Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I oppose this legislation because it does nothing to bring our open-ended and disproportionate military commitment in Afghanistan to an end and/or to ensure that our troops are safely and expeditiously redeployed from Iraq. I am concerned that our current military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan may undermine our ability to combat al-Qaida while imposing a tremendous burden on our brave servicemembers and on American taxpayers. This bill includes several important provisions, including provisions I authored that will help improve care for wounded warriors and the hate crimes legislation that was first introduced over 8 years ago. But I cannot support a bill that does not do enough to protect our country from our top national security threat, al-Qaida.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, our Nation faces great challenges that require collective persistence and collective sacrifice to overcome. Two of these challenges that I hear the most about from my constituents are the need to reduce the national debt and enact health care reform. Their concerns come from a basic sense of responsibility and decency-- and are true to Wisconsin's progressive tradition. They believe, as I believe, that the government should be required to balance their budget just as Wisconsinites balance their checkbook. They believe, as I believe, that every American--regardless of wealth, race, gender, or age--deserves good, affordable health care. These basic principles of fiscal and social responsibility have guided me throughout my 17 years in the Senate. And it is these principles that lead me to conclude that I cannot support S. 1776, the Medicare Physician Fairness Act, because it will substantially add to our national deficit. I believe that the Medicare sustainable growth rate is a broken policy and must be fixed. I also believe that requiring Congress to pay for enacting new policies is critical to our long-term financial stability and strength as a nation. Waiving paygo requirements for this legislation simply puts a different name on the same $247 billion problem. It passes the buck, and that is not good enough for me. Just this week, I introduced the Control Spending Now Act. This bill consists of dozens of different initiatives that would collectively reduce the deficit by over $\1/2\ trillion over 10 years. Redirecting just a portion of the savings in my legislation would more than pay for the Medicare Physician Fairness Act. We do not have a lack of funding options; we have a lack of political will to make those tough decisions. And lack of political will is not a good reason to add to the national deficit. For years, I have called for significant reform of the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula. I have heard from countless Wisconsin physicians about how damaging these potential cuts are to their ability to provide health care. And I am seriously concerned that without a comprehensive change, Medicare beneficiaries' access to the health care they need will be limited. The Medicare SGR formula is a real and growing problem that deserves thoughtful and fiscally responsible reform.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for all the work he has done over these many years to improve our campaign finance system. We have been partners in this effort for over a decade. In fact, it will soon be 15 years. Of course, there is no one in this body whom I admire more than John McCain. In early September, Senator McCain and I had the opportunity to walk across the street to the Supreme Court and hear the oral argument in the Citizens United case. It was a morning of firsts: The first case that Justice Sonia Sotomayor has heard since the Senate confirmed her nomination to become only the third woman to sit on our Nation's highest court. And the first oral argument that Solicitor General Elena Kagan has done since becoming the first woman to hold that important position in our government. And it was the first time since the Tillman Act was passed in 1907 prohibiting spending by corporations on elections, and the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 clarified and strengthened that prohibition, that a majority of the Court has suggested it is prepared to hold that Congress and the many State legislatures that have passed similar laws have violated the Constitution. Such a decision could have a truly calamitous impact on our democracy. Until a few months ago, as the Senator from Arizona pointed out, no one had any idea that the Citizens United case would potentially become the vehicle for such a wholesale uprooting of the principles that have governed the financing of our elections for so long. The case started out as a simple challenge to the application of title II of the law that Senator McCain and I sponsored, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The issue was whether the provisions of BCRA relating to so- called issue ads could constitutionally be applied to a full-length feature film about then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The movie was to be distributed solely as video on demand. Yet somehow at the end of its last term, instead of deciding the case on the basis of the briefs and arguments submitted by the parties early this year, the Court reached out and asked for supplemental briefing on whether it should overturn its decisions in McConnell v. FEC, the case that upheld BCRA in 2003, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1991 decision that upheld a State statute prohibiting corporate funding of campaign ads expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. That set the stage for the recent special session to hear reargument in the case. And now we await the Court's verdict on whether these longstanding laws will be in jeopardy. I certainly hope the Court steps back from the brink. A decision to overturn the Austin decision would open the door to corporate spending on elections the likes of which this Nation truly has never seen. Our elections would become like NASCAR races--underwritten by companies. Only in this case, the corporate underwriters wouldn't just be seeking publicity, they would be seeking laws and policies that the candidates have the power to provide. We were headed well down that road in the soft money system that BCRA stopped. It may seem like a long time ago, but the Senator from Arizona and I remember that hundreds of millions of dollars were contributed by corporations and unions to the political parties between 1988 and 2002. The system led to scandals like the White House coffees and the sale of overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom. The appearance of corruption was well documented in congressional hearings and fully justified the step that Congress took in 2002--prohibiting the political parties from accepting soft money contributions. Before BCRA was passed, corporations were making huge soft money donations. They were also spending money on phony issue ads. That is what title II was aimed at. But what they were not doing was running election ads that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate. That has been prohibited in this country for at least 60 years, though it is arguable that the Tillman Act in 1907 prohibited it 40 years before that. So it is possible that the Court's decision will not just take us back to a pre-McCain-Feingold era, but back to the era of the robber baron in the 19th century. That result should frighten every citizen of this country. The Court seems poised to ignite a revolution in campaign financing with a stroke of its collective pen that no one contemplated even 6 months ago. While I have disagreed with many Supreme Court decisions, I have great respect for that institution and for the men and women who serve on the Court. But this step would be so damaging to our democracy and is so unwarranted and unnecessary that I must speak out. That is why Senator McCain and I have taken the unusual step of coming to the floor today. To overrule the Austin decision in this case, the Court would have to ignore several time-honored principles that have served for the past two centuries to preserve the public's respect for and acceptance of its decisions. First, it is a basic tenet of constitutional law that the Court will not decide a case on constitutional grounds unless absolutely necessary, and that if there is no choice but to reach a constitutional issue, the Court will decide the case as narrowly as possible. This is the essence of what some have called ``judicial restraint.'' What seems to be happening here though is the antithesis of judicial restraint. The Court seems ready to decide the broadest possible constitutional question--the constitutionality of all restrictions on corporate spending in connection with elections in an obscure case in which many far more narrow rulings are possible. The second principle is known as stare decisis, meaning that the Court respects its precedents and overrules them only in the most unusual of cases. Chief Justice John Roberts, whom many believe to be the swing justice in this case, made grand promises of what he called ``judicial modesty,'' when he came before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005. Respect for precedent was a key component of the approach that he asked us to believe he possessed. Here is what he said: I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough--and the court has emphasized this on several occasions--it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn't answer the question, it just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis. So said then Judge Roberts. Talk about a jolt to the legal system. It is hard to imagine a bigger jolt than to strike down laws in over 20 States and a Federal law that has been the cornerstone of the Nation's campaign finance system for 100 years. The settled expectations that would be upset by this decision are enormous. And subsequent developments surely have not shown that the Austin decision is unworkable. Indeed, the Court relied on it as recently as 2003 in the McConnell case and even cited it in the Wisconsin Right to Life decision just 2 years ago, written by none other than Chief Justice Roberts. To be sure, there are Justices on the Court who dissented from the Austin decision when it came down and continue to do so today. But if stare decisis means anything, a precedent on which so many State legislatures and the American people have relied should not be cast aside simply because a few new Justices have arrived on the Court. Third, the courts decide cases only on a full evidentiary record so that all sides have a chance to put forward their best arguments and the court can be confident that it is making a decision based on the best information available. In this case, precisely because the Supreme Court reached out to pose a broad constitutional question that had not been raised below, there is no record whatsoever to which the Court can turn. None. The question here demands a complete record because the legal standard under prevailing first amendment law is whether the statute is designed to address a compelling State interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that result. My colleagues may recall that when we passed the McCain-Feingold bill, a massive legislative record was developed to demonstrate the corrupting influence of soft money. And the facial constitutional challenge to that bill led to months of depositions and the building of an enormous factual record for the court. None of that occurred here. And furthermore, the over 20 States whose laws would be upended if Austin is overruled were given no opportunity to defend their legislation and show whatever legislative record had been developed when their statutes were enacted. Instead, the Court seems to be ready to rely on its intuition, its general sense of the political process. From what I observed at oral argument, that intuition is sorely lacking. One Justice blithely asserted that the 100-year-old congressional decision to bar corporate expenditures must have been motivated by the self-interest of Members of Congress as incumbent candidates, ignoring the fact that the modern Congress prohibited soft money contributions even though the vast majority of those contributions were used to support incumbents. Another Justice opined that it was paternalistic for Congress to be concerned about corporations using their shareholders' money for political purposes, even though most Americans invest through mutual funds and have little or no idea what corporations their money has actually gone to. For the Court to overrule Austin and McConnell in this case would require it to reject these three important principles of judicial modesty. It would amount to the unelected branch of government reaching out to strike down carefully considered and longstanding judgments of the most democratic branch. It would be, in my view, a completely improper exercise of judicial power. Let me discuss for a moment the consequences of this decision. A fundamental principle of our democracy is that the people elect their representatives. Each citizen gets just one vote. Our system of financing campaigns with private money obviously gives people of means more influence than average voters, but Congress over the years has sought to provide some reasonable limits and preserve the importance of individual citizens' votes. One of the most important and longstanding limits is that only individuals can contribute to candidates or spend money in support of or against candidates. Corporations and unions are prohibited from doing so, except through their PACs, which themselves raise money only from individuals. The Supreme Court may very well be about to change that forever. According to a 2005 IRS estimate, the total net worth of U.S. corporations was $23.5 trillion, and after-tax profits were nearly $1 trillion. During the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100 companies alone had profits of $605 billion. That is quite a war chest that may be soon unleashed on our political system. Just for comparison, spending by candidates, outside groups, and political parties on the last Presidential election totaled just over $2 billion. Federal and State parties spent about $1.5 billion on all Federal elections in 2008. PACs spent about $1.2 billion. That usually sounds like a lot of money, but it is nothing compared to what corporations and unions have in their treasuries. So we are talking here about a system that could very easily be completely transformed by corporate spending in 2010. Does the Supreme Court really believe that the first amendment requires the American people to accept a system where banks and investment firms, having just taken our country into its worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, can spend millions upon millions of dollars of ads directly advocating the defeat of those candidates who didn't vote to bail them out or want to prevent future economic disaster by imposing strict new financial services regulations? I say that because that is where we are headed. Is the Court really going to say that oil companies that oppose action on global warming are constitutionally entitled to spend their profits to elect candidates who will oppose legislation to address that problem? The average winning Senate candidate in 2008 spent $8.5 million. The average House winner spent a little under $1.4 million. A single major corporation could spend three or four times those amounts without causing even a smudge on its balance sheet. This is not about the self- interest of legislators who will undoubtedly fear the economic might that might be brought against them if they vote the wrong way. This is about the people they represent, who live in a democracy and who deserve a political system where their views and their interests are not completely drowned out by corporate spending. At the oral arguments last month, one Justice seemed to suggest it is perfectly acceptable for a tobacco company to try to defeat a candidate who wants to regulate tobacco and to use its shareholders' money to do so. This is the system the Supreme Court may bequeath to this country if it does not turn back. Some will say that corporate interests already have too much power and that Members of Congress listen to the wishes of corporations instead of their constituents. I will not defend the current system, but I will say: Imagine how much worse things would be in a system where every decision by a Member of Congress that contradicts the wishes of a corporation could unleash a tsunami of negative advertising in the next election. In light of the immense wealth a corporation can bring to bear on such a project, I frankly wonder how our democracy would function under such a system. We are talking about a political system where corporate wealth rules in a way that we have simply never seen in our history. So, once again, I certainly want to thank my friend from Arizona for his friendship and his courage. We will continue to fight for a campaign finance system that allows the American people's voices to be heard. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the eastern and northeastern regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo. In the east, the FDLR rebels have deliberately and brutally targeted civilians in response to a new military offensive, while the Congolese military--an undisciplined force now including several former militias--has also targeted civilians with killings, rapes, and looting amidst ongoing operations. Last week, a coalition of 84 humanitarian agencies released a report stating that more than 1,000 civilians have been killed and nearly 900,000 displaced in eastern Congo since January. In addition, the United Nations reports that there have been over 5,000 cases of rape in South Kivu Province in the first 6 months of this year alone, and that number is increasing. With the offensive continuing and the onset of the dry season, the level of violence is likely to increase in the months ahead. Meanwhile, Doctors without Borders reported last week that hundreds of thousands of people in northeastern Congo are fleeing from renewed attacks by the Lord's Resistance Army. For two decades, the LRA operated in northern Uganda and southern Sudan, but they have shifted their base of operations in recent years into northeastern Congo. This year, facing renewed pressure from a cross-border Ugandan military offensive, the LRA have scaled up their attacks on civilians, killing an estimated 1,200 Congolese and abducting 1,500 in the first 6 months alone. Ongoing Ugandan military operations have reportedly had some success, but the LRA leader Joseph Kony continues to evade capture and his forces exploit the region's porous borders. The Congolese military has deployed new forces to the northeast, but their inability to protect civilians from the LRA and their own abuses against civilians have only made things worse. Over the last decade, the people of eastern Congo have already lived through violent conflict and humanitarian crisis. According to the best estimates, more than 5.4 million people have been killed, making this the single deadliest conflict since the Second World War. Millions have been displaced from their homes, forced to live in squalid conditions. Women and girls and even some men and boys in the Congo have endured horrific levels of sexual violence. Yet, rather than coming to an end of this nightmare, I am worried that Congo is now entering another chapter of it. Without a clear and viable plan for civilian protection, continuing military operations and deployments will likely lead to further reprisal attacks by armed groups and greater displacement. At the same time, without real progress to demilitarize the economy and reform the Congolese military, any security gains are likely to be short-lived. I was very pleased that Secretary Clinton chose to travel to eastern Congo during her trip to Africa in August and pledged $17 million in new funds to address the sexual violence there. I also know the State Department has been exploring ways to build on her historic visit. And last week, the United States hosted meetings with our European and U.N. partners under the auspices of the Great Lakes Contact Group to discuss our collective efforts going forward. This is all well and good. I hope the international community will take immediate steps to bolster civilian protection and humanitarian access in both the east and northeast. But as we go forward, we also need to finally get serious about pressing regional governments to address the underlying causes of the conflict: the continued plunder and militarized trade of eastern Congo's rich mineral base, the region's porous and unregulated borders, outside support of armed groups, and the lack of accountability and discipline in the Congolese army. Addressing these issues will not be easy. But continuing to rely on half-measures and focusing on the symptoms offer little hope of ending Congo's crises. It is time for a comprehensive and concerted international effort toward the Congo and the Great Lakes Region of Africa, and I am confident that there is no better administration in recent history to lead such an effort. President Obama has already demonstrated his commitment to and understanding of this issue with his work on the DRC Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006. Secretary Clinton was reportedly the most senior U.S. Government official to ever visit eastern Congo. And finally, Johnnie Carson is perhaps the most experienced Assistant Secretary for African Affairs that we have ever had. Together, we have an opportunity to reverse the trends and address Congo's crises--both in the east and with the LRA-- and I hope we will seize it. For Africa, few achievements could be more important for the sake of regional stability and saving lives.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kyle Sheahen and Spencer Baldwin, legal interns on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this session.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, fiscal responsibility is a Wisconsin tradition and it has been a major priority of mine throughout my years in the Senate. In 1992 when I first ran for the job I hold now, I put together an 82-point plan to save hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful, inefficient or unneeded government spending. Back then, the country was facing huge budget deficits and Americans were understandably concerned about the debt we were piling up. Fortunately, we took some strong steps in the 1990s to clean up that fiscal mess-- including passing some of the reforms I championed in my 82-point plan--and we were able to get the country back on the right track. Unfortunately, we face a similar crisis today. In fact, in many ways it is worse because the deficits are even bigger while the economy is in such bad shape. The reckless fiscal policies of the past eight years, combined with the current recession those policies helped create, have dug a deep hole, and we need to start filling it in. Some may argue that we can't cut government spending now because that would make the recession we are in even worse. I don't agree--while we shouldn't be slashing, say, unemployment insurance or education funding, we should absolutely be targeting the waste and fat in the federal budget. That's the message I am consistently hearing as I travel around Wisconsin. My constituents are rightly concerned about the burden that their children and grandchildren will be forced to shoulder. That is why I am introducing the Control Spending Now Act. This bill consists of dozens of different initiatives that would collectively reduce the deficit by over $\1/2\ trillion over 10 years. It includes procedural reforms that would make it easier to eliminate funding for pet projects slipped into larger spending bills, as well as cuts to spending that isn't working or needed, from $4 billion for C-17 aircraft the Department of Defense didn't ask for and doesn't want to $30 million for a program that sends a radio and TV signal to Cuba that nobody gets. The bill also would save $244 billion by rescinding unobligated TARP payments and returning them to the Treasury--I opposed the Wall Street bail-out from the start, and it's high time we brought it to an end. The ideas I am proposing are not all new--for example, I have been fighting to end earmark abuses and give the president a line-item veto for some time. And not all the ideas were thought up by me--there are a lot of good proposals out there, and I have tried to bring them together in one comprehensive bill. I have included legislation drafted by Senators Byron Dorgan and Jeff Bingaman that would save the Federal Government and consumers money by bringing down prescription drug prices, as well as biennial budgeting reforms that former Senator Pete Domenici championed, and that Senator Johnny Isakson is now seeking to advance. I also included provisions crafted by Senators Kit Bond, Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein and included in the Senate-passed intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2010 that would help eliminate wasteful spending in the intelligence budget. I am grateful to my colleagues for the work they are doing to return the country to the path of fiscal responsibility. Not everyone will agree with every one of my proposals--in fact, for every proposal, there is probably one or more entrenched group committed to preserving the status quo. But the status quo isn't good enough--we need to make tough spending choices, which is why I am proposing this legislation, and why I will continue working to control spending now.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, fiscal responsibility is a Wisconsin tradition and it has been a major priority of mine throughout my years in the Senate. In 1992 when I first ran for the job I hold now, I put together an 82-point plan to save hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful, inefficient or unneeded government spending. Back then, the country was facing huge budget deficits and Americans were understandably concerned about the debt we were piling up. Fortunately, we took some strong steps in the 1990s to clean up that fiscal mess-- including passing some of the reforms I championed in my 82-point plan--and we were able to get the country back on the right track. Unfortunately, we face a similar crisis today. In fact, in many ways it is worse because the deficits are even bigger while the economy is in such bad shape. The reckless fiscal policies of the past eight years, combined with the current recession those policies helped create, have dug a deep hole, and we need to start filling it in. Some may argue that we can't cut government spending now because that would make the recession we are in even worse. I don't agree--while we shouldn't be slashing, say, unemployment insurance or education funding, we should absolutely be targeting the waste and fat in the federal budget. That's the message I am consistently hearing as I travel around Wisconsin. My constituents are rightly concerned about the burden that their children and grandchildren will be forced to shoulder. That is why I am introducing the Control Spending Now Act. This bill consists of dozens of different initiatives that would collectively reduce the deficit by over $\1/2\ trillion over 10 years. It includes procedural reforms that would make it easier to eliminate funding for pet projects slipped into larger spending bills, as well as cuts to spending that isn't working or needed, from $4 billion for C-17 aircraft the Department of Defense didn't ask for and doesn't want to $30 million for a program that sends a radio and TV signal to Cuba that nobody gets. The bill also would save $244 billion by rescinding unobligated TARP payments and returning them to the Treasury--I opposed the Wall Street bail-out from the start, and it's high time we brought it to an end. The ideas I am proposing are not all new--for example, I have been fighting to end earmark abuses and give the president a line-item veto for some time. And not all the ideas were thought up by me--there are a lot of good proposals out there, and I have tried to bring them together in one comprehensive bill. I have included legislation drafted by Senators Byron Dorgan and Jeff Bingaman that would save the Federal Government and consumers money by bringing down prescription drug prices, as well as biennial budgeting reforms that former Senator Pete Domenici championed, and that Senator Johnny Isakson is now seeking to advance. I also included provisions crafted by Senators Kit Bond, Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein and included in the Senate-passed intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2010 that would help eliminate wasteful spending in the intelligence budget. I am grateful to my colleagues for the work they are doing to return the country to the path of fiscal responsibility. Not everyone will agree with every one of my proposals--in fact, for every proposal, there is probably one or more entrenched group committed to preserving the status quo. But the status quo isn't good enough--we need to make tough spending choices, which is why I am proposing this legislation, and why I will continue working to control spending now.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to address the growing interest in the Army's recent contract award to the Oshkosh Corporation for the family of medium tactical vehicles, which is currently being reviewed by the Government Accountability Office, GAO. A number of my colleagues in Congress have expressed their concern about the contract. They have registered their concern and desire for greater oversight on the floor of the Senate, as well as with the Department of Defense and GAO. I have long called for greater congressional oversight of the defense acquisitions process. Our acquisitions process is broken and costs are spiraling out of control. This has undermined our ability to provide the equipment our troops need when they need it. We must have full and fair competition in order to contain costs and ensure proper performance of defense contractors. To this end, I was a strong supporter of enacting the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act earlier this year. However, I am concerned about the manner and timing of my colleagues' statements on this issue. The GAO is currently conducting an independent review of the contract. Congress should not be doing anything to foreclose or prejudice the GAO process, which would both undermine the GAO's independence and set a bad precedent for future protests. I am afraid that some of the public statements that have been made during the ongoing review, as well as letters to the GAO, may exceed Congress' proper role and could have the effect of undermining GAO's independence. I, for one, am delighted that a company in my home State with a strong track record of providing vehicles to the military was awarded the contract. Wisconsinites take justifiable pride in the high-quality trucks and other products that Oshkosh Corporation designs and builds. I understand that some Members of Congress would have preferred a different outcome, and I respect that. But we must all recognize that the needs of the men and women of our armed services come first. The Armed Forces are best equipped to make decisions about their acquisition needs, as they have the expertise and experience needed to make decisions about the equipment needs of our troops. We should not try to substitute our judgments for those of experts in our military and at the GAO. I strongly urge my colleagues to refrain from passing judgment on the contract until we all have the opportunity to review the GAO's expert analysis. There should not be any room for politics in the acquisition process--our goal is to get the best product for the taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I held a hearing last week of the Subcommittee on African Affairs to explore U.S. policy options toward Zimbabwe's transition. The hearing confirmed that far too little progress has been made in implementing the Global Political Agreement signed last year and that abuses continue at an alarming rate. The transition remains incomplete and far from irreversible. Yet at the same time, the hearing made clear to me the great potential that this transition holds and the great opportunity for the United States and those who care about Zimbabwe to help advance real reform and recovery. We need to seize this opportunity and look for ways that we can proactively engage and help strengthen the hands of reformers in Zimbabwe's transitional government. Just over a year ago, Zimbabwe was in the throes of intense violence carried out by Robert Mugabe and his allies against the opposition MDC's members, supporters, and families. This was a deliberate campaign to hold on to power and subvert the will of the people expressed in the March 29 elections. Once considered a liberator of his people, Mugabe had become one of the most despotic and brutal leaders of the day. And under his watch, the Zimbabwean economy had gone from one of Africa's most prosperous to one of Africa's most desperate. By the end of last year, millions of Zimbabweans were at risk of starvation and official estimates put inflation at 231 million percent. The situation today in Zimbabwe looks quite different, at least on the surface. Last September, with South Africa's mediation, the parties signed the Global Political Agreement and committed to form a transitional government. Then, after 5 months of delays, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai was sworn in as Prime Minister and the MDC assumed control of several key ministries. A year before, this would have been inconceivable for most Zimbabweans. Yet, it happened and has brought forth a sense of possibility that has not been there in years. That optimism has been furthered by the success of the new Minister of Finance from MDC, Tendai Biti, in stopping the economic decline and taking initial steps to promote economic growth. These changes are quite significant, though there is still a long way to go toward restoring the rule of law. Mugabe continues to refuse to implement important aspects of the Global Political Agreement, for example the appointment of new provincial governors and the replacement of the Reserve Bank Governor and Attorney General. He and his allies are doing everything they can to maintain their historic patronage system and power structures. Moreover, security forces are largely still operating as instruments of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, condoning land takeovers and harassing MDC and civil society activists. According to Human Rights Watch, the police and army continue to use brutal force to control access to the diamond fields of Marange district in eastern Zimbabwe. Until we see an end to these abuses and real, irreversible progress on implementation of the Global Political Agreement, I see no reason for the United States to repeal sanctions. All of us at the hearing I chaired seemed to be in agreement on that. The European Union has taken the same position after a high-level delegation visited Harare last month. Together, we need to keep the spotlight and the pressure on those who are obstructing implementation of the Global Political Agreement and continuing to perpetrate abuses. And if nothing changes, we should look for ways to ramp up that pressure. However, keeping the pressure on Mugabe and hardliners is not a sufficient strategy in and of itself to move Zimbabwe's transition forward. We also need to take steps--both symbolic and substantive--to engage with and empower reformers within the transitional government. I am glad that the United States is already providing support to the Office of the Prime Minister, and we should look at ways we can provide technical assistance to other ministries that demonstrate a commitment to reform, especially the Ministry of Finance. In addition, shifting our humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe to lay the groundwork for social and economic recovery can help advance the political transition. We should also consider working with like-minded donors to develop a plan and dedicated resources for Zimbabwe's economic recovery that could be leveraged for genuine democratic reform. Mr. President, the reality is that the United States is already doing and spending a lot in Zimbabwe, but we need to better target our diplomacy and our resources toward advancing this transition. Over the last few years, our diplomats have been on the frontlines of speaking out against repression and pushing for democratic change in Zimbabwe. With the formation of the transitional government, the playing field has changed. But that does not mean we should retreat to the sidelines and stop trying to proactively advance our goals. We need to keep working with all Zimbabweans who are committed to a peaceful, democratic future to push this transition forward. In the coming months, I look forward to working with the administration to do just that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we consider the Defense Department Appropriations bill, the most important question we face concerns our military operations in Afghanistan. That is why I have filed an amendment which commends the President for focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan and for developing a comprehensive, interagency strategy for the region. It also expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should provide Congress and the American people with some basic information before he authorizes any potential increase in troop levels in Afghanistan. In particular, it urges the President to inform Congress how much such an increase would cost, how long he expects it to last, the likelihood that it will have any impact on our ability to confront the al-Qaida safe haven in Pakistan, and the likelihood that it will actually destabilize one or both countries. I realize that we cannot know these things with absolute certainty, but we should have some idea of the expected costs, duration, and likelihood of success or failure before embarking on such a significant undertaking. The President should not send tens of thousands of brave young men and women into harm's way, if he so decides, without first answering these questions, and Congress should not support such a decision without first obtaining this information. My amendment, which is nonbinding, does not attempt to pressure the President to make a decision about troop levels. I, for one, am pleased to see that this administration is apparently asking some very tough questions about our Afghan strategy. I think it is unfortunate that some, including in this body, have suggested that any delay in responding to General McChrystal's request is unacceptable. The stakes are too high for a rushed decision, and not only for the troops who could be deployed. After 8 long years of war, we need to question all our assumptions and rethink our approach from top to bottom. What was possible and desirable 5 or even 2 years ago may now be neither. Getting Afghanistan right has serious implications for our national security, and the answers to the questions I raise in my amendment will help us, and the people we represent, to know whether we have done so. Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the authorization to use military force against those who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Since then, I have remained focused on that goal and have noted with alarm the resiliency of al-Qaida's leadership in Pakistan and its growing footholds in Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and elsewhere. The decision to go to war in Iraq was a tragic mistake that undermined our ability to go after al-Qaida. That initial mistake was compounded by flawed thinking as too many people focused narrowly on ``getting Iraq right'' without realizing that the key to getting Iraq right was to place it in the context of a comprehensive, global strategy to defeat al-Qaida. So, too, we cannot simply focus on getting Afghanistan right, we need to make sure that our Afghan approach is part of, and contributes to, that broader strategy I just mentioned. This administration sees that bigger picture, which is why it has begun to redeploy troops from Iraq, though not as quickly as I would prefer. And President Obama has brought needed focus and attention to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, but I am concerned that our current and proposed military strategy Afghanistan may play into al-Qaida's hands. Our current approach has mobilized a tribal network in the Afghan-Pakistan border region that does not share al-Qaida's international terrorist agenda but nonetheless opposes our massive military presence in the region. It has driven people into the arms of the Taliban even while Taliban and al-Qaida leadership remains out of reach in Pakistan. And it risks further destabilizing Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country where al-Qaida is now based. Rather than continue down this road, we need a smart, targeted strategy to pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leadership without provoking further militancy in both countries. Our enemy is agile. It has a network that spans the globe, receives financing from individuals around the world and has a presence in even the most developed nations. We have expanded our ability to go after these networks, working with allies and cutting off the flow of funds. Chasing after elusive Taliban foot soldiers in Afghanistan will not defeat al-Qaida; rather, we must use all elements of our national power to target al-Qaida without getting bogged down in massive military operations with unrealistic goals and potentially dangerous unintended consequences. Armed nation-building in a country hostile to foreign interventions and with a feckless, corrupt central government is at best an experiment and at worst a dangerous distraction. Rather than looking desperately for a quick fix to the problems that plague that country, we must acknowledge the limits of our ability to radically remake Afghan society no matter how many billions of dollars and tens of thousands of troops we may commit to the cause. Instead, we should pursue a sustainable, civilian-focused strategy to support the emergence of legitimate governance. This is the surest way to defeat the Taliban in the long term. Unfortunately, while the decision to go to war in Afghanistan was the right one, the exigencies of our military operations are now undermining our ability to help promote such legitimate governance. We have looked the other way when our supposed allies committed human rights abuses, sold drugs or embraced corruption. As General McChrystal stated in his assessment, we have embraced ``problematic'' relationships with ``polarizing and predatory'' power brokers, including in the Afghan National Security Forces, who ``have been major agents of corruption.'' He reported that ``extortion associated with large-scale development projects undermines the economy in Afghanistan.'' Additionally, he notes, the Afghan public ``perceives that ISAF is complicit in'' the abuse of power and corruption. Some who want to persist with our current strategy are calling for a rapid increase in the size of the Afghan security forces. But without a legitimate, functioning national government, a rapid expansion of these forces is likely to provoke further instability. Currently, the only face of the Afghan government in many parts of the country is the Afghan police force which is itself beset by corruption. While our current strategy depends upon our ability to address the corruption that plagues the Afghan government, no one has explained how we can achieve this goal. With the input of millions of dollars, international pressure and additional U.S. troops, we did not even have the ability to prevent wide-scale fraud in the recent presidential election. In the absence of a legitimate local partner, our counterinsurgency goals, while perhaps laudable, appear unrealistic. Rather than further aligning ourselves with this badly flawed government, we should focus on targeting our aid to those actually working to promote good governance and the rule of law. This does not require a massive military presence. Indeed, attempting to accelerate this process with an increase in U.S. troop levels may well be counterproductive. Countries are typically built by their own people, over time, through a process of building a national consensus. This cannot be imposed by foreigners, especially when they are active participants in an ongoing war in a country that is highly resistant to foreign occupation. And we cannot afford to link this lengthy and unpredictable process to an open-ended and unsustainable military escalation. General McChrystal has argued that we should significantly increase our military resources in Afghanistan for the purpose of ``protecting'' the Afghan population. However, he acknowledges that, if we endorse his proposal, it ``is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase.'' This does not make sense. Occupying the population centers of southern Afghanistan is likely to provoke greater resentment and increase the danger to our troops and to the Afghan public. The majority of Afghans oppose an increase in foreign troops and want to see foreign troops leave the country within 2 years. Without giving the American and Afghan people a sense that our military operations will not go on indefinitely, we are unlikely to gain the support needed to accomplish our goals, particularly if we know going in that civilian casualties will only increase in the short term. That is why I have called for a flexible timetable to draw down our troop presence in Afghanistan. Rather than risking more American lives and spending more American dollars in support of an illegitimate partner in Afghanistan, we must find a way to relentlessly pursue al-Qaida without further destabilizing Afghanistan and its nuclear-armed neighbor. Our massive, open-ended military footprint is not only unnecessary and unlikely to accomplish this goal, it may well be counterproductive. Now, some will argue that anything short of a troop escalation means ``abandoning'' Afghanistan. That same argument was made about Iraq, and it is just as phony now as it was then. The question is not about abandoning Afghanistan, it is about correctly defining and achieving our goals there. Unlike Iraq, we also hear arguments pointing out that the 9/11 attacks were launched from Afghanistan, which is absolutely true. But the leaders of al-Qaida and the leaders of the Taliban are in Pakistan, they are not in Afghanistan. We should be concerned about al- Qaida potentially re-establishing a safe haven in Afghanistan, but we should be even more concerned about al-Qaida's current a safe haven in Pakistan. Pakistan is home to a witches' brew of militancy, radicalism, terrorism, nuclear weapons and weak civilian leadership, and getting this country right will be even more challenging, and more important, than Afghanistan. Our primary goal should be to help support the emergence of a civilian government in Pakistan that is effective, democratic and a reliable partner. It has been widely reported that elements of the Pakistani security services continue to provide support to militants. Our ability to pressure the Pakistani security forces to hold those elements accountable is undermined by our focus on military operations in Afghanistan, specifically our dependence upon our supply line running through Pakistan. Some have suggested that if we redeploy troops from Afghanistan, the Pakistanis will decide we are not committed to the region, and we will lose what leverage we have over them. In fact, we should consider whether drawing down our troops in Afghanistan would help enable us to deal with Pakistan from a position of strength. The Director of National Intelligence summarized the depth of the problem earlier this year during his testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He stated that: No improvement in the security in Afghanistan is possible without . . . Pakistan taking control of its border areas and improving governance, creating economic and educational opportunities throughout the country. . . . [M]ounting economic hardships and frustration over poor governance have given rise to greater radicalization. . . . Islamabad needs to make painful reforms to improve overall macroeconomic stability. . . .

Mr. FEINGOLD. Among the needed reforms are measures to improve the transparency of government expenditures and impose taxes on wealthy landowners. Such reforms would reduce the opportunities for corruption among Pakistani political leaders, help to establish a more level political playing field, and help build the confidence of average Pakistanis in their government. As Admiral Blair's testimony illustrates, militancy in the region stems from an incredibly complicated set of problems, few of which are amenable to a military solution. Now that the United States is focused on its relationship with the civilian government in Pakistan after too many years in which we placed all our chips on an unreliable, unpopular and undemocratic strongman, we are finally on the right track, trying to support the emergence of a legitimate government that, in the long run, is more likely to support our counterterrorism goals and provide the stability that country needs. Progress on this front, however, may well be compromised by our massive presence in Afghanistan. During a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, former British foreign service officer, Rory Stewart testified that ``U.S. operations in Afghanistan may, in fact, contribute to the destabilization of Pakistan.'' Special Envoy Holbrooke and Admiral Mullen have also acknowledged to me in appearances before the Foreign Relations Committee that there is a danger that our operations in Afghanistan will further destabilize Pakistan by pushing militants into that country. We must carefully consider the alternatives before we pursue a significant escalation in Afghanistan that is not likely to fix the governance problems in that country or to address the al-Qaida presence in Pakistan, and that could further destabilize the entire region. Over the last 8 years, we have committed tremendous resources in an effort to dramatically rework Afghan society. We have doubled our troop levels over the past year and, this year alone, we will spend over $50 billion in that country. This has already become the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Rather than doubling down on a strategy with objectives that may well be unachievable, we should focus on relentlessly pursuing al-Qaida's network in Pakistan and around the world, and set realistic goals for providing civilian assistance to legitimate actors within the Afghan and Pakistani governments. My amendment asks tough questions about any potential military escalation to ensure that we carefully consider the costs of the proposed strategy, its likelihood of achieving our counterterrorism goals, the potential pitfalls and the alternatives. I hope my colleagues will ask themselves these questions as they consider whether to support the underlying bill, which funds a military approach in Afghanistan that is badly in need of rethinking.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I pay tribute to a dear friend and a great Wisconsinite who passed away earlier this week. Harvey Stower was an extraordinary man; he was a deeply principled legislator, a dedicated mayor, and a beloved friend to those of us lucky enough to know him. I was honored to serve with Harvey in the Wisconsin Legislature, where he worked tirelessly for the progressive values he held dear. His commitment to representing family farmers and protecting the environment were an inspiration to countless Wisconsinites. He then served as the mayor of Amery, where he and his wife Marilyn, who sadly passed away in 2008, were pillars of the community. Harvey was such a wonderful mayor because he understood the strength of our small towns, and cherished the sense of community they create. Harvey was also an ordained United Methodist minister, and an active member of his community in countless ways, both through his work as mayor and through many community organizations. He also remained active on issues on a statewide level, through his service on the Wisconsin Land & Water Conservation Board and the boards of the Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives, the Western Wisconsin Intergovernmental Collaborative, Wisconsin Church and Society--the United Methodist Church, and Inter-County Cooperative Publishing Association. Harvey's passing is an immeasurable loss for his family, for the people of Amery, and for our State. He was truly one of the nicest people I have come across in many years in public life. I respected Harvey so much, and I will always think of him as someone who represented the very best of Wisconsin. I join people across our State in remembering him today and honoring the many contributions he made to his State and his community.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are about to begin the 2010 fiscal year having enacted just one appropriations bill. I am even more disappointed that we passed a continuing resolution, airdropped into the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, that provides money to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I am pleased that the President has committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, this redeployment schedule is too long and may undermine our ability to combat al-Qaida while straining our Armed Forces unnecessarily. In addition, while the President is right to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, I remain concerned that his strategy for those countries does not adequately address, and may even exacerbate, the threats to our national security we face in Pakistan. We need to keep the Federal Government operating and make sure our brave troops get all the equipment and supplies they need, but we should not be providing funds to continue those wars without, at a minimum, engaging in a serious debate about their effects on our national security.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the exercise of governmental authority by White House advisers, sometimes called ``czars,'' is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration by the Senate. Our ability to conduct meaningful oversight of those who hold the levers of power and to evaluate whether they have the qualifications and character to carry out their duties may be undermined by the centralization of power in the White House. That is why I wrote to the President recently and plan to chair a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee on this topic in the very near future. We need to know more about the role of these advisers and what powers they have. There is a core issue here that concerns me. At this point, however, it is premature to pass legislation on this topic before fully understanding the constitutional and policy ramifications. I am also uncomfortable with singling out a single policy adviser, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, particularly since I am not aware of any evidence that she is acting inappropriately. Therefore, I will vote against the Vitter amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts, or JUSTICE, Act of 2009. I have had the privilege of working closely on this bill with Senator Durbin, as I have on so many of these issues over the years, and I welcome the support of Senators Tester, Tom Udall, Bingaman, Sanders, Akaka and Wyden. I am also pleased that the bill has the support of organizations and activists across the political spectrum, from former Republican Congressman Bob Barr to the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Library Association. At the end of this year, three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will sunset unless Congress acts to reauthorize them. In my view, Congress should take this opportunity to revisit not just those three provisions, but rather a broad range of surveillance laws enacted in recent years to assess what additional safeguards are needed. The JUSTICE Act does just that: It takes a comprehensive approach to fixing the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, once and for all. It permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. Because we can and must do both. These are not mutually exclusive goals. Indeed, the Department of Justice just this week acknowledged as much in a letter setting forth its views on Patriot Act reauthorization. The Department said: ``We also are aware that Members of Congress may propose modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans. As President Obama said in his speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, `We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.' Therefore, the Administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.'' I welcome the administration's openness to potential reforms of the Patriot Act and look forward to working together as the reauthorization process moves forward this fall. But I remain concerned that critical information about the implementation of the Patriot Act has not been made public--information that I believe would have a significant impact on the debate. During the debate on the Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Acts in 2007 and 2008, critical legal and factual information remained unknown to the public and to most members of Congress--information that was certainly relevant to the debate and might even have made a difference in votes. And during the last Patriot Act reauthorization debate in 2005, a great deal of implementation information remained classified. This time around, we must find a way to have an open and honest debate about the nature of these government powers, while protecting national security secrets. As a first step, the Justice Department's letter made public for the first time that the so-called ``lone wolf'' authority--one of the three expiring provisions--has never been used. That was a good start, since this is a key fact as we consider whether to extend that power. But there also is information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know. I do not underestimate the importance of protecting our national security secrets. But before we decide whether and in what form to extend these authorities, Congress and the American people deserve to know at least basic information about how they have been used. So I hope that the administration will consider seriously making public some additional basic information, particularly with respect to the use of Section 215 orders. There can be no question that statutory changes to our surveillance laws are necessary. Since the Patriot Act was first passed in 2001, we have learned important lessons, and perhaps the most important of all is that Congress cannot grant the government overly broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they won't be misused. Congress has the responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities--limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies, but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans. This lesson was most clear in the context of National Security Letters. In reports issued in 2007 and 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General carefully documented rampant misuse and abuse of the National Security Letter, NSL, authority by the FBI. The Inspector General found--as he put it--``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' After those Inspector General reports, there can no longer be any doubt that granting overbroad authority leads to abuses. The FBI's apparently lax attitude and in some cases grave misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities is attributable in no small part to the USA PATRIOT Act. That flawed legislation greatly expanded the NSL authorities, essentially granting the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong-doing, without judicial approval. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow, and failed to adequately remedy those shortcomings when it considered the NSL statutes as part of the Patriot Act reauthorization process in 2005. The JUSTICE Act, like the bipartisan National Security Letter Reform Act that I introduced in the 110th Congress, would finally provide the statutory safeguards needed to protect against abuse of NSLs. And it would remedy First Amendment violations in the NSL statutes that were identified last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a decision where Justice Sotomayor participated on the panel. Specifically, the JUSTICE Act restricts the types of records that can be obtained without a court order to those that are the least sensitive and private, and it ensures that the FBI can only use NSLs to obtain information about individuals with some nexus to a suspected terrorist or spy. It makes sure that the FBI can no longer obtain the sensitive records of individuals three or four times removed from a suspect, most of whom would be entirely innocent. It follows the road map laid out by the Second Circuit to make sure the gag orders that accompany NSLs do not violate the First Amendment. It prevents the use of so-called ``exigent letters,'' which the IG found the FBI was using in violation of the NSL statutes. It requires additional congressional reporting on NSLs, and it requires the FBI to establish a compliance program and tracking database for NSLs. And it requires the Attorney General to issue minimization procedures for information obtained through NSLs, so that information obtained about Americans is subject to enhanced protections and the FBI does not retain information obtained in error. The JUSTICE Act also fixes Section 215, one of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act and one of the three that is subject to the 2009 sunset. This provision permits the government to obtain court orders for Americans' business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; it is often referred to as the ``library'' provision, although it covers all types of business records. On Section 215, the legislation establishes a standard of individualized suspicion for obtaining a FISA business records order, requiring that the government be able to demonstrate the records have some nexus to terrorism or espionage, and it creates procedural protections to prevent abuses. The bill also ensures robust, meaningful and constitutionally sound judicial review of both National Security Letters and Section 215 business records orders, and the gag orders that accompany them. The bill also ensures that Americans can feel safe in their homes by placing reasonable checks on the so-called ``sneak and peek'' search warrant provision of the Patriot Act. It would eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these searches to be used in virtually any criminal case, and it would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification that the search occurred. It also would create a statutory exclusionary rule, in recognition of the strong Fourth Amendment interests at stake with regard to this extraordinary exception to the usual requirement that law enforcement knock and announce themselves before executing a search warrant. The JUSTICE Act also includes a number of reasonable safeguards to protect Americans' private communications. It permits the FBI to use roving wiretaps under FISA, but provides safeguards to protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance. It ensures that the FBI does not obtain sensitive information about Americans' Internet usage without satisfying an appropriate standard, and subjects those authorities, called ``pen registers and trap and trace devices'', to new procedural checks. It provides new safeguards for the Patriot Act provision on computer trespass, which allows computer owners who are subject to hacking to give the government permission to monitor individuals on their systems without a warrant. The bill also addresses the FISA Amendments Act, FAA, which granted the government new, over-expansive surveillance authorities and provided immunity to any companies that cooperated with the blatantly illegal warrantless wiretapping program that went on for more than five years--and that the prior administration repeatedly misled Congress about. That legislation became law last year over my strong objection, but it is not too late for Congress to fix it. I offered several amendments to the FISA Amendments Act on the Senate floor--amendments that would have helped to make sure that the privacy of Americans' communications are properly protected. And now those amendments are part of the JUSTICE Act. First, the bill would ensure that the FISA Amendments Act cannot be used to authorize the government to collect the content of all communications between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Under the FAA, millions upon millions of communications between innocent Americans and their friends, families, or business associates overseas could legally be collected, with absolutely no suspicion of any wrongdoing. The JUSTICE Act would ensure such bulk collection will never occur. Second, the JUSTICE Act would include a meaningful prohibition on the practice of reverse targeting--namely, wiretapping a person overseas when what the government is really interested in is listening to an American here at home with whom the foreigner is communicating. It would do so by requiring the government to obtain a court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance is to acquire the communications of an American in the U.S. Third, the bill would create potential consequences if the government initiates surveillance under the FAA using procedures that have not been approved by the FISA Court, and the FISA Court later finds that those procedures were unlawful. Say, for example, the FISA Court determines that the procedures were not even reasonably designed to wiretap foreigners outside the U.S., rather than Americans here at home. Under the bill, the FISA Court would have the discretion to place limits on how the illegally obtained information on Americans can be retained and used. Fourth, this bill includes a provision that will help protect the privacy of Americans whose international communications will be collected in vast new quantities. On the Senate floor last year, I joined with Senator Webb and Senator Tester to offer an amendment to provide real protections for the privacy of Americans, while also giving the government the flexibility it needs to wiretap terrorists overseas. And that amendment is in this bill. And finally with respect to the FAA, the bill would repeal the grant of immunity to any companies that participated in the illegal NSA wiretapping program. Senator Dodd was a leader on this during debate on the FAA and deserves a great deal of credit for drawing attention to this issue. Granting immunity seriously undercut our statutory scheme, which relies on both the government and the private sector to follow the law in implementing surveillance techniques. That is exactly why the surveillance laws have long provided liability protection for companies that cooperate with a government request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, companies are supposed to refuse the government's request, and they are subject to liability if they instead decide to cooperate. This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications from illegitimate snooping. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program the retroactive immunity that was in the FAA undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuses that occurred. Repealing that provision helps bolster the statutory framework that has for so long helped to protect the privacy of Americans' communications. The JUSTICE Act also provides additional congressional and judicial oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It ensures that the FBI provides some limited public reporting regarding its secret intelligence surveillance authority under FISA. It would give courts more authority to oversee the process for determining whether and how criminal defendants against whom FISA-derived evidence is being used should get access to the underlying applications and orders so they can mount a challenge. The last title of the bill simply ensures that the law labels as terrorists only those people who truly wish to do this country harm-- not domestic protesters who engage in civil disobedience or people who provide humanitarian assistance. These concerns are not new. ``Sneak and peek'' searches, the need for reasonable limits on the FBI's use of roving wiretaps, access to business records, and the overly expansive computer trespass authority were all issues I first raised in the fall of 2001 as some of the reasons why I believed the PATRIOT Act was flawed and threatened fundamental constitutional rights and protections. Eight years later, it is time to finally get this right. Again and again, the previous administration requested and the Congress provided vast new surveillance authorities with minimal checks and balances. Many of these new tools were appropriate, and passage of this bill would leave in place surveillance authorities that are dramatically broader than what existed prior to 9/11. But what has been missing--what this bill finally provides--is the assurances that these new authorities are tailored to our national security needs and subject to proper oversight. Every single one of the changes in this bill is reasonable, measured and justifiable. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts, or JUSTICE, Act of 2009. I have had the privilege of working closely on this bill with Senator Durbin, as I have on so many of these issues over the years, and I welcome the support of Senators Tester, Tom Udall, Bingaman, Sanders, Akaka and Wyden. I am also pleased that the bill has the support of organizations and activists across the political spectrum, from former Republican Congressman Bob Barr to the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Library Association. At the end of this year, three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will sunset unless Congress acts to reauthorize them. In my view, Congress should take this opportunity to revisit not just those three provisions, but rather a broad range of surveillance laws enacted in recent years to assess what additional safeguards are needed. The JUSTICE Act does just that: It takes a comprehensive approach to fixing the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, once and for all. It permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. Because we can and must do both. These are not mutually exclusive goals. Indeed, the Department of Justice just this week acknowledged as much in a letter setting forth its views on Patriot Act reauthorization. The Department said: ``We also are aware that Members of Congress may propose modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans. As President Obama said in his speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, `We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.' Therefore, the Administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.'' I welcome the administration's openness to potential reforms of the Patriot Act and look forward to working together as the reauthorization process moves forward this fall. But I remain concerned that critical information about the implementation of the Patriot Act has not been made public--information that I believe would have a significant impact on the debate. During the debate on the Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Acts in 2007 and 2008, critical legal and factual information remained unknown to the public and to most members of Congress--information that was certainly relevant to the debate and might even have made a difference in votes. And during the last Patriot Act reauthorization debate in 2005, a great deal of implementation information remained classified. This time around, we must find a way to have an open and honest debate about the nature of these government powers, while protecting national security secrets. As a first step, the Justice Department's letter made public for the first time that the so-called ``lone wolf'' authority--one of the three expiring provisions--has never been used. That was a good start, since this is a key fact as we consider whether to extend that power. But there also is information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know. I do not underestimate the importance of protecting our national security secrets. But before we decide whether and in what form to extend these authorities, Congress and the American people deserve to know at least basic information about how they have been used. So I hope that the administration will consider seriously making public some additional basic information, particularly with respect to the use of Section 215 orders. There can be no question that statutory changes to our surveillance laws are necessary. Since the Patriot Act was first passed in 2001, we have learned important lessons, and perhaps the most important of all is that Congress cannot grant the government overly broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they won't be misused. Congress has the responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities--limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies, but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans. This lesson was most clear in the context of National Security Letters. In reports issued in 2007 and 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General carefully documented rampant misuse and abuse of the National Security Letter, NSL, authority by the FBI. The Inspector General found--as he put it--``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' After those Inspector General reports, there can no longer be any doubt that granting overbroad authority leads to abuses. The FBI's apparently lax attitude and in some cases grave misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities is attributable in no small part to the USA PATRIOT Act. That flawed legislation greatly expanded the NSL authorities, essentially granting the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong-doing, without judicial approval. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow, and failed to adequately remedy those shortcomings when it considered the NSL statutes as part of the Patriot Act reauthorization process in 2005. The JUSTICE Act, like the bipartisan National Security Letter Reform Act that I introduced in the 110th Congress, would finally provide the statutory safeguards needed to protect against abuse of NSLs. And it would remedy First Amendment violations in the NSL statutes that were identified last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a decision where Justice Sotomayor participated on the panel. Specifically, the JUSTICE Act restricts the types of records that can be obtained without a court order to those that are the least sensitive and private, and it ensures that the FBI can only use NSLs to obtain information about individuals with some nexus to a suspected terrorist or spy. It makes sure that the FBI can no longer obtain the sensitive records of individuals three or four times removed from a suspect, most of whom would be entirely innocent. It follows the road map laid out by the Second Circuit to make sure the gag orders that accompany NSLs do not violate the First Amendment. It prevents the use of so-called ``exigent letters,'' which the IG found the FBI was using in violation of the NSL statutes. It requires additional congressional reporting on NSLs, and it requires the FBI to establish a compliance program and tracking database for NSLs. And it requires the Attorney General to issue minimization procedures for information obtained through NSLs, so that information obtained about Americans is subject to enhanced protections and the FBI does not retain information obtained in error. The JUSTICE Act also fixes Section 215, one of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act and one of the three that is subject to the 2009 sunset. This provision permits the government to obtain court orders for Americans' business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; it is often referred to as the ``library'' provision, although it covers all types of business records. On Section 215, the legislation establishes a standard of individualized suspicion for obtaining a FISA business records order, requiring that the government be able to demonstrate the records have some nexus to terrorism or espionage, and it creates procedural protections to prevent abuses. The bill also ensures robust, meaningful and constitutionally sound judicial review of both National Security Letters and Section 215 business records orders, and the gag orders that accompany them. The bill also ensures that Americans can feel safe in their homes by placing reasonable checks on the so-called ``sneak and peek'' search warrant provision of the Patriot Act. It would eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these searches to be used in virtually any criminal case, and it would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification that the search occurred. It also would create a statutory exclusionary rule, in recognition of the strong Fourth Amendment interests at stake with regard to this extraordinary exception to the usual requirement that law enforcement knock and announce themselves before executing a search warrant. The JUSTICE Act also includes a number of reasonable safeguards to protect Americans' private communications. It permits the FBI to use roving wiretaps under FISA, but provides safeguards to protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance. It ensures that the FBI does not obtain sensitive information about Americans' Internet usage without satisfying an appropriate standard, and subjects those authorities, called ``pen registers and trap and trace devices'', to new procedural checks. It provides new safeguards for the Patriot Act provision on computer trespass, which allows computer owners who are subject to hacking to give the government permission to monitor individuals on their systems without a warrant. The bill also addresses the FISA Amendments Act, FAA, which granted the government new, over-expansive surveillance authorities and provided immunity to any companies that cooperated with the blatantly illegal warrantless wiretapping program that went on for more than five years--and that the prior administration repeatedly misled Congress about. That legislation became law last year over my strong objection, but it is not too late for Congress to fix it. I offered several amendments to the FISA Amendments Act on the Senate floor--amendments that would have helped to make sure that the privacy of Americans' communications are properly protected. And now those amendments are part of the JUSTICE Act. First, the bill would ensure that the FISA Amendments Act cannot be used to authorize the government to collect the content of all communications between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Under the FAA, millions upon millions of communications between innocent Americans and their friends, families, or business associates overseas could legally be collected, with absolutely no suspicion of any wrongdoing. The JUSTICE Act would ensure such bulk collection will never occur. Second, the JUSTICE Act would include a meaningful prohibition on the practice of reverse targeting--namely, wiretapping a person overseas when what the government is really interested in is listening to an American here at home with whom the foreigner is communicating. It would do so by requiring the government to obtain a court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance is to acquire the communications of an American in the U.S. Third, the bill would create potential consequences if the government initiates surveillance under the FAA using procedures that have not been approved by the FISA Court, and the FISA Court later finds that those procedures were unlawful. Say, for example, the FISA Court determines that the procedures were not even reasonably designed to wiretap foreigners outside the U.S., rather than Americans here at home. Under the bill, the FISA Court would have the discretion to place limits on how the illegally obtained information on Americans can be retained and used. Fourth, this bill includes a provision that will help protect the privacy of Americans whose international communications will be collected in vast new quantities. On the Senate floor last year, I joined with Senator Webb and Senator Tester to offer an amendment to provide real protections for the privacy of Americans, while also giving the government the flexibility it needs to wiretap terrorists overseas. And that amendment is in this bill. And finally with respect to the FAA, the bill would repeal the grant of immunity to any companies that participated in the illegal NSA wiretapping program. Senator Dodd was a leader on this during debate on the FAA and deserves a great deal of credit for drawing attention to this issue. Granting immunity seriously undercut our statutory scheme, which relies on both the government and the private sector to follow the law in implementing surveillance techniques. That is exactly why the surveillance laws have long provided liability protection for companies that cooperate with a government request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, companies are supposed to refuse the government's request, and they are subject to liability if they instead decide to cooperate. This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications from illegitimate snooping. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program the retroactive immunity that was in the FAA undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuses that occurred. Repealing that provision helps bolster the statutory framework that has for so long helped to protect the privacy of Americans' communications. The JUSTICE Act also provides additional congressional and judicial oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It ensures that the FBI provides some limited public reporting regarding its secret intelligence surveillance authority under FISA. It would give courts more authority to oversee the process for determining whether and how criminal defendants against whom FISA-derived evidence is being used should get access to the underlying applications and orders so they can mount a challenge. The last title of the bill simply ensures that the law labels as terrorists only those people who truly wish to do this country harm-- not domestic protesters who engage in civil disobedience or people who provide humanitarian assistance. These concerns are not new. ``Sneak and peek'' searches, the need for reasonable limits on the FBI's use of roving wiretaps, access to business records, and the overly expansive computer trespass authority were all issues I first raised in the fall of 2001 as some of the reasons why I believed the PATRIOT Act was flawed and threatened fundamental constitutional rights and protections. Eight years later, it is time to finally get this right. Again and again, the previous administration requested and the Congress provided vast new surveillance authorities with minimal checks and balances. Many of these new tools were appropriate, and passage of this bill would leave in place surveillance authorities that are dramatically broader than what existed prior to 9/11. But what has been missing--what this bill finally provides--is the assurances that these new authorities are tailored to our national security needs and subject to proper oversight. Every single one of the changes in this bill is reasonable, measured and justifiable. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of Ken Bacon on August 15. While Ken had distinguished careers in both journalism and public service, it is his tenure as the head of Refugees International that I would like to highlight. In that capacity, Ken became one of the world's leading advocates for refugees and displaced persons. By adapting and challenging his own organization, he changed the global discussion on refugees and their rights, most recently with his focus on those displaced by climate change. Whether focused on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, or Iraq, Ken called upon the international community to take seriously the plight of those caught in the midst of conflict--innocent people losing their homes, separated from their families, and sometimes forced to forfeit their dignity to save their lives. As recently as June, Ken testified before a committee of the House of Representatives regarding the millions of Pakistanis displaced by fighting in the North West Frontier Province. He spoke powerfully: This is not merely a question of funding, though the humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts will need robust financial commitments. The United States also needs to be seen as rising above military objectives and showing genuine concern for the fate of civilians. Under his watch, the alarm was sounded early and repeatedly on the situation in Darfur, and he challenged the global community to act to provide protection, aid and even resettlement in some cases for Iraqis displaced by war. Drawing on his experience in a refugee camp in the Balkans in 1999, Ken humanized masses of people, stressing that while displaced families need immediate relief, ``in time [they] will require renewed confidence and support to return home in safety and dignity.'' Ken will be missed by all those who had the opportunity to know him as well as by the millions who have been, and will continue to be, impacted by his work. We pay tribute to him by continuing his work to ensure that the basic rights of displaced peoples are protected, that their basic needs are met, and that they have the support to ultimately return home in safety and dignity.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend Secretary Clinton on her visit to Africa last month. Over 11 days, Secretary Clinton traveled to several of the most influential countries on the continent and directly addressed some of the most sensitive and critical issues facing them and their neighbors. It was one of the most, if not the most, ambitious trips by a Secretary of State to sub-Saharan Africa in U.S. history. This trip, combined with President Obama's visit earlier this year to Ghana, sends a strong signal that the administration is committed to making Africa not only a priority, but also an integral part of overall U.S. foreign policy. The challenge going forward is to sustain a high level of engagement with each of the countries that Secretary Clinton visited and back up that engagement with resources that can make a tangible difference. On her first stop in Kenya, I am glad that Secretary Clinton took a strong stand against extrajudicial killings, corruption, and the continued failure to prosecute those most responsible for violence after the December 2007 election. As Secretary Clinton said, these conditions are holding Kenya back from realizing its potential. Worse yet, if these conditions persist, we could see a renewal of violence, especially in the run-up to Kenya's next elections set for 2012. Together with other international partners, we need to keep pressing Kenya's leaders to deliver on the reforms they have pledged, beginning with reform of the police and judiciary. At the same time, we should prepare targeted assistance that can be provided as soon as initial steps are taken toward those reforms. The United States and Kenya have longstanding and historic ties, and we need to help Kenyans get through this difficult period. While in Nairobi, I am also pleased that Secretary Clinton focused on the dangerous situation in neighboring Somalia and met with President Sheik Sharif of Somalia's beleaguered Transitional Federal Government, the TFG. I have long urged the Obama administration to engage with Sharif at a high level and I am glad that the administration is finally doing this, as well as taking seriously the threat posed by al Shebaab, an extremist group with ties to alQaida. However, going forward, we cannot repeat the mistake of focusing too narrowly on short-term gains in Somalia without a long-term strategy. As we help the TFG combat insurgents, we simultaneously need to help it to advance political reconciliation and deliver critically needed basic services. The TFG's ultimate success rests on whether it can establish a viable government that is perceived as legitimate and inclusive, representative of and responsive to the Somali people. Secretary Clinton traveled next to South Africa. Over recent years, our relationship with South Africa has cooled considerably, undermining our ability to coordinate and work together on issues of mutual interest. Yet I believe there is an opportunity now to reverse that trend with our new administration and South Africa's new administration under President Jacob Zuma. I am pleased that Secretary Clinton seized upon that opportunity with her visit, committing to deepening and broadening our bilateral relationship in a range of areas from HIV prevention to nuclear nonproliferation to climate change. Moreover, she talked with South Africa about how we can better coordinate our efforts to address regional challenges, beginning with the situation in Zimbabwe. We need to institutionalize such coordination, while continuing to encourage South Africa to be a leader in human rights and peacebuilding on the continent. Secretary Clinton's next stop was Angola, a country that is quickly becoming an economic powerhouse and regional leader. As Angola continues to rebuild from decades of civil war, there is a new openness to engaging with the United States, especially as the government seeks to diversify their economy. I am pleased that Secretary Clinton seized upon this potential by visiting Angola and committed to a ``comprehensive strategic partnership.'' She agreed to expand our engagement not only in the areas of trade and agriculture, but also in health, education and governance. Governance is particularly important because while Angola has taken some positive steps to increase transparency and efficiency, there is still a long way to go. To that end, I am especially glad that Secretary Clinton spoke to the Angolan National Assembly about its role in demanding accountability and transparency, and standing against corruption and abuses of power. We need to continue to engage on these issues and encourage Angola's democratization process. Secretary Clinton next traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo, with a visit to the eastern city of Goma. I applaud her for choosing to focus on the crisis in the eastern Congo, which has gone neglected for too long despite its unrivaled human toll and the unspeakable levels of sexual violence. Secretary Clinton committed to new efforts to help prevent and respond to the high levels of gender and sexual violence, while also recognizing the need to address the root causes of Congo's crisis, including the exploitation of natural resources by armed groups. Taking action to address those underlying causes is difficult, but essential. Senators Brownback, Durbin and I have introduced legislation that would commit the United States to do more on conflict minerals, and I look forward to working with the administration in this regard. I also look forward to working with the administration to help bring an end to the increasing violence by the Lord's Resistance Army in northeastern Congo. Following Congo, Secretary Clinton's next stop was Nigeria--a critically important country in sub-Saharan Africa and a strategic partner and major source of oil imports to the United States. I continue to be very concerned about the direction in which Nigeria is heading, especially with regards to corruption and the rule of law. I am glad that Secretary Clinton touched on these issues, and we must continue to press for meaningful reforms to enhance government transparency, accountability and the independence of the election commission. In addition, I am pleased that Secretary Clinton discussed the unresolved crisis in the Niger Delta and pledged to review how we might better assist the government's efforts to promote stability there. I look forward to working with her as well in that regard. However, to be successful, the Nigerian government must expand its current amnesty offer to a broader peace process that includes measures to address the marginalization and underdevelopment of the region. Secretary Clinton traveled then to Liberia, a country with which we have historic ties. Secretary Clinton was right to highlight the progress that Liberia has made since its civil war, while also speaking frankly about the challenges that the country continues to face. I am glad that she chose to speak at the Liberian National Police Academy and pledged new funds for police training. While great strides have been made in reforming Liberia's military, there is still great need to improve the capacity and professionalism of its police force. In addition, Secretary Clinton focused on corruption and spoke directly about this in a speech to the National Legislature. We need to continue to work with all parts of the Liberian government to guard against corruption and other abuses, both in their democratic process and in its management of the country's rich natural resources, especially timber. Finally, Secretary Clinton visited Cape Verde, a country that has made great progress in terms of both economic growth and democratization. Cape Verde provided a perfect backdrop to reiterate the two major themes of her trip: first, that America believes in Africa's promise, and second, that Africa's future is ultimately in the hands of Africans. Secretary Clinton delivered these messages powerfully and I believe they can be the foundation for a new era of U.S. engagement and partnerships with Africa. The challenge going forward is to give substance to these words and the commitments that were made throughout Secretary Clinton's trip. I look forward to working with her and the administration to do this. It will not by easy and it will require sustained engagement, greater diplomatic capacity, and new targeted resources. But if we get this right, I strongly believe the benefits for Americans and Africans can be immense in terms of our security and prosperity.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to bid farewell to Ted Kennedy, a man who spent so many hours on this floor. It was here that he engaged in the cause that shaped his life, and now shapes our memories his commitment to everyday people in their pursuit of the American dream. It is hard for me, as it is for all my colleagues, to imagine this place without Ted Kennedy. To serve here with him was a great honor. At the age of 14, I was already wearing a Ted Kennedy for President button. Then when I arrived here, this man, this lion of the Senate, was so friendly and funny and generous. He helped to teach me the ropes in the Senate, and I felt so fortunate to know him as a person, not just to admire him from afar. He and his family are one of the reasons I stand here today. His work in the Senate, his brother John's call for a new generation to serve their country, and his brother Bobby's call for social justice all these inspired me to run for office to in some way serve my country as Senator Kennedy and his family had. One of the greatest honors of my life was winning the Profiles in Courage Award with Senator McCain, and being recognized by members of the Kennedy family for our work on campaign finance reform. Having Senator Kennedy there that day was part of what made that such an honor. There was no one else like him; he was truly one of a kind. Who else could be such a fierce advocate, and at the same time such a skilled negotiator? Who else could engage in such heated debate, but still count so many of us, on both sides of the aisle, as devoted friends? No one but Ted Kennedy could do that. His qualities were legendary he was the hardest worker, he was the quickest debater, and he was the guy who lit up a room with his warmth and wit. It was all there in one extraordinary man, who became one of the greatest United States Senators in our Nation's history. Even putting aside Ted's legendary personal qualities, his legislative record speaks volumes about how effective he was. It is a record for the ages, with hundreds of his legislative efforts becoming law. His achievements in civil rights, education, health care, and workers' rights speak to the absolute commitment he had to the people he saw who struggled to live the American dream; the dedicated people who are the lifeblood of this country, but who struggle--especially in times like these--when they lose their job, or their health insurance or their home. In Ted Kennedy, those Americans found their champion, and we thank him for everything he achieved on their behalf. I admired so many things Ted Kennedy did, but most of all I was inspired by his work on civil rights. His commitment, through his 47 years in the Senate, to the cause of equality for every American, was perhaps his greatest achievement of all. In his very first speech on the Senate floor, just 4 months after his brother John's assassination, he called for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He played a key role in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was the chief sponsor of the Voting Rights Amendments Act of 1982, and just a few years ago was a key cosponsor of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. He was one of the chief cosponsors of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the chief sponsor of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, and a key proponent of theCivil Rights Act of 1991. And the list goes on, Mr. President. There simply is no doubt that he was the most important legislative architect of the expansion of civil rights in the last half century. I am committed to helping to continue that work here in the Senate in his memory. Ted was also someone who suffered many personal tragedies, but he bore those burdens with a quiet dignity that came from his tremendous inner strength. You couldn't know him without being awed by that strength, and sensing it whenever he entered the room, or when he took up an issue. When he spoke, his words echoed not just in this Chamber, but across the country and around the world. This was a man who could change the momentum on a bill or an issue just through his own personal will. He was a powerful person determined to help the powerless in our society, and we loved him for it. I think ``beloved'' is the best word to describe how we felt about him here in the Senate, and how so many Americans felt about him around the country. We are grateful that he lived to achieve so much, and to inspire so many. And now we wish, as he did when he laid his brother Robert Kennedy to rest, that ``what he wished for others will someday come to pass for all the world.'' And now we pledge, as he did at the Democratic Convention in 1980, that ``the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die. `` And now, as we grieve his loss, we say goodbye to our friend, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. We thank him for his lifetime of service to our country, and for his profound commitment to the cause of justice here in the United States and throughout the world.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my partner in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, to introduce the Federal Election Administration Act of 2009. Americans naturally expect that elections in this country will be honest, fair, and above all, lawful. That is the purpose of the Federal Election Commission, yet the FEC's willingness to enforce the law has gone from bad to worse. Now more than ever, the health of our democracy depends on whether Congress will take decisive action to fix this unpardonably broken agency. Senator McCain and I originally introduced this bill in 2003, after giving the FEC a fair chance to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. Despite our very best efforts and those of our House sponsors, Representatives Shays and Meehan, the FEC opened new loopholes rather than trying to faithfully discern the intent of the law. It acted as an unelected legislature, substituting its policy judgments for those of Congress. This is not my personal judgment. This is the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has struck down over twenty of the FEC's implementing regulations as arbitrary and capricious or directly contrary to the will of Congress. In its most recent opinion in 2008, the court was merciless in its criticism of the FEC. It said some of the FEC's arguments were ``absurd'', or ``fl[y] in the face of common sense''; or ``disregard[] everything Congress, the Supreme Court, and this court have said about campaign finance regulation''; or ``ignore[] both history and human nature.'' It said that one regulation ``provides a clear roadmap'' for using soft money in connection with federal elections, ``directly frustrating BCRA's purpose.'' It said that the rule ``would lead to the exact perception and possibility of corruption Congress sought to stamp out in BCRA.'' This is not language that the American people should ever hear from a court about a law enforcement agency. The situation has only gotten worse. Earlier this year, the FEC blew a hole through the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, issuing a regulation that allows lobbyists to hide the bundling of campaign contributions that the law was designed to make public. The FEC disregarded clear and deliberate statements of congressional intent, not only from me but from then-Senator Barack Obama. Those laws that the FEC cannot regulate out of existence, it smothers with inaction. During the first six months of 2008, the FEC was effectively closed for business because President Bush insisted on standing behind a nominee, Hans Von Spakovsky, whom the Senate would not confirm. We were in the middle of a presidential election year, with no enforcement of federal election law. That deadlock was broken when Mr. Von Spakovsky's nomination was finally withdrawn and four new Commissioners and one holdover Commissioner were confirmed in July 2008. But the cure turned out to be worse than the disease. In the words of The Washington Post: ``What's worse than a federal agency that lacks the quorum of commissioners necessary to act on a matter? Answer: An agency that has a quorum in place but is paralyzed from acting anyway because it is deadlocked along party lines.'' The whole point of having six commissioners, three Democrats and three Republicans, was to protect against partisan enforcement of the election laws. But over the past year we've seen election laws enforced against neither party. In well over a dozen cases, whether the likely lawbreaker was linked to George Soros or Mitt Romney, a 3-to-3 deadlock has prevented the FEC professional staff from doing their job. Even admitted offenders have been let off the hook: On at least two occasions, the FEC declined to collect fines that election law violators had already agreed to pay. That's like a district attorney tearing up a criminal's plea bargain. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but enough is enough. The current structure of the FEC cannot meet the challenges of enforcing our election laws in the 21st century. In this bill, we replace the FEC with a new agency, the Federal Election Administration. The FEA will be helmed by three members instead of six, so that there is always a tiebreaker and we stop seeing perpetual deadlock. The Chair will have a ten-year term to encourage independence. The other two members will have staggered six-year terms. Our hope is that this new agency will not be the captive of the political parties, but instead, led by a strong and independent Chair, will be the trustworthy law enforcement agency that the American people want to see. To that end, we have followed the model of more effective regulatory agencies such as the EPA, the NLRB, and the SEC. The FEA will have a corps of Administrative Law Judges to adjudicate complaints that the Administration's professional staff will bring. The new agency will have the power to determine violations of our election laws and to assess penalties subject, of course, to judicial review. Americans want our democratically enacted laws to be enforced, as a matter of public good and public trust. If the EPA doesn't enforce pollution laws, our drinking water gets poisoned. If the SEC doesn't enforce the securities laws, our economy gets poisoned. If the FEC does not enforce election laws, our democracy gets poisoned. The new Federal Election Administration will ensure that our democracy remains healthy, strong, and fair. I want to thank my friend Senator McCain for all of his work on campaign finance and other reform issues for well over a decade, and I look forward to working closely with him again to pass this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my partner in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, to introduce the Federal Election Administration Act of 2009. Americans naturally expect that elections in this country will be honest, fair, and above all, lawful. That is the purpose of the Federal Election Commission, yet the FEC's willingness to enforce the law has gone from bad to worse. Now more than ever, the health of our democracy depends on whether Congress will take decisive action to fix this unpardonably broken agency. Senator McCain and I originally introduced this bill in 2003, after giving the FEC a fair chance to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. Despite our very best efforts and those of our House sponsors, Representatives Shays and Meehan, the FEC opened new loopholes rather than trying to faithfully discern the intent of the law. It acted as an unelected legislature, substituting its policy judgments for those of Congress. This is not my personal judgment. This is the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has struck down over twenty of the FEC's implementing regulations as arbitrary and capricious or directly contrary to the will of Congress. In its most recent opinion in 2008, the court was merciless in its criticism of the FEC. It said some of the FEC's arguments were ``absurd'', or ``fl[y] in the face of common sense''; or ``disregard[] everything Congress, the Supreme Court, and this court have said about campaign finance regulation''; or ``ignore[] both history and human nature.'' It said that one regulation ``provides a clear roadmap'' for using soft money in connection with federal elections, ``directly frustrating BCRA's purpose.'' It said that the rule ``would lead to the exact perception and possibility of corruption Congress sought to stamp out in BCRA.'' This is not language that the American people should ever hear from a court about a law enforcement agency. The situation has only gotten worse. Earlier this year, the FEC blew a hole through the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, issuing a regulation that allows lobbyists to hide the bundling of campaign contributions that the law was designed to make public. The FEC disregarded clear and deliberate statements of congressional intent, not only from me but from then-Senator Barack Obama. Those laws that the FEC cannot regulate out of existence, it smothers with inaction. During the first six months of 2008, the FEC was effectively closed for business because President Bush insisted on standing behind a nominee, Hans Von Spakovsky, whom the Senate would not confirm. We were in the middle of a presidential election year, with no enforcement of federal election law. That deadlock was broken when Mr. Von Spakovsky's nomination was finally withdrawn and four new Commissioners and one holdover Commissioner were confirmed in July 2008. But the cure turned out to be worse than the disease. In the words of The Washington Post: ``What's worse than a federal agency that lacks the quorum of commissioners necessary to act on a matter? Answer: An agency that has a quorum in place but is paralyzed from acting anyway because it is deadlocked along party lines.'' The whole point of having six commissioners, three Democrats and three Republicans, was to protect against partisan enforcement of the election laws. But over the past year we've seen election laws enforced against neither party. In well over a dozen cases, whether the likely lawbreaker was linked to George Soros or Mitt Romney, a 3-to-3 deadlock has prevented the FEC professional staff from doing their job. Even admitted offenders have been let off the hook: On at least two occasions, the FEC declined to collect fines that election law violators had already agreed to pay. That's like a district attorney tearing up a criminal's plea bargain. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but enough is enough. The current structure of the FEC cannot meet the challenges of enforcing our election laws in the 21st century. In this bill, we replace the FEC with a new agency, the Federal Election Administration. The FEA will be helmed by three members instead of six, so that there is always a tiebreaker and we stop seeing perpetual deadlock. The Chair will have a ten-year term to encourage independence. The other two members will have staggered six-year terms. Our hope is that this new agency will not be the captive of the political parties, but instead, led by a strong and independent Chair, will be the trustworthy law enforcement agency that the American people want to see. To that end, we have followed the model of more effective regulatory agencies such as the EPA, the NLRB, and the SEC. The FEA will have a corps of Administrative Law Judges to adjudicate complaints that the Administration's professional staff will bring. The new agency will have the power to determine violations of our election laws and to assess penalties subject, of course, to judicial review. Americans want our democratically enacted laws to be enforced, as a matter of public good and public trust. If the EPA doesn't enforce pollution laws, our drinking water gets poisoned. If the SEC doesn't enforce the securities laws, our economy gets poisoned. If the FEC does not enforce election laws, our democracy gets poisoned. The new Federal Election Administration will ensure that our democracy remains healthy, strong, and fair. I want to thank my friend Senator McCain for all of his work on campaign finance and other reform issues for well over a decade, and I look forward to working closely with him again to pass this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this bill, which will provide additional funding to the popular Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save or CARS program. While not perfect, CARS has encouraged Americans to trade in their older and less fuel-efficient vehicles while boosting new car sales and helping to revive local economies in Wisconsin and around the country, something that is sorely needed in these difficult economic times. CARS began almost 2 weeks ago and in that time, interest in CARS has far exceeded most initial expectations for the program. Despite some problems with implementation of the program, it should be temporarily extended to help ensure that Americans who still want to participate in the program can do so, and that deals which have already been made in reliance on the program can go through. At the same time, I hope the Department of Transportation will listen to the concerns from car dealers and consumers and make improvements to help ensure CARS operates more smoothly in the coming weeks. I am pleased that the Department of Transportation has fixed one problem it created in implementing CARS. When Congress created the CARS program earlier this year, it fully intended to ensure that consumers across the country who are in compliance with the statute's requirements, including provisions related to car insurance, be allowed to participate in the CARS program. The Transportation Department issued a final rule almost 2 weeks ago that set the guidelines for the CARS program. This rule included a requirement that individuals who wanted to trade in their vehicles had to demonstrate proof of car insurance for at least one year prior to the trade-in, a provision that conflicted with statutory language stating that a trade-in vehicle be ``continuously insured consistent with the applicable State law.'' Currently, Wisconsin and New Hampshire do not require individuals to purchase car insurance and it was estimated that Transportation's rule would have affected up to 15 percent of Wisconsin drivers who legally did not have car insurance, but were in full compliance with Wisconsin State laws. I wrote to the Department of Transportation and spoke with Secretary LaHood to urge the Department to correct its misinterpretation of the CARS statutory language. I am pleased to have been joined in the effort by members of the Wisconsin and New Hampshire delegations as well as some of the lead authors of the Cash for Clunkers program including Senator Stabenow and Representative Dingell. The Department listened to our concerns and, last week, it announced that it had reexamined the statutory language of CARS and concluded that the initial rule it had issued unfairly penalized Wisconsin drivers who were in compliance with Wisconsin law. The Transportation Department further announced that trade-in vehicles in Wisconsin would be exempt from the 1-year insurance requirement thereby ensuring that Wisconsinites who meet the law's other eligibility requirements can participate in the CARS program. While all Wisconsin drivers will be required to have car insurance beginning in June 2010, this action by the Transportation Department is a sensible fix for Wisconsinites who are in compliance with state law and who seek to participate in this temporary program. Even with a number of Wisconsinites erroneously excluded from the program initially and some technical difficulties, as of August 5, several thousand Wisconsinites had participated in the program and dealers are expected to receive reimbursements for over $24 million that they have credited to Wisconsinites buying new cars under this program. On a per capita basis, this level of requested vouchers places Wisconsin fifth amongst all the States. Demand for the program remains strong in Wisconsin and across the country and will soon completely outstrip the supply of vouchers currently available, which is why we need to act to provide additional funding.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Obama administration has rightly focused much of its attention not on Iraq but on the region of the world that most threatens our national security--the Pakistan- Afghanistan region. This was long overdue. The lost time has greatly damaged our national security and left us with fewer options in South Asia. I continue to be concerned, however, that the escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan could further destabilize Pakistan, where the leadership of al-Qaida and Afghan Taliban operate and where Pakistani Taliban elements are seeking to extend their reach. I expressed these concerns, among other places, at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the administration's envoy to the region. Ambassador Holbrooke conceded that the concern was real and that, while the administration was aware of the risk, they could not rule out these unintended consequences. Testifying before the same committee a week later, Admiral Mullen made similar comments. The war in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the al-Qaida safe haven in the FATA and the Afghan Taliban safe haven in Balochistan, as well as to the current conflict in the Northwest Frontier Province and to the rest of Pakistan. It is not the same war throughout the region and it would be a mistake to perceive a monolithic enemy. But we need to consider the consequences of our actions and those of our partners throughout the region. Last year, I made a trip to Peshawar in the Northwest Frontier Province. There I met the province's leadership, as well as the extraordinary Americans working in our consulate there. During and after my trip, I expressed concern about the impact of deals made between the government and the Pakistani Taliban. Tragically, however, the situation in the NWFP got worse. Increasing violence in Peshawar included the killing of USAID employees and an attack on our top diplomat there. And the Pakistani Taliban's reach into Swat became broader and more radical, further threatening our national security and that of Pakistan. These advances must be permanently rolled back, just as safe havens in the FATA cannot be allowed to stand. But it is not enough for us to throw our support behind the Pakistani military incursions. This is a critical moment in which it matters how Pakistan seeks to reassert its control. The displacement of over 2 million civilians, delays in assistance to and the return of the displaced, and a failure to ensure coordinated and accountable civilian-led security to the people all pose serious risks. Internal conflicts fuel terrorist recruitment and can create new safe havens. So while we have a clear interest in the success of one side--the Pakistani Government--we also have a clear interest in how this conflict is waged and how it is resolved. At the same time, we must focus more attention beyond the safe havens and instability in South Asia, particularly on Yemen and Somalia. The threat from al-Qaida affiliates in those countries, as well as from al Shebaab, is increasing. Weak states, chronic instability, vast ungoverned areas, and unresolved local tensions have created almost ideal safe havens in which terrorists can recruit and operate. They have also attracted foreign fighters including, in the case of Somalia, Americans. Al-Qaida's long tentacles reach into these countries, and our efforts to track individual operatives are critical, just as they are in Pakistan. But, while we should aggressively pursue al-Qaida leaders, we will not achieve our long-term strategic goals if we think about counterterrorism primarily as a manhunt or if we assume there is a finite number of terrorists in the world. Conditions in places such as Yemen and Somalia create and attract new ones. That is why press stories suggesting that operatives from Pakistan are relocating, while troubling, ignore the larger strategic picture. Because of conditions on the ground, al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen and Somalia are perfectly capable of expanding their reach and capabilities on their own. And the best way to stop them is to address head-on the reasons--frequently unique to the countries in which they are operating--for their success. The threats to our national security in Yemen are serious and are getting worse. News last month about the murder of as many as nine hostages in Yemen, which Yemeni officials have linked to groups affiliated with al-Qaida, is a reminder of the increasing violence there. As in Peshawar, our diplomats have been in the crosshairs, with the attack last September on our Embassy in Sana'a. And, as our State Department has warned, al-Qaida in Yemen's recruitment remains strong, and its tactics indicate high levels of training, coordination, and sophistication. Any serious effort against al-Qaida in Yemen will require the engagement of the government, whose capabilities and commitment are extremely weak. Yemen is a fragile state whose government has limited control outside the capital. It is also distracted from the counterterrorism effort by two other sources of domestic instability--the al-Houthi rebellion in the north and tensions with a southern region with which Sana'a was united less than 20 years ago. In other words, counterterrorism is hampered by weak governance and by internal conflicts that would not appear on the surface to threaten our interests. Our only choice, then, is to develop a comprehensive policy toward Yemen that places counterterrorism within a broader framework that promotes internal stability, economic development, transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. And we must do this while considering the obstacles to repatriating the approximately 100 Yemeni detainees currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. I have spoken out about security gaps in Yemen, particularly with regard to the escape from detention of a terrorist operative responsible for the attack on the USS Cole. I support the closing of Guantanamo, but with so many of its detainees hailing from Yemen, we need to take an honest look at the weaknesses in Sana'a's justice and security systems and consider whether there is anything we can do about them. Instability in Yemen is, of course, directly linked to conflict in the Horn of Africa. Earlier this year, the pirate attack on a U.S. vessel briefly raised awareness of maritime insecurity fostered by a lack of effective governance and insufficient naval capacity on both sides of the Gulf of Aden. This problem continues, even when it is not on the front pages, and is both a symptom and a driver of overall instability in the region. Meanwhile, refugees from the conflict in Somalia are fleeing to Yemen. According to a recent U.N. report, thirty 30,000 have crossed the Gulf of Aden this year with thousands more preparing to do so. The human cost to this exodus, as well as the potentially destabilizing affects, demand our attention. Finally, Yemen is linked to the Horn of Africa through arms trafficking that violates the U.N. embargo on Somalia and fuels the conflict there. The threat in northern Somalia is, or should be, more apparent now than ever. Last October, terrorists attacked in Somaliland and Puntland. These are regions--and regional governments--for which we have little in the way of policy. I am not arguing that we recognize their independence, but it is in our national interest to engage them-- diplomatically and economically--and to promote stability there. I have spoken frequently, and for years, about the need for a comprehensive policy for the Horn of Africa. Serious attention to the unique conditions in Somaliland and Puntland must be part of that policy. Meanwhile, the raging conflict in central and southern Somalia is worse than ever, as a beleaguered transitional government fights a strengthened al Shebaab and allied militias. Foreign fighters have come to Somalia to fight alongside al Shebaab, including Americans, one of whom was implicated in the October terrorist attacks. Al-Qaida in East Africa thrives on the instability and has even expanded its support network south, into parts of Kenya. Yet for far too long, our policy toward Somalia has been fragmented or nonexistent. Our counterterrorism approach has been primarily tactical and has failed to confront the reasons why Somalia is not just a safe haven for al-Qaida in East Africa but a recruiting ground for increasing numbers of fighters-- Somali and foreign--who are drawn to a conflict that is fueled by local and regional forces. That is why a comprehensive policy must include a serious, high-level commitment to a sustainable and inclusive peace and why all elements of the U.S. Government need to work together toward common goals. As in Yemen, the key to a successful strategy is the recognition that destabilizing factors in the region are linked to threats to the United States. Thus, separatism in the Ogaden or Somali region of Ethiopia, the ongoing Ethiopian-Eritrean border disputes, and the ways in which these tensions motivate the policies of these countries toward Somalia must factor into our broader regional strategy. This is complex, to be sure. But we simply have no other choice--we must recognize the complexity, understand it, and devise policies that address it. This administration has a historic opportunity. And there are indications that lessons are being learned. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center--whom the President rightly kept on from the previous administration--recently said the following: This is a global struggle for al-Qaida, but if we think about it too much as a global struggle and fail to identify the local events that are truly motivating people to join what they view as a global struggle, we will really miss the boat. We have to try to disaggregate al-Qaida into the localized units that largely make up the organization and attack those local issues that have motivated these individuals to see their future destiny through a global jihad banner. This is the strategic framework that we have been waiting for, and it is encouraging. But statements such as these are only the beginning. To effectively fight the threat from al-Qaida and its affiliates, we have to change the way our government is structured and how it operates. First, we need better intelligence. Recent reforms to our intelligence community have focused on tactical intelligence--on ``connecting the dots.'' We have not tackled the gaps in strategic intelligence. We need to improve the intelligence that relates directly to al-Qaida affiliates--where they find safe haven and why. But we also need better intelligence on the local conflicts and other conditions that impede or complicate our counterterrorism efforts. And we need better intelligence on regions of the world in which the increasing marginalization of communities, resentments against local government, or simmering ethnic or tribal tensions can result in new safe havens, new pools for terrorist recruiting, or simply distractions for one of our counterterrorism partners. Second, we need to fully integrate our intelligence community with all the ways in which our government, particularly the State Department, openly collects, reports, and analyzes information. This integration, which was the goal of legislation that I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Hagel and that twice has won approval from the Senate Intelligence Committee, is a critical component of strategic counterterrorism. Without it, we will never understand the conditions around the world--most of them apparent to experienced diplomats--that allow al-Qaida affiliates to operate, nor will we be able to respond effectively. Third, this integration of clandestine intelligence community activities and open information gathering must include the allocation of real resources to the right people. This is fundamental. We can no longer afford to have budget requests driven by the equities and influence of individual agencies, rather than interagency strategies. And while Congress should do its part, real reform must be internalized by the executive branch. Fourth, we need to recognize that when whole countries or regions are off limits to our diplomats, we have a national security problem. We know that regional tensions in Yemen, clan conflicts in Somalia, and violent extremism in Pakistan all contribute to the overall terrorism threat. But if our diplomats can't get there, not only will we never truly understand what is going on, we won't be able to engage with the local populations. In some cases, we can and should establish new embassy posts. For years, I have pushed for such an initiative in northern Nigeria, a region where clashes between security forces and extremists have taken hundreds of lives in recent weeks. In some cases, the security concerns are prohibitive. But there, we cannot just turn our backs; our absence doesn't make the threats go away. Instead, we should develop policies that focus on helping to reestablish security, for the sake of the local populations as well as for our own interests. Fifth, we need strong, sustained policies aimed directly at resolving conflicts that allow al-Qaida affiliates to operate and recruit. These policies must be sophisticated and informed. We have suffered from a tendency to view the world in terms of extremists versus moderates, good guys versus bad guys. These are blinders that prevent us from understanding, on their own terms, complex conflicts such as the ones in Yemen or Somalia or, to inject two other examples, Mali and Nigeria. They have also led us to prioritize tactical operations--DOD strikes in Somalia, for example--without full consideration of their strategic impact. Conversely, we have viewed regional conflicts as obscure and unimportant, relegating them to small State Department teams with few resources and limited influence outside the Department. This must change. Policy needs to be driven by the real national security interests we have in these countries and regions, and our policies need to be supported by all elements of the U.S. Government. That includes a real recognition that, sometimes, policies that promote economic development and the rule of law really are critical to our counterterrorism efforts, and they need real resources and support from the whole of our government. Mr. President, after 7 years of an administration that believed it could fight terrorism by simply identifying and destroying enemies, we now have an opportunity to take a more effective, comprehensive, long- term approach. The President, in his speech in Cairo, reached out to Muslims around the world. The Director of the NCTC has stressed the need to address local conditions in the global struggle against al- Qaida's affiliates. The Secretary of State has committed to aggressive diplomacy around the world. And the Secretary of Defense has acknowledged the need to increase the role and resources of other agencies and departments. Now, however, the real work begins. Changing the way the government, and Congress, for that matter, understands and responds to the national security threats facing us will not be easy. But we have no time to wait.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as founder of the Senate Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus, I led a Senate resolution commemorating the upcoming 45th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964. I am delighted the Senate passed this resolution last night, and am very pleased that Senator McCain joined me in leading this effort. I also thank our other colleagues for their support as cosponsors: Senators Lamar Alexander, Evan Bayh, Michael Bennet, Barbara Boxer, Sam Brownback, Ronald Burris, Robert Byrd, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin Cardin, Susan Collins, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Judd Gregg, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Robert Menendez, Jeff Merkley, Patty Murray, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, George Voinovich and Ron Wyden. This Wilderness Act was signed into law on September 3, 1964, by President Lyndon B. Johnson, 7 years after the first wilderness bill was introduced by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota. The final bill, sponsored by Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, passed the Senate by a vote of 73-12 on April 9, 1963, and passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 373-1 on July 30, 1964. The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System ``to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.'' The law gives Congress the authority to designate wilderness areas, and directs the federal land management agencies to review the lands under their responsibility for their wilderness potential. Under the Wilderness Act, wilderness is defined as ``an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.'' The creation of a national wilderness system marked an innovation in the American conservation movement--wilderness would be a place where our ``management strategy'' would be to leave lands essentially undeveloped. The original Wilderness Act established 9.1 million acres of Forest Service land in 54 wilderness areas. The support for wilderness has continued through the 111th Congress with the creation of 52 new wilderness areas in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Today, the wilderness system is comprised of over 109 million acres in over 750 wilderness areas, across 44 States, and administered by 4 Federal agencies: the Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior. As we in this body know well, the passage and enactment of the Wilderness Act was a remarkable accomplishment that required steady, bipartisan commitment, institutional support, and strong leadership. The U.S. Senate was instrumental in shaping this very important law, and this anniversary gives us the opportunity to recognize this role. As a Senator from Wisconsin, I feel a special bond with this issue. The concept of wilderness is inextricably linked with Wisconsin. Wisconsin has produced great wilderness thinkers and leaders in the wilderness movement such as Senator Gaylord Nelson and the writer and conservationist Aldo Leopold, whose ``A Sand County Almanac'' helped to galvanize the environmental movement. Also notable is Sierra Club founder John Muir, whose birthday is the day before Earth Day. Wisconsin also produced Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of The Wilderness Society. I am privileged to hold the Senate seat held by Gaylord Nelson, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. He is a well-known and widely respected former Senator and former two-term Governor of Wisconsin, and the founder of Earth Day. In his later years, he devoted his time to the protection of wilderness by serving as a counselor to The Wilderness Society--an activity which was quite appropriate for someone who was also a cosponsor, along with former Senator Proxmire, of the bill that became the Wilderness Act. The testimony at congressional hearings and the discussion of the bill in the press of the day reveals Wisconsin's crucial role in the long and continuing American debate about our wild places, and in the development of the Wilderness Act. The names and ideas of John Muir, Sigurd Olson, and, especially, Aldo Leopold, appear time and time again in the legislative history. Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, chairman of what was then called the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, stated that his support of the wilderness system was the direct result of discussions he had held almost forty years before with Leopold, who was then in the Southwest with the Forest Service. It was Leopold who, while with the Forest Service, advocated the creation of a primitive area in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico in 1923. The Gila Primitive Area formally became part of the wilderness system when the Wilderness Act became law. In a statement in favor of the Wilderness Act in the New York Times, then-Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall discussed ecology and what he called ``a land ethic'' and referred to Leopold as the instigator of the modern wilderness movement. At a Senate hearing in 1961, David Brower of the Sierra Club went so far as to claim that ``no man who reads Leopold with an open mind will ever again, with a clear conscience, be able to step up and testify against the wilderness bill.'' For others, the ideas of Olson and Muir--particularly the idea that preserving wilderness is a way for us to better understand our country's history and the frontier experience--provided a justification for the wilderness system. I would like to remind colleagues of the words of Aldo Leopold in his 1949 book, ``A Sand County Almanac.'' He said, ``The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not the television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little is known about it.'' We still have much to learn, but this anniversary of the Wilderness Act reminds us how far we have come and how the commitment to public lands that the Senate and the Congress demonstrated 45 years ago continues to benefit all Americans. I would like to recognize the following organizations for their efforts to continue protecting our wild places: American Rivers, Alaska Wilderness League, Campaign for America's Wilderness, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Environment Group, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and The Wilderness Society.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that seeks to answer a question more and more Americans are asking in light of our economic woes and our struggle toward energy independence: Why aren't the oil companies developing 65 million acres, or nearly 75 percent, of land that they are leasing from the U.S. Government? Those same companies and some of my colleagues continue to argue that we need to open more Federal lands to drilling and recently have been insisting on opening up part of the Gulf of Mexico off Florida's coast that Congress agreed to keep closed during debate in 2005 for military and security purposes. I would first like to know why the oil companies are not producing on most of the Federal lands they already have under lease. Last year, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I had the chance to ask top oil executives just that question. They couldn't come up with a good explanation. In fact, one of the executives told me that they have the manpower and infrastructure to put all their existing leases of Federal lands into oil production. I find this troubling. No one is talking about pulling oil out of a hat. But with nearly 75 percent of currently leased Federal lands and waters not producing oil and gas, Congress must insist on some accountability. This is why today I am introducing--along with Senators Dodd and Menendez--the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, also known as ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. This bill says that if oil and gas companies want to lease additional Federal lands, they must either be producing or diligently developing their existing Federal leases, or they have to first give up those leases. Under my bill, the Department of the Interior is required to establish diligent development benchmarks, which will encourage leaseholders to demonstrate they are taking steps that may lead to oil and gas production. This is a responsible way to increase production and keep the private sector accountable for production of existing Federal resources. Last fall, the Government Accountability Office issued a report, ``Oil and Gas Leasing: Interior Could Do More to Encourage Diligent Development,'' that looked at whether enough is being done to ensure oil companies are taking steps to develop Federal oil and gas leases. The report found that the Department of the Interior--whose Minerals Management Service manages offshore leases and Bureau of Land Management manages onshore and National Petroleum Reserve leases--lags behind State and private landowner efforts to encourage development of land leased for oil and gas development. The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior ``develop a strategy to evaluate options to encourage faster development of its oil and gas leases.'' Though both MMS and BLM require ``reasonable diligence'' in developing and producing oil and gas on Federal leases, the GAO found that the Interior Department has not clearly defined what activities or timeframes constitute reasonable diligence--something my bill requires the agency to do. Currently, the GAO concludes that leaseholders, in general, are not required to take actions to develop a lease during the primary term. The only specific diligent development requirement that Interior officials identified to the GAO applies only to lessees of 8-year leases in the Gulf of Mexico and requires drilling to occur before the end of the fifth year or else the lease terminates. However, these leases represent less than 1 percent of the total lease universe. In addition to the GAO evaluation, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General issued a report in February 2009 on its investigation of whether oil and gas companies were adequately developing Federal leases and whether the Department of the Interior was ensuring companies bring their leases into production. The inspector general concluded that, while there is no guarantee that a particular lease contains oil and gas in commercial quantities, there are no requirements to ensure lessees are taking steps to reach this conclusion and to ensure the development of leases capable of production. Specifically, the inspector general found there are no requirements for the Department to monitor production progress or compel companies to develop leases and there is no requirement to detail activity on nonproducing leases. My bill will ensure the Federal Government develops diligent development requirements for oil and gas leases. With over 100 billion barrels of oil under Federal lands and waters that are being leased or are available for leasing, Congress must properly encourage their development. This won't solve our energy problems--the unfortunate truth is that in today's global market, gas prices are dictated less by our domestic production and more by OPEC's actions. Nevertheless, Congress must ensure appropriate oversight of our Federally leased lands and waters, as we simultaneously reduce our dependence on foreign oil through continuing to be a world leader in oil and gas production, decreasing our demand of oil and gas since we are the No. 1 consumer of both in the world, and pursuing alternative energy sources especially in the transportation sector.