I am angry about the use of shifting justifications and faulty information to sell the war in Iraq, I am angry about the failure to plan for the fact that overthrowing a regime leads to disorder and disorder leads to looting, I am angry about the official insistence on grossly underestimating the bill that would be handed to the American taxpayer and then declining to budget for this massive expense once its parameters became more clear, I am angry about the mismanagement of efforts to put a competent Iraqi security force in place, I am angry about the woefully slow pace of reconstruction, and I am angry about this administration's failure to ensure that our troops were adequately equipped for the circumstances in which they found themselves. Many people in this country and in this Congress are troubled not only by the mistakes, but by the fact that there appears to be no real accountability for these failures. At one point in the course of the hearing, Dr. Rice expressed some indignation regarding questions or remarks that she felt impugned her credibility. Her credibility is a legitimate question. Dr. Rice made sweeping, public characterizations about aluminum tubes sought by Iraq before the war began that were, quite plainly, misleading. She permitted a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, a reference that she knew the intelligence did not support, to be included in a major presidential address. She has a credibility problem, not just among skeptics in this country, but around the world. Once confirmed, Dr. Rice will be accountable to Congress in a way that she was not as the President's National Security Advisor. I hope that Dr. Rice fully understands her obligations to tell the duly elected representatives of the American people the whole truth. President Bush, like any President, is entitled to a Cabinet that reflects his views. But I will continue to oppose every bad policy, to question every baseless assertion, and to advocate for a wiser course that will make our country more secure. The stakes for the current and future generations of Americans are far too high to do anything else.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that would put an end to automatic cost-of-living adjustments for congressional pay. As I have noted when I raised this issue in past years, it is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Most of our constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, amendment, and a vote on the record. I regret to say, that current law permits Congress to avoid that public debate and vote. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that nothing be done to stop it. The annual pay raise takes effect unless Congress acts. This stealth pay raise mechanism began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. In section 704 of that act, Members of Congress voted to make themselves entitled to an annual raise equal to half a percentage point less than the employment cost index, one measure of inflation. It is true, that on occasion Congress has voted to deny itself the raise, and the traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote is the Treasury appropriations bill. But that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. Just last year, for example, the Treasury appropriations bill was slipped into the massive Omnibus Appropriations conference report, and thus it was completely shielded from amendment. Senators were effectively prevented from offering an amendment to force an up or down vote on the annual pay raise. And that situation was not unique. Getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise is a haphazard affair at best, and it should not be that way. The burden should not be on those who seek a public debate and recorded vote on the Member pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end. This issue is not a new question. It was something that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. On September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States. Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan Legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three-fourths of the States. The 27th amendment to the Constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.'' I try to honor that limitation in my own practices. In my own case, throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th amendment. The stealth pay raises like the one that Congress allowed last year, at a minimum, certainly violate the spirit of that amendment. This practice must end. This bill will end it. Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up-or-down to raise congressional pay. My bill would simply require us to vote in the open. We owe our constituents nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2005. This bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law. Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been almost 1,000 executions across the country, including three at the Federal level. At the same time, over 100 people on death row were later found innocent and released from death row. Exonerated inmates are not only removed from death row, but they are usually released from prison altogether. Apparently, these people never should have been convicted in the first place. While death penalty proponents claim that the death penalty is fair, efficient, and a deterrent, the fact remains that our criminal justice system has failed and has resulted in at least 117 very grave mistakes. Nine hundred and forty-four executions, and 117 exonerations in the modern death penalty era. That is an embarrassing statistic, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country. And we continue to learn about more cases in which our justice system has failed. Since I first introduced this bill in November of 1999, 36 death row inmates have been exonerated throughout the country, 12 since I introduced this bill in the last Congress in February 2003. Since I last introduced this bill, 115 people have been executed nationwide. How many innocents are among them? We may never know. While executions continue and the death row population grows, the national debate on the death penalty intensifies and has become even more vigorous. The number of voices joining in to express doubt about the use of capital punishment in America is growing. As evidence of the flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder. Now they can be heard from college campuses and courtrooms and podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the Supreme Court. We must not ignore them. That our modern society relies on killing as punishment is disturbing enough. Even more disturbing, however, is that our States' and Federal Government's use of the death penalty is often not consistent with principles of due process, fairness, and justice. These principles are the foundation of our criminal justice system. It is clearer than ever before that we have put innocent people on death row. In addition, statistics show that those States that have the death penalty are more likely to put people to death for killing white victims than for killing black victims. After the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, the Federal Government first resumed death penalty prosecutions after enactment of a 1988 Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. The Federal death penalty was then expanded significantly in 1994, when the omnibus crime bill allowed its use to apply to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. Since 1994, Federal prosecutions seeking the death penalty have now accelerated. A survey on the Federal death penalty system from 1988 to early 2000 was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2000. That report showed troubling racial and geographic disparities in the Federal Government's administration of the death penalty. In other words, who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the region of the country where the defendant is prosecuted. Attorney General Janet Reno was so disturbed by the results of that report that she ordered a further, in- depth study of the results. Attorney General John Ashcroft pledged to continue that study, but we still await the results of that further study. The Federal Government must do all that it can to ensure that no person is ever subject to harsher penalties because of the color of the defendant's skin. I am certain that not one of my colleagues here in the Senate, not a single one, would defend racial discrimination in this ultimate punishment. The most fundamental guarantee of our Constitution is equal justice under law, and equal protection of the laws. Yet we have a system in place today that raises grave questions about whether that guarantee is being met. While the Federal death penalty system is clearly plagued by flaws, there are 38 States across our Nation that also authorize the use of capital punishment. And like the Federal system, those systems are not free from error. Five years ago, Governor George Ryan took the historic step of placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois and creating an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty system. The Commission conducted an extensive study of the death penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for reform of the death penalty system. The Commission concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the innocent is alarmingly real. Governor Ryan later pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death row inmates to life in prison before he left office in January 2003: Illinois is not alone. Four years ago, then Governor Parris Glendening learned of suspected racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. Governor Glendening did not look the other way. He commissioned the University of Maryland to conduct the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Then faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, Governor Glendening acknowledged that it was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions. Unfortunately, Governor Bob Ehrlich later lifted that moratorium and executions have resumed in Maryland. The Maryland study was released in January 2003, and the findings should startle us all. The study found that blacks accused of killing whites are simply more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill whites. Maryland and Illinois are not exceptions to a rule, nor anomalies in an otherwise perfect system. In fact, since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 81 percent of capital cases across the country have involved white victims, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are African Americans or Hispanic Americans. There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country. While the research done in Maryland and Illinois has yielded shocking results, there are 36 other States that authorize the use of the death penalty, most of them far more frequently. Twenty of the 38 States that authorize capital punishment have executed more inmates than Maryland, and 14 of those States have carried out more executions than Illinois. So while we are closer to uncovering the unthinkable truth about the flaws in the Maryland and Illinois death penalty systems, there are 36 other States with systems that are most likely plagued with the same flaws. And yet, the killing continues. At the beginning of 2005, I cannot help but believe that our progress has been tarnished by our Nation's not only continuing, but increasing use of the death penalty. We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. Historically, we are one of the first nations to speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. We should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard. Over the last few years, some prominent voices in our country have done just that. And they are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend Pat Robertson, George Will, former FBI Director William Sessions, Republican Governor George Ryan, and Democratic Governor Parris Glendening. The voices of those questioning our application of the death penalty are growing in number, and they are growing louder. And while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system, we cannot help but note that our use of the death penalty stands in stark contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. There are now 117 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. The European Union denies membership in the alliance to those nations that use the death penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on all States within the United States to abolish the death penalty. This is significant because it reflects the unanimous view of a group of nations with which the United States enjoys the closest of relationships and shares the deepest common values. What is even more troubling in the international context is that the United States is now one of only five countries that imposes the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles. So, while a May 2002 Gallup poll found that 69 percent of Americans oppose the death penalty for those under the age of 18, we are one of only five nations on this earth that puts to death people who were under 18 years of age when they committed their crimes. The others are Iran, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. In the last decade, the United States has executed more juvenile offenders than all other nations combined. These are countries that we often criticize for human rights abuses. We should remove any basis for charges that human rights violations are taking place on our own soil by halting the execution of people who were not even adults when they committed the crimes for which they were sentenced to die. No one can reasonably argue that executing child offenders is a normal or acceptable practice in the world community. And I do not think that we should be proud that the United States is the world leader in the execution of child offenders. As we begin a new year and another Congress, our society is still far from fully just. The continued use of the death penalty shames us. The penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' applies here in the most fundamental way. Our Nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of criminals. Just as our Nation did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek justice in this new century. And it is not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our justice system as a truly just system that deserves the respect of our own people and the world requires that we do so. Our Nation's striving to remain the leading defender of freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so. Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind. I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing the death penalty in our great Nation. I also call on each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and integrity to our criminal justice system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will fix one of the fundamental flaws of the Medicare prescription drug benefit signed into law last Congress. The ``Efficiency in Government Health Care Spending Act'' will remove language included in the Medicare Modernization Act that prohibits the Medicare program from negotiating prescription drug prices with manufacturers. I believe that the Medicare prescription drug benefit does far too little to bring down the prices of prescription drugs, and that there are not enough measures to keep the skyrocketing cost of the program in check. In fact, it actually takes away one of the best tools the Medicare program could use in bringing down prescription drug prices by denying the government the ability to negotiate price discounts on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. My bill will allow the Federal Government to take advantage of the purchasing power of the Medicare program, saving taxpayers' dollars while reducing the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. We need to act now to fix the flaws included in the Medicare prescription drug benefit, before the benefit begins next year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will remove the multi-billion dollar ``stabilization fund'' from the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. This stabilization fund is in essence a slush fund that gives billions of dollars to private insurance companies. This is not an efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. In fact, it's not clear why it's even necessary. If private managed care plans are successful in bringing costs down, as backers of the new Medicare bill expect, and if seniors supposedly want to choose private plans, as backers of the new Medicare bill believe, then why should American taxpayers pay private companies more money to get more people to enroll in them? We should not be subsidizing private health insurance companies in the name of Medicare reform. It is fiscally irresponsible, in a time of record deficits, to use taxpayers' dollars as a giveaway to private insurance companies. By removing this multi-billion slush fund, my bill will save the American taxpayers $10 billion. Many analysts, including the Administration's analysts, predict that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will far surpass the $400 billion budgeted for it. We need to look carefully at how we spend Medicare dollars, so that we can ensure that the program remains solvent for future generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to comment briefly on voting irregularities that occurred during our most recent presidential election. While some steps were taken after the 2000 election to help rectify a number of problems with our voting process that were identified across the country, the election in November demonstrates that more needs to be done. The outcome of the November election will not change because of the current process underway in both the Senate and the House, but I certainly understand the goal of those who have initiated this debate with their written objections to certifying the election results. While I understand that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) has indicated that his campaign's legal team was unable to find evidence that would change the outcome of the election, enough questions have been raised to justify a thorough examination by Congress and the administration. Of course, the rules governing this debate are highly restrictive, and do not afford any meaningful review of potential voting irregularities, let alone the consideration of possible solutions to any problems. That effort will have to be done outside the confines of the specific work we have today, and to that end, I strongly hope the Senate Rules Committee will make this the very highest priority, and that the Senate's leadership will schedule any legislation that comes from such a review for prompt floor action. Since the election, I have heard both Democrats and Republicans pledge to work together to tackle some of our most pressing issues. We are 3 days into the 109th Congress and it is time to put that promise to the test. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to help ensure that in future elections every eligible citizen who wishes to vote is able to do so and all votes are counted. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I express my sincere sympathy for the millions of people affected by the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck Southeast Asia, South Asia, and East Africa on December 26. The scale of this disaster is overwhelming, and the human losses are horrifying. Families have been shattered and whole communities lost, and because so many international tourists were in the region, virtually every part of the world--including the United States--is represented in the list of casualties. I know the sorrow that I feel as I review the reports of devastating losses is shared by the people of Wisconsin and by all Americans. I know that we also share a sense of resolve--resolve to provide whatever assistance we can to the survivors and the affected communities, and resolve to be steadfast partners in the long-term reconstruction efforts that must follow the relief operations. I vividly recall the powerful voices that rose up from all corners of the globe in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I remember how they conveyed a sense of solidarity and support that gave our country comfort and affirmed the bonds that unite all of humanity, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or religion. Now, countless American voices are also sounding loudly and clearly in that same spirit. I am grateful for the efforts of so many around the world to come to the aid of those in need, including U.S. military personnel who are working day and night to help. Businesses and individuals from around Wisconsin have contacted my office, looking for ways that they can help. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the resolution before the Senate that expresses our sympathy and pledges our support to the victims of this catastrophe, and I pledge to continue working with my colleagues to ensure that our words continue to be matched by our actions.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, with a recognition that this bill is imperfect, and with the firm conviction that this effort is only one step in a much broader effort needed to get this country on the right track to effectively defeat the terrorist forces that have attacked this country, I will vote in favor of the intelligence reform conference report today. I have tremendous respect for the 9/11 Commission that made the recommendations at the heart of this legislation. Their report was not characterized by an ill-considered rush to simply act, but rather an imperative to act wisely. It was not colored by partisan biases, or tainted by self deluding rosy scenarios about where we stand as a country. I may not agree with every word in the 9/11 Commission's report, but I strongly agree with the vast majority of it, and I believe that the Commission performed a tremendous service for the American people. Among the most detailed and thoughtful recommendations of the Commission were those focused on the urgent need for reform of America's intelligence community. By stressing unified effort, and most importantly, accountability, the Commission pointed the way toward the reforms contained in this bill. This bill puts someone in charge of America's intelligence community--someone to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the elected representatives of the American people in the Congress. The Director of National Intelligence will be in charge not simply via title and not only because we reorganized boxes on an organizational chart. This legislation provides real authorities to the DNI in terms of allocating resources, establishing tasking priorities, and ensuring information-sharing to unify our efforts. It is up to the Director to use the powers granted in this bill to make this community function--to make sure that the right people have the right resources and the right priorities, and that they share crucial information with their colleagues. And I will add that it is up to the President of the United States and this Congress to ensure that the lines of authority and the clear accountability laid out in the language of this legislation come alive. We must insist on real accountability; we must accept nothing less. The conference report also establishes, in law, the mandate for the National Counterterrorism Center to bring an integrated effort to that urgent priority. If we are ever to connect the disparate dots that can shed light on the methods, the plans, and the vulnerabilities of fluid, flexible terrorist networks that operate in the shadows, we must integrate our own efforts, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental organizing principle. However, I am troubled by some provisions that were added in conference that have nothing to do with reforming our intelligence network. The bill includes in section 6001 what has come to be known as the ``lone wolf'' provision. The lone wolf provision eliminates the requirement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, that surveillance or searches be carried out only against persons suspected of being agents of foreign powers or terrorist organizations. I am very concerned about the implications of this provision for civil liberties in this country. It is important to remember that FISA itself is an exception to traditional constitutional restraints on criminal investigations, allowing the government to gather foreign intelligence information through wiretaps and searches without having probable cause that a crime has been or is going to be committed. The courts have permitted the government to proceed with surveillance in this country under FISA's lesser standard of suspicion because the power is limited to investigations of foreign powers and their agents. This bill therefore writes out of the statute a key requirement necessary to the lawfulness of intrusive surveillance powers that may very well otherwise be unconstitutional. By allowing searches or wiretaps under FISA of persons merely suspected of engaging in or preparing to engage in terrorism, the bill essentially eliminates the protections of the Fourth Amendment. I voted against the lone wolf bill when it passed the Senate early in this Congress. I believe there are better and more constitutional ways to deal with a situation where evidence of a connection to a foreign government or terrorist organization is not easily obtained. Even if section 6001 survives constitutional challenge, it would mean that non-U.S. persons could have electronic surveillance and searches authorized against them using the lesser standards of FISA even though there is no conceivable foreign intelligence aspect to their case. This provision may very well result in a dramatic increase in the use of FISA warrants in situations that do not justify such extraordinary government power. When the lone wolf provision was considered in the Senate as a stand alone bill last year, I supported an amendment by Senator Feinstein that we thought was a reasonable alternative way to make sure that FISA can be used against a lone wolf terrorist, without eliminating the important agent of a foreign power requirement. The amendment would have created a permissive presumption that if there is probable cause to believe that a non-U.S. person is engaged in or preparing to engage in international terrorism, the individual can be considered to be an agent of a foreign power even if the evidence of a connection to a foreign power is not clear. The use of a permissive presumption rather than eliminating the foreign power requirement would have maintained judicial oversight and review on a case by case basis on the question of whether the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. The permissive presumption would permit the FISA judge to decide, in a given case, if the government has gone too far in requesting a FISA warrant. Senator Feinstein's formulation would have put some limit on the government's ability to use this new power to dramatically extend FISA's reach. If the government comes to the conclusion that an individual is truly acting on his or her own, then our criminal laws concerning when electronic surveillance and searches can be used are more than sufficient. True lone wolf terrorists can and should be investigated and prosecuted in our criminal justice system. Section 6001 allows the government to use FISA to obtain a warrant for surveillance even if it knows that the subject has no connection whatsoever with a foreign power or a terrorist organization. That is not right. I am also very concerned about the material support, section 6601 et seq., and pre-trial detention, section 6952, provisions contained in the conference report. Neither of these provisions was considered by the Senate, or even by the Senate Judiciary Committee. While it appears that the material support provision adopted by the conference is not as broad as the provision contained in the House bill, its full implications cannot possibly be analyzed in the brief time we have to consider this bill. The material support provision amends and expands the current crime of providing material support to terrorists or terrorist organizations. One federal court, of course, has ruled that a provision of the current statute is unconstitutional because it criminalizes First Amendment protected activities. In January, a federal judge in California ruled that a provision added by the PATRIOT Act criminalizing the provision of ``expert advice or assistance'' to a terrorist organization was vague and therefore unconstitutional. The judge found that the term ``expert advice or assistance'' could be interpreted to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment. The judge found that the PATRIOT Act bans all expert advice and assistance, including providing peacemaking or conflict resolution advice, and places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance that is banned. The conference report attempts to cure this constitutional defect in the law. It states that the law criminalizing providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization shall not be construed to abridge rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The conference report also allows an exception for providing personnel, training, or expert advice or assistance that is approved by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. But I am not convinced that these provisions cure the constitutional flaws. And expanding this provision is therefore the wrong way to go. Furthermore, as I noted earlier, the material support provision in the conference report has not been debated and analyzed in the Senate Judiciary Committee or even on the floor of the Senate when this bill was considered before the election. The 9/11 Commission strongly recommended that when determining whether to expand Federal law enforcement power, the burden is on the executive branch to show how its proposals would materially enhance security and what steps it will take to ensure the protection of civil liberties. The executive branch has not even started to meet that test here. We don't know how this new provision will work, and what problems might arise because of it. We haven't had the opportunity to consult with experts and consider amendments in the normal legislative process. Congress and the American people deserve a full debate on this issue. Inserting this provision in the conference report without that debate was a mistake. Similarly, the pretrial detention provision was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and the administration has never shown how current law is inadequate. Furthermore, like the material support provision, this provision did not receive adequate consideration by the Senate. At the only hearing where this issue was raised this year, the Department of Justice could not give a single example where current law failed and this expanded presumption of pretrial detention was needed. Current law, which allows for bail to be denied if a defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community, is fully adequate to cover the kinds of terrorism cases where bail should not be granted. Reasonable bail is a constitutional right. I am very troubled by the expansion of the presumption that bail will be denied. Unfortunately, this Justice Department has a record of abusing its detention powers post-9/11 and of making terrorism allegations that turn out to have no merit. It is worth noting that the crime of material support of terrorism, which has been expanded in this bill, is one of the crimes where a suspect is presumptively denied bail. In sum, as with the material support provision, the administration has not met its burden of showing how the expanded pretrial detention provision is necessary and would not impair constitutional rights and protections. It has no place in this bill. This bill is not perfect. Over time, as the new structure begins to operate, we may find that additional changes are needed. But the conference report takes critically important steps in the right direction. I commend Senators Collins and Lieberman for working tirelessly to ensure that this legislation becomes law this year.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose this omnibus appropriations bill. It has become something of an annual event to consider these massive, must-pass measures. Because this particular bill has come to us in the form of a conference report, we are unable to even offer an amendment to the legislation. Those who crafted this measure are, of course, fully aware that this bill is completely shielded, and as a result they were free to include numerous provisions that would certainly have generated amendments were they to come to the body in an amendable vehicle. There are many questionable provisions, all of them safe from the scrutiny that the amendment process affords. There will be a few editorials written lamenting some of these provisions, but that will be it. Absent some extraordinary action by Congress, they will become law along with the rest of this measure. Others will detail the billions of dollars of unauthorized, earmarked spending included in this bill. Let me just note that these questionable provisions come at a very real cost. First and foremost, by approving these provisions, Congress shirks its duty as stewards of the taxpayers' money. We have an obligation to our constituents to ensure that the money we levy in taxes is spent wisely. Beyond that, by providing funding for these unauthorized, earmarked programs, we are diverting funds from areas that our constituents have told us are true priorities. I am deeply concerned, for example, about the level of funding provided for the National Institutes of Health, NIH. Providing an increase of less than 3 percent is not sufficient to maintain the current pace of biomedical research. I am pleased to have supported successful recent efforts to double the NIH budget, and abruptly slowing the growth of the NIH will undermine the progress that has been made through this doubling. It is important that we provide NIH with the funding it needs to ensure that we receive the extraordinary health and economic benefits that this vital biomedical research provides. At a time when our country is facing increases in the number of people diagnosed with serious, costly diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease and diabetes, as well as an ever- present bioterrorism threat, biomedical research needs to be a national priority, and as such it needs to be adequately funded. Devoting billions of dollars to unauthorized special interest earmarks also means less funding for our children. Again this year, Congress and the administration have underfunded elementary and secondary education programs. As schools around our country settle in to their third year under the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, we will pass an appropriations measure that does not give states and districts the funding that we promised them in exchange for higher accountability standards. The law requires that States and districts comply with NCLB as a condition of receiving funding, yet we are not providing them the promised resources that will help them to succeed. And I am concerned that the NCLB accountability structure will sanction schools that fail to meet adequate yearly progress despite the fact that Congress is not providing these important resources. In addition, just 1 day after the Senate and the House passed the conference report reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we will pass an omnibus spending bill that underfunds the fiscal year 2005 authorization level contained in that very conference report. Again we are failing to provide the full 40 percent of special education costs promised to the States when IDEA was enacted in 1975, and, ironically, we are doing it 1 day after telling States that the IDEA conference report puts them on the path to full funding in 6 years. The IDEA reauthorization conference report authorized $12.3 billion for fiscal year 2005, and the omnibus spending bill before us contains $11.5 billion for this purpose. Thus, before the ink on the IDEA conference report is even dry, we are already breaking a promise contained in it to the tune of more than $800 million. I regret that the Senate missed an opportunity earlier this year to make special education spending mandatory, and I regret that the well- intentioned authorization levels in the IDEA conference report are becoming little more than an empty promise 24 hours after the Senate and the House agreed to these funding levels. As bad as what is in this omnibus appropriations bill is what is not in it. The administration was again successful in blocking language included in the both the House bill and the committee-passed bill in the Senate that would have reversed the harmful provisions of the Department of Labor's new overtime rule. Despite repeated bipartisan opposition to this rule in both houses of Congress, the small group of Members who drafted the omnibus conference report stripped out these provisions, which would have prevented millions of workers from losing their overtime benefits under the Bush Administration's rule. I am disturbed that--for the second year in a row--an omnibus appropriations conference report was used as a vehicle to override the will of a majority of Members of both houses with respect to this harmful rule. And, I am disappointed that the conferees chose to delete language that would have halted the administration's campaign to contract out additional Federal jobs to the private sector. Federal employees should have the right to compete for their jobs on a level playing field. In addition, I continue to oppose the Administration's efforts to reclassify thousands of jobs that are critical to our national security as not ``inherently governmental'' in nature in order make these jobs eligible to be contracted out. I also want to especially note that because this omnibus appropriations bill comes to us in an unamendable form, there will not be a rollcall vote on the automatic, back door Member pay raise. As my colleagues know, that issue is germane to the Treasury-Transportation Appropriations bill and thus an amendment forcing a vote on the Member pay raise can be offered to that bill without being subject to a point of order. But, because the Treasury-Transportation bill has been folded into this omnibus package, no one will be able to offer an amendment to force a vote on what will be a roughly $4,000 pay raise that is scheduled to go into effect in January. This is not the first time the Member pay raise has been shielded in this manner. In one instance, the Treasury-Postal bill was slipped into the conference report on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and thus completely shielded from amendment. And during 2002, the Senate did not consider the Treasury-Postal bill at all. This makes getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise a haphazard affair at best. And it should not be that way. No one should have to force a debate and public vote on the pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end. I have introduced legislation to do just that, but until that legislation is enacted, Senate leadership should not shield the Treasury-Transportation appropriations bill from amendments. Finally, let me join others in expressing my concern about inclusion of a provision in this bill that could reduce access to the full spectrum of reproductive health services. This provision is far too controversial to be shoved into a must-pass Government spending bill, especially when the committee with jurisdiction did not have a chance to consider it and the Senate did not have a chance to debate it. Mr. President, the appropriations process needs reform. I have been pleased to join the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici in advocating biennial budgeting, and certainly we need to seriously consider that reform. I have also joined with my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in advocating a change to Senate rules that would permit points of order to be raised against many of these extraneous, unauthorized earmarks, and this body should seriously consider that reform as well. The Senate needs to act on those reforms and others before we consider another one of these giant, must-pass omnibus appropriations bills.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the 108th Congress draws to a close, it is time to reflect on a number of opportunities to support working families that this Congress missed. American workers are the backbone of our economy. They have built this country, brick by brick and industry by industry. Too many of them have seen their factories closed and their jobs shipped overseas due to bad tax policy and dismal trade agreements. As the Senate meets today, families around our country are struggling to make ends meet in a sluggish economy. This Congress has missed opportunity after opportunity to support these families. As consumer and health care prices continue to rise and families must make difficult decisions about what to buy and what to go without, the 108th Congress will adjourn without even considering an increase in the Federal minimum wage. Congress last voted to increase the minimum wage 8 years ago, to the current level of $5.15. The Congressional Research Service notes that the Federal minimum wage would have had to have been raised to $8.49 in February of this year to equal the purchasing power that it had in February of 1968. Increases in the minimum wage have not kept up with inflation or with rising consumer prices, and workers earning minimum wage are struggling to make ends meet, often working two or more jobs. And many of these jobs do not provide basic benefits such as health insurance and paid sick leave. To that end, I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) that would require certain employers to provide paid sick leave benefits, and I look forward to continuing to support this and other legislation to support working families when the 109th Congress convenes next year. This Congress did little to help workers who are scraping by and who, too often, have to choose between their jobs and their families. And for those laid-off workers who have been unable to find family- supporting employment in these tough economic times, this Congress has done even less. For the second year in a row, Members of Congress will go home for the holidays without acting on legislation to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program. Many unemployed workers who are actively seeking employment have simply been unable to find jobs, and are relying on unemployment benefits and related programs to support themselves and their families. I regret that, despite the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate for extending these important benefits, a minority of members have used Senate budget rules to block passage of this important extension. And I am stunned that, despite bipartisan support for extending these important benefits in both the Senate and the House, Congress will adjourn for the year without sending an extension to the President. In addition, this Congress has built upon the regrettable record of the 107th Congress with respect to undermining basic worker protections. Members of the House and of the Senate have gone on record a total of six times in opposition to the Bush administration's overtime rule. This rule, which will rob millions of hard-working Americans of the overtime pay that they deserve, went into effect on August 23, despite bipartisan opposition in Congress. And for the third time, the administration has saved this ill-conceived rule by issuing a veto threat against legislation containing a provision to block that rule. I commend the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) for his leadership on this issue, and I will continue to support efforts to roll back the harmful provisions of this rule. This Congress also missed a number of opportunities to ensure that good-paying jobs stay in this country. The bill that was recently enacted in response to a World Trade Organization ruling against the foreign sales corporation and extraterritorial income provisions in our tax code presented Congress with an opportunity to restructure our tax code in a way that supports domestic manufacturers and their employees. Sadly, while the measure did provide some help to domestic manufacturers, the bill that was signed into law missed this opportunity in many respects. Congress should act at the next opportunity to close down the tax provisions in this law that actually provide incentives for corporations to move facilities overseas. I was also disappointed that the final Omnibus bill that the Senate is expected to take up soon did not include provisions approved by the Senate responding to the disturbing trend of the outsourcing of American jobs. These provisions would have prohibited Federal funding from being used to support the outsourcing of goods and services contracts that are entered into by the Federal Government, or by the States if those contracts are being supported by Federal dollars. With this bill, Congress could have supported American workers by ensuring that taxpayer money is not used to encourage companies to relocate American jobs. Because of the deletion of this outsourcing provision, we missed an opportunity for the Federal Government to set a strong example of buying its goods and services from American companies that use American workers. All told, the 108th Congress provided little support, and too much harm, to working families, and the examples that I have cited are just the tip of the iceberg of missed opportunities in this area. Congress can and should do more to ensure that workers and their families have a decent standard of living, including access to affordable health care, child care, and housing. We should also do more to strengthen job training and education, including expanding access to higher education. I fervently hope that the 109th Congress will reject the antiworker tone of the past two Congresses and will make every effort to support the working men and women and their families who we have been elected to represent. I intend to continue to work hard to ensure that their voices are heard here in the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to efforts to push through a provision in this bill normalizing trade relations with Laos. Let me first say I thoroughly enjoy my work with both managers of the bill. Senator Baucus and I agree on so many issues. We have had our disagreements on trade issues, but I do respect his views and arguments. Of course, I very much respect the Senator from Iowa. I have the pleasure of serving with him on a number of committees. I respectfully disagree with him on this particular aspect of the bill having to do with Laos. I am deeply disappointed that a decision was made to insert this provision into the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 conference report. The Senator from Montana suggested that those of us who are opposed to this provision simply believe that Laos could do better. I am afraid it is a lot more serious than Laos needing to do a little bit better on human rights. First, let there be no misunderstanding that this bill would sail through the Senate if this provision on Laos was not included. However, I cannot support upgrading Laos's trading status as long as the human rights situation in that country remains so disturbing. I am not prepared to simply let this bill pass without at least some debate on this important matter. This is the wrong time to reward the Government of Laos with normal trade relations. Reports emerging from Laos continue to demonstrate that human right conditions in Laos remain appalling. It is not a question of simply doing a little better, it is appalling. Despite the Lao Government's denials, human rights organizations, the U.S. Government, and my constituents and various news agencies have all documented the Lao Government's blatant disregard for human rights. I have tried to closely monitor the human rights situation in Laos as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, and also as a Senator representing over 35,000 Hmong people in Wisconsin. Many of these people fled Laos following the end of the Vietnam war. Quite a number of the Hmong provided courageous assistance to the CIA during the Vietnam war, at great risk to themselves and their families. They helped rescue American pilots and hold off North Vietnamese troops. Especially at a time like this, I think we can all agree that we owe them a debt of gratitude, and we owe them better than simply rewarding normal trade relations to a government that has badly mistreated them. The Senator from Montana indicated this provision was an indication that it is time to put the legacy of the Vietnam war behind us. When it comes to the situation on the ground in Laos, the tragic legacy of the Vietnam war is very much alive for families of people who helped us during that very difficult conflict. So the legacy of Vietnam is not over when it comes to the treatment of the Lao Hmong people in Laos. I am regularly contacted by constituents concerned about their friends and families in Laos. Again and again, my office encounters reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in Laos and other deplorable practices by the Lao Government. These reports, combined with the Lao Government's absolute refusal to investigate allegations or to permit independent monitoring, lead me to believe it is not in our country's national interest to adopt normal trade relations with the Lao Government. The United States has an obligation to the Hmong people, and I strongly believe that we have a moral interest in reducing human suffering and protecting human rights abroad. We cannot ignore these allegations of atrocities in Laos. Granting NTR is not appropriate at this time. In fact, I do recognize, as the Senator from Montana pointed out, that there are only a few countries that do not have NTR status. But that does not mean Laos deserves it any more than North Korea or perhaps Cuba. In fact, I have not supported the granting of NTR to some countries that have it now, such as China. In fact, I think the normal trade agreement with China is the biggest reason the State of Wisconsin has lost up to 80,000 manufacturing jobs since the middle of the year 2000. You can call NTR normal, but, in fact, that was a semantic change from MFN, most-favored-nation treatment. It was a semantic change to try to make it easier to get these deals through. The fact is, normal trade relations with another country is not always right. Sometimes it is in our own interest in terms of protecting our jobs, and sometimes because of the outrageous human rights records that some countries have, and Laos, in my view, is certainly one of those countries. I know many of my colleagues have provisions in this bill they want passed, and I want the body to know, Mr. President, that I have repeatedly asked that we simply strip out this one contentious provision and pass the rest of the bill, and I am prepared to do that again. I heard the resuscitation of some of the other meritorious aspects of this bill, and I respect that. I am not sure I agree with every piece of the bill, but I do recognize much of it is good. My goal here is not to kill the whole bill. I simply want this item removed. At some point, this body has to come to grips with the fact that we tend to shove major policy decisions into larger bills without any real debate and discussion and without the American people having access to what their representatives are doing, thinking, or saying about some of these items. Somehow this has to change. I also realize the 108th Congress is drawing to a close, and many of us are already looking to head home to our families and constituents. But I cannot, in good conscience, stand by and say nothing against a provision that conflicts so fundamentally with our country's dedication to human rights, to democracy, and to fundamental decency. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing cloture. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will not object to these remarks, but subsequent to that we will begin the postcloture discussion of the issue before the Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to efforts to push through a provision normalizing trade relations with Laos. First, let me thank my senior colleague, Senator Kohl. I enjoy working with him on so many issues, from our dairy industry in Wisconsin, to our excellent National Guard. But I am particularly proud he and I have been able to cooperate and work so hard with regard to the Hmong people living in Wisconsin and the concerns they have regarding issues not only concerning their own lives in Wisconsin but also the issues involving their families and their relatives in places such as Laos. I thank the Senator for all the work we have done together on this issue, and we will continue this battle to make sure there is accountability with regard to the human rights record of the Government of Laos, which is not a good record. It is for this reason I am deeply disappointed the decision was made to insert this provision in the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 conference report. Let's again remember--and Senator Kohl pointed this out--so there is no misunderstanding, this bill would sail through the Senate if this provision on Laos was not included. Senator Kohl and I are not trying to block the larger legislation. However, I cannot support upgrading Laos's trading status as long as the human rights situation in that country remains so disturbing, and I am not prepared to let this bill pass without at least some further debate on this important matter. As Senator Kohl just said, this is the wrong time to reward the Government of Laos with normal trade relations. Reports emerging from Laos continue to demonstrate that human rights conditions in Laos remain appalling. Despite the Lao Government's denials, human rights organizations, the U.S. Government, my constituents, and various news agencies have all documented the Lao Government's blatant disregard for human rights. I have tried to carefully and closely monitor the human rights situation in Laos as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and as a representative of over 35,000 Hmong in Wisconsin, many of whom fled Laos following the end of the Vietnam war. Just like Senator Kohl, I am regularly contacted by constituents concerned about their friends and family in Laos. Again and again, my office encounters reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in Laos and other deplorable practices by the Lao Government. These reports, combined with the Lao Government's absolute refusal to investigate allegations or to permit independent monitoring, lead me to believe it is not in our country's national interest to adopt normal trade relations with the Lao Government at this time. The State Department has documented these abuses through a series of reports, including their Human Rights Report, Trafficking in Persons Report, and Religious Freedom Report. In their Country Report for Human Rights Practices for 2003, the State Department reported the Lao Government's ``human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses.'' As described by the report, the abuse of detainees and prisoners, inhumane prison conditions, arbitrary arrests, detention and surveillance by police, a corrupt judiciary, and restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association are just some of the conditions that Laotians face. Trafficking in women and children for prostitution and forced labor in Laos is also a serious problem. The State Department's 2004 Trafficking in Persons Report placed Laos in their tier 2 watchlist which they said reflected the ``lack of evidence of increasing Lao Government efforts to prosecute traffickers and to provide adequate protection for victims.'' It also stated that some local government officials ``likely profit from trafficking.'' The State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2004 describes restrictions on freedom of religion, stating that while the country's constitution allows for freedom of religion, the Lao Government actually ``restricts this right in practice.'' The report states that local officials were reported to pressure Christians to ``renounce their faith on threat of arrest or forceful eviction from their villages. There were also several instances of persons detained or arrested for their religious faith.'' The report goes on: The absence of rule of law has created an atmosphere in which authorities may act with impunity against persons regarded as threats to social order. Persons arrested for their religious activities have been charged with exaggerated security or other criminal offenses. Persons detained may be held for lengthy periods without trial. Court judges, not juries, decide guilt or innocence in court cases, and an accused person's defense rights are limited. A person arrested or convicted for religious offenses has little protection under the law. All religious groups, including Buddhists, practice their faith in an atmosphere in which application of the law is arbitrary. Certain actions interpreted by officials as threatening may bring harsh punishment. Religious practice is ``free only if practitioners stay within tacitly understood guidelines of what is acceptable to the government and the LPRP . . .'' --The Lao Republic Revolutionary Party, the country's ruling party. A particular concern to my constituents and to me is the steady flow of reports of atrocities committed against the Hmong in Laos. My office is regularly bombarded with reports of murders, rape, and starvation of the Hmong in Laos. We cannot verify each of these claims, but the stream of videos, photographs, eyewitness reports, and articles is deeply disturbing. These allegations cannot be dismissed outright, as the Lao Government simply does again and again, denying the Hmong's very existence in the jungles of Laos. My constituents and the constituents of many Members of Congress care deeply about the well- being of their friends and families. It is not just our constituents and Members of Congress who are concerned. Patricia Haslach, our U.S. Ambassador to Laos, stated in her nomination hearing on April 22, 2004, that her first priority was to press the Lao Government to respect the rights of ethnic groups, especially the Hmong population. The former Ambassador to Laos, Ambassador Douglas Hartwick, also made this a priority in his dealings with the Government of Laos and recognized the need for greater transparency and reform. As Senator Kohl pointed out, and as I reiterate, let us not forget the obligation the United States has to the Hmong. During the Vietnam War, the Central Intelligence Agency recruited, trained and armed approximately 60,000 Hmong to fight the Vietcong in a secret war. They fought with the CIA to rescue downed American pilots, to thwart supply lines along the Ho Chi Minh trail and to hold off North Vietnamese troops. Following the ascendancy of the communist Pathet Laos regime in 1975 in Laos, the Lao government cracked down on its perceived political opponents, including the U.S.-trained Hmong guerilla fighters. Lao and Vietnamese troops crushed nearly all remnants of the Hmong army. Tens of thousands of Laotians, including the Hmong, died while attempting to flee the Lao communist regime, and many others perished in reeducation and labor camps. Hundreds of thousands of people fled to Thailand, and between 1975 and 1998, nearly 130,000 Hmong refugees were admitted to the United States. The Hmong's relationship with the CIA was not acknowledged by the U.S. until 1994 when the former CIA Director William Colby told Congress of the Hmong's cooperation with the CIA. At that hearing, he stated that the Hmong contribution was ``substantial and at great sacrifice.'' He further stated: Many of the Hmong who bore the burden of that effort did so in hopes of a better life for their families and children, only to see them flee their homes in fear of their enemies to become dependent refugees in foreign lands . . . The largest Hmong communities are now in Wisconsin, Minnesota, California and the State of the Presiding officer, North Carolina. There are approximately 280,000 Hmong nationwide. My State of Wisconsin is home to the third largest Hmong community in the United States, most of whom came to this country from Laos as refugees after the Vietnam War. I am proud of the Hmong veterans and their families who sacrificed so much during the Vietnam War. The Hmong people have made important contributions to Wisconsin and this Nation. They have brought new traditions and new perspectives, which have enriched the cultural life of my State and many others. I have consistently admired their passion and commitment to tackling a host of difficult issues confronting their community in the United States, Laos and in Thailand. They have endured tremendous hardship, even in the United States, as they have adjusted to an entirely new way of life here. I admire their strength and perseverance. In December 2003, the United States Government announced the creation of a new resettlement program of approximately 15,000 Hmong-Lao, who were living at a temple named Wat Tham Krabok in Thailand. They have already begun to resettle in the United States, and some have come to Wisconsin, which has a proud tradition of welcoming refugee populations. However, while most fled Laos, it appears that remnants of former Hmong insurgent groups and their families, who once fought with the CIA and the Royal Lao government, remain in remote areas of Laos. The Lao leadership refuses to acknowledge that these groups exist. In a speech on January 27, 2004, then-U.S. Ambassador to Laos Hartwick stated that Laos needs to make progress in human rights and should find a humanitarian solution to the people still hiding in Laos' jungles. He actually stated: Remnants of former Hmong insurgent groups who once fought on the side of the Royal Lao Government some 27 years ago, still hide deep in the Lao forest, afraid or unwilling to come out. The Lao leadership is unwilling to acknowledge publicly that these groups exist, nor to explain in detail to the international community the amnesty policy Laos has had in place for years to encourage peaceful resettlement. Much more needs to be done. Only improved cooperation and dialogue among the Lao authorities, the forest people leaders, and those outside of Lao borders who encourage this standoff can resolve this tragic situation that continues to claim innocent lives and fuel bilateral tensions . . . My government and the international community stand ready to assist in resolving this complicated issue if requested by the concerned parties. An article in Time Asia from September 20, 2004 reiterated that thousands of Hmong ``remain trapped deep inside the mountains, playing a deadly game of cat and mouse with the government. Recently, my constituents have informed me that attacks have only escalated against the Hmong in the jungles by Laotian military forces. I want to highlight some of the examples of these disturbing reports. Amnesty International in October 2003 reported that the Lao Government was using ``starvation as a weapon of war.'' They reported that the Lao military had surrounded several rebel groups and their families and was preventing them from foraging for food they need to survive. Amnesty International stated that they were gravely concerned by the ``sharply deteriorating situation of thousands of family members of ethnic minority groups, predominantly Hmong, involved in an armed conflict with the Lao military in jungle areas of the country.'' Following this report, I wrote a letter with other Senators to the Ambassador of Laos, bringing his attention to the Amnesty International report and asking the government to investigate the treatment of Hmong in the jungles of Laos, and to permit international monitors and humanitarian relief agencies to provide food and medical supplies. The Lao Ambassador dismissed the Amnesty report outright, and the Lao Government refused to investigate the claims. In a Time Asia article from May 5, 2003, journalist Andrew Perrin wrote of his journey to visit a group of Hmong deep within the jungles in northern Laos and spoke of the Hmong being hunted down and trapped by Lao military forces. He wrote this ``ragtag army with wailing families in tow'' was ``completely surrounded by the Lao government troops that hunt them.'' He goes on, ``What is the crime this ragged bunch has committed? It is simply that they are Hmong, mostly the children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of fighters who in the 1960s sided with the U.S. to fight communism in Laos during the Vietnam War . . . The communist Pathet Lao movement . . . has never forgotten the Hmong's complicity with the Americans.'' In another article from Time Asia on June 30, 2003, Andrew Perrin again highlighted the plight of the Hmong, stating, ``In Laos, no political dissent has been allowed in 28 years, nor any right of assembly. Scores of political prisoners and youth have been detained for years in dark cells without trial; many have been tortured. Christians are persecuted, told to denounce their faith under threat of imprisonment'' and Hmong women and children are ``trapped in the mountains, starving, shot at and dying in droves.'' He continued, ``Most of this brutality passes unnoticed or uncommented upon by Western governments, because Laos does not register on their radar.'' Well, it registers on my radar and the radar of my constituents. However, it appears that this brutality has gone unnoticed by some members of Congress who wish to move forward on normal trade relations with Laos. Do these reports not give some of my colleagues any hesitation about granting normal trade relations to Laos at this time? Also in June 2003, in a highly publicized case, the Lao government arrested a Hmong-American and two European journalists for visiting Hmong in restricted areas of Laos. According to reports, they received a 15-year prison sentence following a two hour trial, demonstrating the flawed judicial process in Laos. After intense diplomatic pressure, they were released. According to an AFP report, one of the journalists stated, ``Everything was decided in advance. It was a total mockery of justice, a parody . . . At one point we had black hoods on our heads and were handcuffed . . . They said we were carrying drugs and weapons, they were all lies.'' However, the Lao citizens apprehended with the three foreigners were not so lucky. They remain in jail, having been sentenced to between 12 and 20 years. News reports indicated that they were tortured while in detention. Even the United Nations has been unsuccessful in getting answers from the Lao Government regarding human rights violations in Laos. In August 2003, the United Nations Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination strongly criticized the Lao People's Democratic Republic and expressed its grave concerns regarding reports of human rights violations, including brutalities inflicted on the Hmong. The committee ``expressed its grave concern at the information it had received of serious and repeated human rights violations in that country; was extremely disturbed to learn that some members of the Hmong minority had been subjected to severe brutalities; deplored the measures taken by the Lao authorities to prevent the reporting of any information concerning the situation of the Hmong people . . .'' The committee ``urged the state party to halt immediately acts of violence against the Hmong population.'' In March 2004, an Amnesty International reported that large numbers of ethnic Hmong rebels and their families had emerged from jungles of Laos and surrendered to authorities in at least two areas of the country. The U.S. State Department confirmed these reports, believing that anywhere from 350 to 700 Hmong surrendered to Lao authorities and were participating in a Lao amnesty program. However, the Lao government has denied the existence of an amnesty program. Furthermore, some of my 26 constituents have raised fears that these Hmong did not actually surrender, but were captured and in some cases summarily executed. Several colleagues and I urged the administration to pursue increased international access to monitor this issue under United Nations auspices. In addition, we urged the State Department to investigate the allegations and gain access to the Hmong emerging from the jungles. Following these reports, in March 2004, I contacted the U.S. Ambassador to the UN with other members of Congress, asking for his assistance in urging the United Nations to send a representative or fact-finding 27 mission to Laos to monitor the treatment of the Hmong. In addition, I also wrote Secretary Powell with other members of Congress to investigate reports of atrocities and to take further action to protect the Hmong. In a letter of response, Ambassador Negroponte informed my office that both the Embassy and the United Nations Development Programme-- UNDP--continue to urge the Government of Laos to address this humanitarian issue in a peaceful and transparent manner, and have asked the Lao government to provide access to the areas where these people are seeking assistance. It seems that no access was granted. In addition, in my response to Secretary Powell's letter, the U.S. State Department informed me that they too shared our concern about the treatment of Hmong living in remote areas and that they were seeking access to these people in order to learn about their status firsthand. Furthermore, the State Department informed us that Secretary Powell wrote to Lao Foreign Minister Somsavat, requesting that the Lao government allow the U.S. embassy and UN or other international organization 29 personnel access to these groups. The Foreign Minister never wrote Powell back. The Foreign Minister never even responded to our Secretary of State at all. Now Congress wants to grant normal trade relations to Laos? Why would we reward the misbehavior and human rights abuses of this regime? Most recently, in September 2004, Amnesty International, CNN and other news sources reported on a recently released video, which documented the murder of five Hmong teenagers in Laos, allegedly by Lao military forces. Amnesty called these attacks war crimes. The children aged between 13 and 16, were murdered while foraging for food near their camp in Laos in May 2004. According to the reports, the 4 girls were raped prior to being killed. Not surprisingly, the Lao government initially dismissed the allegations, calling the tape a fabrication. After intense pressure by the United States State Department to launch an investigation, the Lao government stated that they undertook an investigation and were not able to find any evidence of a confrontation between the Lao military and these Hmong teenagers. But they have refused to make their report on the incident public. Mr. President, Michael Vang of California and Houa Ly of Wisconsin, two United States citizens, were last seen near the border between Laos and Thailand in April 1999. We do not know what fate they met in Laos. Joint U.S.-Lao investigations were unable to find them. The Lao government needs to make greater efforts at finding these two men. While we in Congress cannot verify every allegation, the information we receive from journalists, human rights organizations and our constituents is incredibly disturbing and cannot be disregarded. We just do not have enough information. But, the Lao government does not help us find the truth by restricting the international community from getting any more information. Despite all of the Lao government's stonewalling of our inquiries and the flood of reports of human rights violations by the Lao government, this Congress is now about to grant normal trade relations to Laos. Why now? Why do we choose to reward this oppressive and brutal government when they have not adequately responded to our concerns? When the Foreign Minister of Laos has not even responded to Secretary Powell's letter to his government, requesting more information? If these allegations are untrue, as they claim, then why does the Lao government not allow international monitors into the areas where the Hmong are living? But our concerns go unheeded, and we continue to be confronted with the most horrific accusations about conditions in Laos with no way to respond. We should not be giving Laos NTR, when they refuse to open to us in meaningful ways. The Lao government must assure the international community that they are attempting to address the problem of these men and women and children in the jungles of Laos through a humanitarian solution. The Lao government must allow international humanitarian organizations to have access to areas in which Hmong and other ethnic minorities have resettled, to allow independent monitoring of prison conditions, and to release prisoners who have been arbitrarily arrested because of their political or religious beliefs. The U.S. has an obligation to the Hmong people, and I strongly believe that we have a moral interest in reducing human suffering and protecting human rights abroad. We cannot ignore these allegations of atrocities in Laos. Granting NTR is not appropriate at this time. I urge my colleagues to join me in insisting that the conference report before us not be used as a Trojan horse to sneak through a provision that conflicts so fundamentally with our country's dedication to human rights, to democracy, and to fundamental decency. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I certainly will not object, and I look forward to hearing the remarks of my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, whom I have enjoyed serving with very much, especially on the Budget Committee, and simply indicate to the Senate that I intend after this to get back to the business of debating the pending issue. But with that, I do not object. Again, I commend the Senator on his wonderful service to this body.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

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