Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I wish to express my strong support for the efforts underway to establish clear systems for effective regulation and monitoring of Somali remittance companies. Right now, the United Nations Development Program is working to build the capacity of the Somali financial sector and to bring Somalis together with key stakeholders in the international banking community so that clear expectations, shared high standards, and meaningful enforcement mechanisms can be established. Somali remittance companies can survive, and can contribute the development of the Somali people, only if this effort is successful. I applaud this undertaking, and believe that the United States should provide assistance where appropriate. As the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I held a hearing on U.S. policy options in Somalia earlier this year. In the wake of the attacks on September 11, I wanted to explore the issue of weak states, where manifestations of lawlessness such as piracy, illicit air transport networks, and traffic in arms and gemstones and people, can make the region attractive to terrorists and international criminals. The United States can no longer pretend that we have no stake in the fate of countries in distress--the Afghanistans and Somalias of our world, and the United States can no longer pretend that we can insulate ourselves from the difficult problems confronting those countries. We cannot ignore them, we cannot simply condemn them. We must work to strengthen state capacity and curtail opportunities for terrorists and other international criminals. It is my intention to introduce legislation at the beginning of the 108th Congress aimed at focusing more coordinated and consistent attention on Somalia. The U.S. must work harder at providing an alternative to the extremist influences in Somalia by vigorously pursuing small-scale health and education initiatives. And we must help Somalia's surprisingly vigorous private sector, to begin building regulated, legitimate financial institutions in Somalia, which will be essential to any economic recovery in the country in the future. Otherwise, we leave it to illegitimate, shadowy forces to step into the breach. One has only to meet a few of the many dynamic and committed Somalis who are working every day to build a better future for their countrymen to conclude that Somalia is not hopeless. But helping to rebuild capacity in Somalia will certainly not be easy. These efforts are important, and they deserve our attention and our support.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes this morning to call attention to recent disturbing trends with regard to democracy and civil liberties in Hong Kong. As you know, Hong Kong recently marked 5 years under the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China. When the territory reverted from British to Chinese control in 1997, China's communist rulers in Beijing promised to respect its autonomy for a period of 50 years under the so- called ``One Country, Two Systems'' formula. They also agreed Hong Kong would move toward direct elections by 2007. At the same time, however, Article 23 of the so-called Basic Law that became Hong Kong's new constitution required that the territory adopt legislation prohibitting ``treason, secession, sedition or subversion'' against the Chinese Government in Beijing, as well as ``theft of state secrets.'' The Hong Kong Bar Association, among others, did not believe new legislation was necessary, since existing Hong Kong laws were sufficient to deal with legitimate national security concerns. But Beijing felt otherwise. When Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Vice Premier Qian Qichen traveled to Hong Kong in July to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the handover, they reportedly made clear to Tung Chee-Hwa, their hand- picked chief executive, that they wanted an anti-subversion statute adopted without further delay. Three weeks ago, Tung's administration obliged, unveiling a plan for new legislation to implement Article 23. Tung called the plan ``both liberal and reasonable.'' But it contains a number of provisions that could potentially seriously undermine civil liberties in Hong Kong. For example, Tung's plan makes it an offense to organize or support the activities of organizations deemed by Beijing to threaten national security. It allows the police to enter and search private residences without a warrant to investigate suspected treason, sedition and subversion. It creates a new offense of ``secession,'' presumably for advocating independence for Tibet or Taiwan. Citizens would be legally obliged to report on alleged ``subversive'' activities of friends, neighbors and colleagues. Meanwhile, Journalists could face criminal penalites simply for reporting information about relations between Hong Kong and Beijing. Perhaps the most disturbing element of this legislative proposal is that it represents a further intrusion of Beijing's anti-democratic legal concepts and practices into Hong Kong. Definitions of offenses are vague, giving the government broad discretion to decide whom it wants to prosecute, or silence through the threat of prosecution. Although Tung says he will uphold human rights and civil liberties as the ``pillars of Hong Kong's success,'' his Secretary of Security, Regina Ip, admits that, under the proposed legislation, she would essentially defer to Beijing to determine which organizations to prohibit. Falun Gong leaps to mind. The Dalai Lama's followers might also take heed. Journalists and scholars have good reason to be concerned if the new legislation similarly incorporates Beijing's extremely broad definition of what constitutes a ``state secret.'' Rabiya Kadir, a Muslim businesswoman once feted by Beijing as a ``model minority,'' is currently serving an eight-year sentence under Beijing's state secrets law for mailing newspaper clippings to her husband in the United States. More recently, a prominent AIDS activist, Wan Yanhai, was detained for a month by the Beijing Bureau of State Security for leaking ``state secrets.'' His alleged offense was revealing that hundreds of thousands of Chinese people might have been infected with HIV through unsafe blood transfusions, information the authorities didn't think people needed to have. Regina Ip, who has been acting as Tung's point person for the new anti-subversion law, has attempted to reassure the plan's critics by saying Hong Kong's highly regarded independent courts will be responsible for interpreting and applying the new law. However, it was her government that undermined the integrity of those courts three years ago when it appealed a high-court decision on immigration that it didn't like to the National People's Congress Standing Committee in Beijing, as is its prerogative under the Basic Law. Beijing overturned Hong Kong's Final Court of Appeal in that case, setting a dangerous precedent in the eyes of Hong Kong's pro-democracy community. Ultimately then, as a columnist recently pointed out in the Financial Times, the bulwark against erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong may not be the territory's excellent judiciary but its executive, and that is not a comforting thought given the track record of Hong Kong's executive over the past five years. Tung Chee-Hwa has tightened controls on public demonstrations. His government turned away more than 100 people who sought to travel to Hong Kong to demonstrate at July's fifth anniversary ceremonies, so as not to embarrass his VIP guests from Beijing. After winning a second five-year term in March in a process in which exactly 800 people participated, he introduced a new system allowing him to fill his cabinet with hand-picked political appointees without the advice or consent of Hong Kong's legislature. There is no indication yet of any plans to make the process more democratic in 2007. More recently, when democracy advocates suggested that the Government make a detailed version of its proposed anti-subversion legislation available for public comment before the bill is formally introduced in the Legislative Council, Regina Ip replied as follows: Will taxi drivers, Chinese restaurant waiters, service staff at McDonald's hold a copy of the bill to debate with me article by article? Ms. Ip's remarks reveal contempt for the right of the general public to be consulted about matters that concern it. Unfortunately, this attitude is not uncommon among the economic elite that runs Hong Kong. The Chamber of Commerce representative on the Legislative Council has openly remarked that popularly elected representatives would spend money irresponsibly if given power. Another well-known tycoon is fond of saying ``no representation without taxation,'' turning the motto of the founders of our American democracy on its head. In other words, Hong Kong's is a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. Of course, Hong Kong did not enjoy democracy under British rule, either. The business of Hong Kong has always been business. The difference now is that the territory's capitalist elite has decided that currying favor with the communist dictators in Beijing is good for business. If some civil liberties need to be sacrificed in the process, they appear willing to accept the bargain. Many observers perceive this attitude being reflected in a growing tendency toward self-censorship within Hong Kong's major media. For example, two years ago the South China Morning Post, which aspires to enter the Mainland Chinese market, replaced its veteran, hard-hitting China editor, Willy Lam, with the former editor of the Beijing- controled China Daily. Then, in April of this year, the paper's veteran Beijing bureau chief, Jasper Becker, was fired for insubordination after complaining that the paper's China coverage was being ``watered down.'' I should add, however, that to its credit, the Post has been strongly critical of the government's recent legislative proposal. Hong Kong today remains a vibrant and cosmopolitan city whose citizens enjoy a degree of civil and economic liberties far surpassing that of most other countries. But whereas the trend in much of the world is toward greater democracy, in Hong Kong things appear to be headed in the other direction. China's President Jiang Zemin will visit the United States later this month. President Bush may want to raise the issue of autonomy and civil liberties in Hong Kong with him. That would be entirely appropriate. But, I think that we as a society can send a far more powerful message to the people who rule Hong Kong in a language they will understand. Those individuals fully appreciate that their future depends on their ability to perpetuate Hong Kong's status as a global financial center. Geography is no longer sufficient to maintain that status. Rather, what makes Hong Kong Hong Kong, what makes thousands of talented people from throughout the world eager to live and work there, is its spirit, its vitality, its spontanaeity, its brashness, its ``anything goes'' attitude and its creativity. In the eyes of many, those qualities make Hong Kong one of the most exciting places on Earth. Hong Kong's current rulers are set on a path that risks killing the goose that laid that golden egg. That's a message they need to hear not only from foreign politicians but from the international business community, the techno cognoscenti, the investors and the economic and cultural globe-trotters, voting with their feet and their pocketbooks. I encourage all such people who care about Hong Kong and about freedom to tell the Hong Kong authorities that, if Hong Kong sacrifices those things that make it unique and worth living in, we may as well set up shop in Shanghai.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to offer a few remarks in support of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, commonly known as FIRE Act grants. The FIRE Act grant program was established in fiscal year 2001, due in large part to the efforts of my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. Since its inception, the program has assisted firefighters across the Nation. I am especially pleased that this program has been a shining example of an effective partnership between local and Federal Governments. It provides Federal assistance to meet local objectives without imposing mandates or interfering with local prerogatives, and it provides Federal dollars directly to the fire departments. It also addresses critical needs, awarding grants for training, wellness and fitness programs, vehicles, firefighting equipment, personal protective equipment, and fire prevention. FIRE Act grants have had a positive and very tangible impact on communities throughout the country, including in my home State of Wisconsin. In fiscal year 2002, as of October 1, 2002 my State received $2.445 million in grants awarded to 41 departments. These grants help firefighters to do their job better, make our neighborhoods safer, and, very importantly, give residents peace of mind. Increasing the training and equipment available to firefighters fosters an environment of enhanced safety between firefighters and the communities they serve. Keeping our communities safe has been and should continue to be a top priority for all of us. As the tragic events of September 11 have shown our Nation, local firefighters play a vital role to protect and secure our communities. We should give them the support they need. As I travel through Wisconsin and talk to local firefighters and emergency response personnel, I hear the same refrain, time after time: the FIRE Act grant program is vital to their work and has enabled them to get needed equipment and training that they would otherwise be unable to afford. We have taken up funding for the FIRE Act grant program in this body numerous times since its inception. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, the Congress amended the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Authorization Act to provide increased authorization levels to allow up to $900 million per year to be allocated for the FIRE Act grant program. The program was also expanded to allow grant applicants to apply for equipment and training funds to help firefighters respond to terrorist attacks or attacks using weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, Congress, through both the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD- Independent Agencies Appropriations bill and the Homeland Security package in the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, appropriated $360 million to the FIRE Act grant program. As we finalize our appropriations bills this year we should continue to allocate resources to this important program. Keeping our communities safe has been and should continue to be a top priority for all of us. As the tragic events of September 11 have shown our Nation, local firefighters play a vital role to protect and secure our communities. We should give them the support they need.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to briefly comment on Senator Levin's alternative proposal relating to Iraq. Some of my colleagues for whom I have tremendous respect have tried to address the fact that the administration's proposal is simply not good enough by emphasizing the desirability of a United Nations resolution, thus transforming this dangerous unilateral proposal into an internationally sanctioned multilateral mission. But while I recognize that international support is a crucial ingredient in any recipe for addressing the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq without undercutting the fight against terrorism, I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress's proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to address two emergent wildlife diseases in my state, chronic wasting disease, or CWD, and epizootic hemorrhagic disease, or EHD, both of which have been found in Wisconsin's deer. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation today by the Senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. CWD was detected in wild deer in my state earlier this year, and, unfortunately, has now spread to captive herds. EHD was detected in wild deer in the last week of September. These diseases have become serious and substantial management problems in my home State of Wisconsin. To address CWD, the State of Wisconsin has decided to eradicate free- ranging white tailed deer within eastern Iowa, western Dane, and southern Sauk counties in an effort to try to eradicate the disease. Wisconsin will sample and test another 50,000 deer statewide. This represents an unprecedented eradication and sampling effort in Wisconsin. Most likely, it is the largest ever undertaken in the United States. For months, the Wisconsin delegation has been unified, on a bipartisan basis, in seeking Federal assistance from the Administration to combat this problem. We have sought assistance from the United States Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior. We have pursued any and every other Federal agency that might be able to provide us with assistance. Some help has been forthcoming, and we are grateful for the help that we have received. But the help our State has gotten so far to combat CWD isn't near enough. We need to be ready for the deer hunt that begins next month. We need to expand the availability of CWD testing in our State, and we need to expand it now. Wisconsin is undertaking an unprecedented testing program, but USDA has refused to allow Wisconsin to certify private labs to run CWD tests. That is why I have authored this new bill to require USDA to make CWD screening tests available to the public, that's the only way Wisconsinites can make informed decisions when hunting season arrives. USDA is concerned that the public may interpret the results of the currently available CWD tests to be more than a determination of whether the deer does or does not have CWD. USDA is concerned because the current tests have certain limitations and are only accurate in determining whether a deer is infected with CWD. No test has yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a way of proving that deer meat is safe to eat. While I understand USDA's concern that an animal screening test for CWD should not be viewed by the public as a food safety test, at present there is no food safety test for venison. The CWD screening tests are the only tests that are available today. We should make the public aware of the limitations of today's tests, but we should also make those tests available and let the public use their own judgment. The World Health Organization has advised that meat from CWD-infected deer should not be consumed. The only way Wisconsinites can follow the WHO's advice and make an informed decision is to have their deer tested. This bill addresses Wisconsin's urgent short term need for enhanced testing capacity in two ways. First, the bill requires USDA to release, within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue to be tested. Second, the bill requires USDA to develop a certification program for Federal and non-federal labs, including private labs, allowing them to conduct chronic wasting disease tests within 30 days of enactment. I hope these measures will enhance Wisconsin's capacity to expand deer testing this year. To address longer-term needs the bill directs USDA to accelerate research into the development of live animal tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests, and to develop testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing time. I believe that the alternative to not expanding testing in Wisconsin is much worse, and much more challenging than undertaking an effort to educate our hunters about the limitations of current tests. The alternative, frankly, is the spread of this disease. We should be very clear that the Federal Government will be allowing this disease to spread if it does not act to make more testing available. Concerned hunters, faced with limited information, will simply choose not to hunt Already, the lack of testing is affecting the number of hunters who will take to the woods in Wisconsin this fall. Registration for hunting licenses in my State is already down 30 percent from this time last year. If we do not expand testing in Wisconsin, we will likely guarantee the spread of the disease. Failure to aggressively work to eradicate CWD before it spreads could allow the very resilient prions that spread the disease to survive in the environment for years, further complicating eradication efforts. And although CWD has never spread to other species, scientists have not ruled out that possibility, and more deer with the disease may well increase the risk. The bill also addresses another issue, the emergence of another animal disease, this time a viral disease, EHD. This disease has apparently killed eighteen deer in Iowa County, and could have spread beyond the deer population in Iowa County. This disease affects not only our deer population, but could also harm our world famous dairy industry. While I am told that cows don't frequently die from EHD, they can carry the disease, and some are worried that this disease could subject our dairy herds to quarantine if they were found to have EHD. Our hunters and dairy industry do seem to have caught a break when it comes to EHD. I understand that colder weather will kill off the biting insects that spread the EHD virus. This should provide some protection for deer and dairy cattle for the next few months. In the meantime, however, we must take steps to prevent the spread of this disease now before it becomes a problem in the spring and to prevent its possibly spreading to our dairy industry. The Administration has simply not taken sufficient steps on CWD, and I am concerned that it will again fail to do enough if EHD becomes a problem. That's why my legislation today also includes a provision to create an action plan to address concerns about EHD. It would require that the Secretary of Agriculture create a federal working group to outline what actions the federal government is taking now, and to determine the future actions that are important to take in addressing EHD. My legislation is also budget neutral. It won't cost taxpayers a dime. It asks USDA to undertake these activities using current funds. I refuse to accept that USDA cannot find the resources within its budget of over seventy three billion dollars to take these actions. The Department must find the means to develop an efficient and accurate way to certify private labs to conduct CWD tests following the standards that the USDA labs use. Legislative action on this problem is urgently needed. We cannot afford to wait, or we will allow these wildlife diseases to spread. This legislation is a necessary step in ensuring that we can bring these diseases under control and I urge its swift consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to address two emergent wildlife diseases in my state, chronic wasting disease, or CWD, and epizootic hemorrhagic disease, or EHD, both of which have been found in Wisconsin's deer. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this legislation today by the Senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. CWD was detected in wild deer in my state earlier this year, and, unfortunately, has now spread to captive herds. EHD was detected in wild deer in the last week of September. These diseases have become serious and substantial management problems in my home State of Wisconsin. To address CWD, the State of Wisconsin has decided to eradicate free- ranging white tailed deer within eastern Iowa, western Dane, and southern Sauk counties in an effort to try to eradicate the disease. Wisconsin will sample and test another 50,000 deer statewide. This represents an unprecedented eradication and sampling effort in Wisconsin. Most likely, it is the largest ever undertaken in the United States. For months, the Wisconsin delegation has been unified, on a bipartisan basis, in seeking Federal assistance from the Administration to combat this problem. We have sought assistance from the United States Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior. We have pursued any and every other Federal agency that might be able to provide us with assistance. Some help has been forthcoming, and we are grateful for the help that we have received. But the help our State has gotten so far to combat CWD isn't near enough. We need to be ready for the deer hunt that begins next month. We need to expand the availability of CWD testing in our State, and we need to expand it now. Wisconsin is undertaking an unprecedented testing program, but USDA has refused to allow Wisconsin to certify private labs to run CWD tests. That is why I have authored this new bill to require USDA to make CWD screening tests available to the public, that's the only way Wisconsinites can make informed decisions when hunting season arrives. USDA is concerned that the public may interpret the results of the currently available CWD tests to be more than a determination of whether the deer does or does not have CWD. USDA is concerned because the current tests have certain limitations and are only accurate in determining whether a deer is infected with CWD. No test has yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a way of proving that deer meat is safe to eat. While I understand USDA's concern that an animal screening test for CWD should not be viewed by the public as a food safety test, at present there is no food safety test for venison. The CWD screening tests are the only tests that are available today. We should make the public aware of the limitations of today's tests, but we should also make those tests available and let the public use their own judgment. The World Health Organization has advised that meat from CWD-infected deer should not be consumed. The only way Wisconsinites can follow the WHO's advice and make an informed decision is to have their deer tested. This bill addresses Wisconsin's urgent short term need for enhanced testing capacity in two ways. First, the bill requires USDA to release, within 30 days, protocols both for labs to use in performing tests for chronic wasting disease and for the proper collection of animal tissue to be tested. Second, the bill requires USDA to develop a certification program for Federal and non-federal labs, including private labs, allowing them to conduct chronic wasting disease tests within 30 days of enactment. I hope these measures will enhance Wisconsin's capacity to expand deer testing this year. To address longer-term needs the bill directs USDA to accelerate research into the development of live animal tests for chronic wasting disease, including field diagnostic tests, and to develop testing protocols that reduce laboratory test processing time. I believe that the alternative to not expanding testing in Wisconsin is much worse, and much more challenging than undertaking an effort to educate our hunters about the limitations of current tests. The alternative, frankly, is the spread of this disease. We should be very clear that the Federal Government will be allowing this disease to spread if it does not act to make more testing available. Concerned hunters, faced with limited information, will simply choose not to hunt Already, the lack of testing is affecting the number of hunters who will take to the woods in Wisconsin this fall. Registration for hunting licenses in my State is already down 30 percent from this time last year. If we do not expand testing in Wisconsin, we will likely guarantee the spread of the disease. Failure to aggressively work to eradicate CWD before it spreads could allow the very resilient prions that spread the disease to survive in the environment for years, further complicating eradication efforts. And although CWD has never spread to other species, scientists have not ruled out that possibility, and more deer with the disease may well increase the risk. The bill also addresses another issue, the emergence of another animal disease, this time a viral disease, EHD. This disease has apparently killed eighteen deer in Iowa County, and could have spread beyond the deer population in Iowa County. This disease affects not only our deer population, but could also harm our world famous dairy industry. While I am told that cows don't frequently die from EHD, they can carry the disease, and some are worried that this disease could subject our dairy herds to quarantine if they were found to have EHD. Our hunters and dairy industry do seem to have caught a break when it comes to EHD. I understand that colder weather will kill off the biting insects that spread the EHD virus. This should provide some protection for deer and dairy cattle for the next few months. In the meantime, however, we must take steps to prevent the spread of this disease now before it becomes a problem in the spring and to prevent its possibly spreading to our dairy industry. The Administration has simply not taken sufficient steps on CWD, and I am concerned that it will again fail to do enough if EHD becomes a problem. That's why my legislation today also includes a provision to create an action plan to address concerns about EHD. It would require that the Secretary of Agriculture create a federal working group to outline what actions the federal government is taking now, and to determine the future actions that are important to take in addressing EHD. My legislation is also budget neutral. It won't cost taxpayers a dime. It asks USDA to undertake these activities using current funds. I refuse to accept that USDA cannot find the resources within its budget of over seventy three billion dollars to take these actions. The Department must find the means to develop an efficient and accurate way to certify private labs to conduct CWD tests following the standards that the USDA labs use. Legislative action on this problem is urgently needed. We cannot afford to wait, or we will allow these wildlife diseases to spread. This legislation is a necessary step in ensuring that we can bring these diseases under control and I urge its swift consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding was there was an order entered whereby I would be recognized at this point.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Not that long. I will be concluded in time for the Senator to speak prior to that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I do not want to lose my right to the floor at this point. Can the Senator from West Virginia pose a question to me?

Mr. FEINGOLD. If I retain my right to the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thirty minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, many have spent months reviewing the issue on advisability of invading Iraq in the near future, from hearings and meeting on the process and the very important role of Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign policy and military implications. After my own review and carefully listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the floor on Thursday, September 26. I indicated my opposition to the original draft use of force authorization by the President. I also used that opportunity to raise some very important questions to which I needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible resolution. Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, I still do not believe the President and the administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people we should invade Iraq at this time. Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, the administration's arguments do not add up. They do not add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al-Qaida and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before the Senate. My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution, vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with very minimal justification. I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree, post-9/11, we face, as the President said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism. We must be very patient and very vigilant, and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. Yes, I agree; if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time. I agree, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. I agree, a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy. I also believe and agree, as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our people. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself--and I am skeptical that is exactly what we are dealing with here--then we could, if necessary, act alone, including militarily. These are all areas where I agree with the administration. However, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I am not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action, but when the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives in insisting on action at this time. What am I talking about? I am talking about the spectacle of the President and senior administration officials citing a reported connection to al-Qaida one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war. For some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans into harm's way; for others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications--whether the original draft resolution discussions or the new White House resolution, or, regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati--in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high I am afraid it almost locks in--it almost requires--a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems. I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for S.J. Res. 23--the use of force resolution--to go after al-Qaida and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11, and I strongly supported military actions pursuant to S.J. Res. 23. But the relentless attempt to link 9/11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to intertwine 9/11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9/11 and Iraq. I believe it is dangerous for the world--and especially dangerous for us--to take the tragedy of 9/11 and the word ``terrorism'' in all their powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations--situations that surely need our serious attention, but are not necessarily the same as individuals and organizations who have shown a willingness to fly suicide planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon. Let me say the President is right, we have to view the world, the threats, and our own national security in a very different light since 9/11. There are shocking new threats. But it is not helpful to use virtually any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest the new threat is the same as other preexisting threats. I think common sense tells us they are not the same. They cannot so easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati. I have reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, or suggest the possibility such a connection has developed since 9/11. I want to be very clear. In fact, if there was a connection in planning for the 9/11 attacks by Saddam Hussein or his agents and the perpetrators of 9/11 and al-Qaida, I have already voted for military action. I have no objection. But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government, I think the President has to do better. He has to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we have received by various agencies. I am not hearing the same things at the briefings I am hearing from the President's top officials. In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said: We have to be concerned about the potential marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al-Qaida and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction. In March, there was a potential marriage. Then the Vice President said on September 8, without evidence--and no evidence has been given since that time--that there are: ``Credible but unconfirmed'' intelligence reports that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta met in Prague with senior Iraqi intelligence officials a few months before the 9/11 attacks. We have seen no proof of that. Finally, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year, and says: There is ``bulletproof evidence'' of Iraqi links to al- Qaida, including the recent presence of senior al-Qaida members in Baghdad. I don't know where this comes from. This so-called ``potential marriage'' in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point. The facts just aren't there. At least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the administration appears to use 9/11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely--almost like a bootstrap. For example, I heard the President say in Cincinnati that Iraq and al-Qaida both regard us as a common enemy. Of course they do. Who else are we going to attack in the near future on that basis alone? Or do we see an attempt to stretch the notion of harboring terrorists? I agree with the President, if any country is actively harboring and assisting terrorists involved in 9/11, we have to act against them. But I don't think you can bring to the definition of harboring terrorists the simple presence of some al-Qaida members somewhere in Iraq. After all, apparently we have al-Qaida agents active in our country as well. They are present in our Nation as well. How can this be a sufficient basis on its own? Therefore, without a better case for an al-Qaida connection to Saddam Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merit--not on some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks on the United States. Invasion of Iraq must stand on its own--not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9/11, but because it may not be consistent with and may even be harmful to the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9/11. In fact, I am so pleased to see one of the most eloquent spokesmen on this viewpoint here in the Senate Chamber, Senator Graham, who has done a terrific job of trying to point out our top priorities in this area. He said: Our first priority should be the successful completion of the war on terrorism. Today, we Americans are more vulnerable to international terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein. I ask: Is this war against terrorism going so terribly well when we see the possible explosion of the French tanker in Yemen, when we see the tremendous difficulties in trying to pursue stability in Afghanistan itself, and when we realize we are not certain at all whether Mr. Osama bin Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq encourage our allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight against terrorism, or just make them extremely nervous? I met with a group of African Ambassadors the other day in my role as chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. They told me various people were placing bets on what country would be next after Iraq under this new doctrine the President is putting forward. Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same? I am especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism, if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism--they just simply say we can do both. There is no proof. There is no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best. When former Secretary of State Kissinger was asked in this regard, he said: It is not clear to me what measures that are required in the war against terrorism would be interrupted or weakened by the actions that may be imposed on us if it is not possible to do away with the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by other means. That is the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on this tough question. But let's look at what the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in response to a similar question. He said: So the campaign against terrorism is going in full swing. And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow, if we had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense of the campaign against terrorism. That is all he said. Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me, that such an enormous undertaking will not call into question some of our other military efforts and priorities. What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines all the way to portions of the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East, to parts of Africa, that are being employed in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact we are using our National Guards and Reserves, many times within our country, to protect our own citizens at public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism? All of this, and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we are, I wonder if we are not very close to being overextended. Invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could, in fact, be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security. In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, we are being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We do not have the answers to these questions. We are being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we have been given. In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction--has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the administration to date. Of course, I know we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details, but we have to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing WMD sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that is a tall order, but it is a necessary demand. As I said, I agree with the administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the WMD problem in Iraq. But there is nothing credible about the ``we will figure that out later'' approach we have heard to date. What if actors competing for power in the post-Hussein world have access to WMD? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for non-state actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq? Some would say those who do not unquestionably support the administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, I am sure of this: these issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers. We need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally supported military action in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq and to help the country on the road to reconstruction. This could be very costly and time-consuming. It could involve the occupation--the occupation--of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter: the American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario: the unrest in moderate states, the calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. We need much more information about how we propose to proceed so we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security. In Afghanistan, the Government of President Karzai works under constant threat, and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting, and we only have just begun that task. What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq? I do believe the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, after all of the hearings, and after all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after, or, as others have suggested, the decade after. I think that makes no sense at all. So, Mr. President, I believe to date the administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it does not make it wise. I am concerned the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of, in his words, this action being ``crucial to win the war on terrorism,'' I fear it could have the opposite effect. So this moment--in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action--this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it. We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we do not know where the ship is sailing. On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati: ``We refuse to live in fear.'' I agree. But let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear, either. Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under attack, and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be frightening and disorienting: anthrax attacks, color-coded threat levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere. In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality this could happen again and there are forces planning to do us harm, and we cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety. In this new world, we cannot help but sense the future is uncertain, our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs. So when our leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal. My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters, and through e-mails or faxes. They are not calling for Congress to bury its head in the sand. They are not naively suggesting Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers that make sense. They are setting the standard, just as they should do, in a great democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Arizona in introducing a disapproval joint resolution pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, ``CRA''. An identical joint resolution is being introduced in the House of Representatives by supporters of campaign finance reform in that body. If passed by the Senate and the House and signed by the President, this resolution would result in the disapproval of regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission to implement the core provision of the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, the ban on soft money. We are taking this step, reluctantly, because the rules transmitted to Congress are not faithful to the letter and the spirit of the bill that we passed, and the President signed, just a few months ago. That bill was necessary because rulings over a period of years by the FEC had created the soft money system. We cannot stand by while the same regulatory body thwarts the efforts of this Congress, and the strong desire of the American people, to end that corrupt system of financing campaigns in this country. We must send a clear message that we meant what we said when we passed campaign finance reform earlier this year. No unelected body can be permitted to rewrite the law. No group of appointed officials can be permitted to punch loopholes in a law before the ink is even dry on the President's signature. The role of the FEC is to implement and enforce the laws that Congress passes, not to pass judgment on them and revise them according to the Commissioners' own views of the way that campaigns should be financed in this country. As my colleagues are aware, section 402(c) of the new law required the FEC to promulgate rules relating to Title I of the new law, the ban on soft money, within 90 days of enactment of the law on March 27, 2002. The FEC worked diligently to meet that statutory deadline. It published proposed rules on May 20, 2002, received comments from interested parties on May 29, 2002, held public hearings on June 4 and June 5, 2002, and completed work on the rules themselves on June 25, 2002. Incidentally, Senator McCain and I and Representatives Shays and Meehan filed extensive comments on the proposed rules. So the FEC had before it our views on the issues covered by the rules when it made its decisions. Let me first take a moment to outline a few of the deficiencies in the FEC's rules, and then I will discuss our decision to invoke the Congressional Review Act. One of the central provisions of the McCain- Feingold bill was a prohibition of Federal candidates and officeholders soliciting soft money. The President and members of Congress are now intimately involved in their parties' fundraising efforts. They spend hours at a time making phone calls to corporate CEOs and labor leaders asking for contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars. One member of this body commented to me after making one of those calls that he felt like taking a shower. The White House coffees from 1996 and other ``donor service'' events were part of this soft money system. This kind of fundraising demeans this body, it demeans the Presidency, it demeans public service. We knew if we were going to end the soft money system, we had to call a halt to members of Congress raising these kinds of unlimited contributions. The FEC took it upon itself to define the term ``solicit'' in our statute. The General Counsel's office sensibly suggested a definition that to ``solicit'' means to ``request, suggest, or recommend'' that a contribution be made. The Commissioners decided that definition was too broad so they amended the General Counsel's definition and said that solicit only means to ``ask'' for a contribution. There can be no question that our intent in this law was to broadly prohibit the involvement of Federal candidates and officeholders in the raising of soft money. The FEC's definition narrows that provision. As the Commission's General Counsel said, ``it doesn't take great cleverness'' to figure out ways to request a donation without formally asking for one. The bank on Federal officeholders raising soft money is plainly compromised by this narrow definition. It is contrary to the clear intent of the Act. In our prohibition of soft money fundraising, we included a narrow exception to permit federal officeholders to ``attend, speak, or be a featured guest at'' at a fundraiser for a State political party committee. The idea behind this exception was to allow Federal candidates to be part of such fundraisers, even if the State party was using the event to raise money that might not be legal under federal law. We did not intend that Federal candidates should be allowed to expressly solicit soft money contributions at such fundraisers. So what did the FEC do with this exception? In the words of one Commissioner, it created a ``rules free zone'' at these events. Absolutely nothing is now out of bounds at any event deemed to be a State party fundraiser, members of Congress can not only attend and speak at a fundraiser, they can individually solicit corporate CEOs in attendance, they might even be able to make phone calls to other donors from such fundraisers. Anyone who would have suggested on this floor that the intent of the narrow exception in the bill was to create a ``rules free zone'' would have been laughed out of town. But that is exactly what the FEC did. The FEC also laid the groundwork for the national parties to transfer their soft money operations to other entities before the law takes effect. This was clearly not permitted by the law we passed. The soft money ban applies not only to the parties but to any entity ``directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled'' by the party or any party official. The idea here, as you can tell by the broad language was to make sure that ban was difficult to evade. The FEC went right to work on this language. It determined that any action taken before the bill becomes effective cannot be considered in deciding whether an entity is established, financed, maintained, or controlled by the parties. Under this regulation, the parties can create shell entities this year, provide seed money and staff and donor lists for them, and inform all their soft money donors that this new entity is their favored recipient for soft money after the election. But under the FEC's rules, none of those facts can even be considered in deciding whether this entity is ``established'' by the party, and therefore subject to the ban on raising and spending soft money. This is a strained reading of the law, to say the least. One Commissioner said with respect to the actions of the FEC's majority on these rules: ``You have so tortured this law, it's beyond silly.'' This is clearly a prime example. How can an entity such as the one I described not be considered to have been ``established'' by the party? Yet that will be the result of the ``grandfathering'' that the FEC included in the regulations, a provision that is nowhere reflected in the law itself, and that was simply made up by the FEC out of whole cloth. There are many other examples of torturing this law, and we will detail all of them when we consider the resolution. I think it is clear that these problems go to the heart of the soft money ban. They are not just quibbles. They undermine the central provisions of the new law. That is why we are seeking to invoke the Congressional Review Act. Some may call that a draconian step because the CRA requires us to overturn the entire regulation. But in our view, such action is appropriate. No rules are better than rules that create huge loopholes from the very start. Furthermore, it is our view that the FEC would remain under an obligation to promulgate new rules and that new rules that address the shortcomings that we identify in this debate will be permitted under the CRA because they will not be ``substantially the same'' as the regulations that we disapprove with this resolution. The CRA would give the FEC a full year from the date of enactment of the disapproval resolution to repromulgate the rules. But we expect that the FEC will act expeditiously in response to a clear message from Congress that these rules are unsatisfactory. Indeed, the regulated community will demand quick action, because it will want the guidance that regulations provide. Otherwise, it will be required to abide by a statute without the more specific guidance provided by regulations. We take no pleasure in having to follow this course. But we worked for seven years to pass this reform for the American people. Sixty Senators voted in favor of the bill when it finally passed the Senate on March 20, 2002. We cannot turn our backs on the extra-legal action of the FEC. We must act to protect the reform that so many fought so hard for so long to enact. When we passed the McCain-Feingold bill in March, I indicated that we would continue to work for reform and to make sure that the new law was properly implemented. I really did not expect to be back on the floor so soon. But I make no apologies for it. The FEC's rules cannot stand. I ask for my colleagues support for this disapproval resolution.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on a matter other than the Department of Justice authorization bill but the time continue to run under the cloture rule.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to speak last Thursday night with regard to the issue of the possibility of war with Iraq. I am, of course, listening carefully to my colleagues as they discuss the prospect of war. Nothing could be more serious, and I am pleased this body will be engaged in this matter in earnest. The public nature of that debate stands, though, in great contrast to another matter. While the country is focused on whether or not to go to war, Members of Congress will once again be quietly sidestepping the issue of their own pay raise, an evasion that is made all the more inappropriate by the very fact that we may be on the brink of war. The cloakrooms have advised their offices that we are likely to consider another continuing resolution this week, and there is speculation that we are not likely to consider the individual appropriations bills that remain before we adjourn for this year. I raise this because there is increasing reason to believe that this body may not be able to consider the scheduled Member pay raise. Current law provides Members with an automatic pay raise without a debate or a vote, a stealth pay raise. The pay raise scheduled for January 2003 will be about $5,000. It follows automatic pay raises in January 2002, January 2001, and January 2000. Altogether these pay raises for Members of Congress, four pay raises in the last 4 years, total $18,000. The current system of stealth pay raises is already inaccessible, and the current legislative position of the body makes it even more so. We are unlikely to consider the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, which is the traditional vehicle for amendments to stop the Member pay raise, and we may not consider other amendable vehicles. Members who favor the scheduled pay raise should not be comforted by this. Congress is not going to sneak this by without anyone noticing, nor will it be lost on the average citizen that Congress is allowing this to happen on what may be the eve of war. In his more recent volume on the life of Lyndon Johnson, Robert Caro recounts similar events early in World War II. He writes: During the war's very first months, while an unprepared America--an America unprepared largely because of Congress-- was reeling from defeat after defeat, a bill arrived on Capitol Hill providing for pensions for civil service employees. House and Senate amended the bill so that their members would be included in it, and rushed it to passage-- before, it was hoped, the public would notice. But the public did notice: the National Junior Chamber of Commerce announced a nationwide Bundles for Congress program to collect old clothes and discarded shoes for destitute legislators. Strict gasoline rationing was being imposed on the country; congressmen and senators passed a bill allowing themselves unlimited gas. The outrage over the pension and gasoline ``grabs'' was hardly blunted by a hasty congressional reversal on both issues. Quips about Congress became a cottage industry among comedians: ``I never lack material for my humor column when Congress is in session,'' Will Rogers said. The House and the Senate--the Senate of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, the Senate that had once been the ``Senate Supreme,'' the preeminent entity of American government--had sunk in public estimation to a point at which it was little more than a joke. Mr. President, let's not let history repeat itself. I call upon the leadership to ensure we have a debate and a vote on the scheduled pay raise. I am willing to accept a very short time limit, understanding the very important business we have, 20 minutes equally divided, even 5 minutes equally divided. This will not take long. But the public is entitled to a debate and a vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the conference report to H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for their work in completing this bill and guiding it through a long and difficult conference. I wanted to take a moment to set the record straight on the issue of the inclusion in the conference report to H.R. 2215 of the Motor Vehicle Contract Arbitration Fairness Act. The junior Senator from Arizona complained yesterday on the floor that this bill had been added to the conference report, depriving him of the opportunity to hear a debate and perhaps offer amendments to the bill. He implied that this was some kind of secret and nefarious deal to try to bypass floor discussion of legislation that has not had adequate consideration by this body. Nothing could be further from the truth. S. 1140, on which the provisions in the conference report are based, was introduced by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and now has 64 cosponsors. Almost exactly half of those cosponsors are Republicans and half are Democrats. A companion House measure has 225 cosponsors. The bill passed the House by voice vote in the last Congress. The inclusion of these provisions in the conference report was supported by all of the Senate conferees, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The House conferees, led by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, also supported including these provision in the conference report. Now why was this necessary? Well, let me point out that this bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee almost a year ago. The majority leader asked for consent to proceed to the bill and have a limited debate with the opportunity for amendments no less than three times, on May 17, June 27, and September 25. Each time, a Senator on the Republican side objected and the Senate was prevented from having the separate debate and vote that the Senator from Arizona says he wanted. So if the Senator from Arizona has a beef here, it is not with the majority leader or the conferees, but with the member of his own party who exercised his right as a Senator to block the bill from consideration on the floor of the Senate. That Senator was exercising his right to object to a unanimous consent request, but with time running out in this Congress, the rest of the Senate has rights too. And including this bill in the conference report, with bipartisan support in the conference and in the Senate, was a reasonable step to take so that the will of a supermajority of the body would not be thwarted. These provisions are very important to address a real unfairness that is being perpetrated on the auto dealers of this country. Franchise agreements for auto and truck dealerships are typically not negotiable between the manufacturer and the dealer. The dealer accepts the terms offered by the manufacturer, or the dealer loses the dealership, plain and simple. Dealers, therefore, have been forced to rely on the States to pass laws designed to balance the manufacturers' far greater bargaining power and to safeguard the rights of dealers. The first State automobile statute was enacted in my home State of Wisconsin in 1937 to protect citizens from injury caused when a manufacturer or distributor induced a Wisconsin citizen to invest considerable sums of money in dealership facilities, and then canceled the dealership without cause. Since then, all States except Alaska have enacted substantive law to balance the enormous bargaining power enjoyed by manufacturers over dealers and to safeguard small business dealers from unfair automobile and truck manufacturer practices. A little known fact is that under the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, arbitrators are not required to apply the particular Federal or State law that would be applied by a court. That enables the stronger party, in this case the auto or truck manufacturer, to use arbitration to circumvent laws specifically enacted to regulate the dealer/ manufacturer relationship. Not only is the circumvention of these laws inequitable, it also eliminates the deterrent to prohibited acts that State law provides. A majority of States have created their own alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and forums with access to auto industry expertise that provide inexpensive, efficient, and nonjudicial resolution of disputes. For example, in Wisconsin, mandatory mediation is required before the start of an administrative hearing or court action. Arbitration is also an option if both parties agree. These State dispute resolution forums, with years of experience and precedent, are greatly responsible for the small number of manufacture-dealer lawsuits. When mandatory binding arbitration is included in dealer agreements, these specific State laws and forums established to resolve auto dealer and manufacturer disputes are effectively rendered null and void with respect to dealer agreements. A strong bipartisan majority of this body, and of the House, has come together to say ``no'' to these unfair contract provisions. So I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for their work to include this important legislation in the DOJ authorization bill conference report. As I said before, we could have had a debate and voted on amendments to this bill if consent had been granted. That was our preferred course as well. But one Senator did not want to have that debate, and so it was necessary, in the interests of justice, to proceed in this manner. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, and others to protect the rights of the thousands of Federal employees who will be transferred to the proposed Department of Homeland Security, and to express my opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm and the Administration's efforts to lessen those rights. The employees of the 22 agencies that are slated to be reorganized into the Department of Homeland Security are on the front lines of the effort to respond to and investigate the September 11 attacks and to prevent further acts of terrorism. These dedicated men and women, who have served the American people during this uncertain time, are about to undergo a professional upheaval while at the same time being expected to maintain their high level of performance. This massive reorganization should not be used as an excuse to take from these employees the one constant that they expect would follow them to their new department: the Federal civil service protections which they all have in common, regardless of their current home agency. The civil service system was put into place in order to end the corrupt patronage system that had permeated government hiring and advancement. The creation of a new department should not be used as an excuse to roll back these protections and plunge these workers into uncertainty regarding their professional futures. I am concerned that the administration appears ready to use the creation of this new cabinet-level department as an opportunity to eliminate or weaken the civil service protections currently in place for the Federal employees who would be transferred to the that department. Unless it is amended by the Nelson amendment, the pending Gramm amendment would have this effect of weakening these civil service protections. Some in the administration and some on this Senate floor have argued that the civil service system is rigid and could prevent the new Secretary from acting quickly in the face of an imminent threat. This is not the case. The existing civil service system already provides the administration with broad flexibility, while at the same time ensuring that Federal workers have a consistent framework of basic protections, including appeal rights. This flexibility is important in an issue as critical as our Nation's security, but the underlying Lieberman substitute and the Nelson amendment would provide the flexibility needed. Supporters of stripping these protections also have argued that the new Department should be allowed to scrap the existing system because that system has some problems. The ongoing debate over civil service reforms should not be used as an excuse to allow the Department of Homeland Security to be the only Federal department with employees who are not covered by this system. I regret that the administration has issued a veto threat against the Senate Homeland Security bill as reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee because it ensures that the approximately 170,000 federal workers slated to be transferred to the new department would retain basic civil service protections. Civil service protections level the playing field for Federal workers, ensuring that they are treated equitably. To propose to treat workers in one department, many of whom have had these protections for years, differently from their counterparts in other departments would undermine seriously the entire civil service system. No one, including the President, has demonstrated how maintaining these basic protections could jeopardize our national security. We can protect both our country and the rights of our workers. In fact, we can better protect our country if our workers' rights are well-protected, too. The United States affords its workers some of the best labor and employment protections in the world. But a wholesale elimination of those rights under the guise of homeland security would send exactly the wrong message. The amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska would grant the new Secretary of Homeland Security expanded authority to create a new personnel system while still ensuring that the rights of workers are protected. This compromise will help to ensure that workers have input into the structure of any new system that is created. As a number of our colleagues have said, it would be harmful to worker morale and to worker-management relations to simply foist a new system upon these workers without their input and then expect them to accept it. In addition to basic civil service protections, the Nelson amendment addresses the issue of collective bargaining. I support the right of workers to join a union and I am troubled that the administration appears poised to strip existing union representation and collective bargaining rights from many of these workers. I also am troubled by the implication that union membership is somehow a threat to our national security. The Nelson amendment would allow workers who are covered by existing collective bargaining agreements to keep those rights. It does not hamper the ability of the new Secretary or the President to remove collective bargaining rights from individual workers or newly-created agencies within the department if there is a valid national security concern. Simply being an employee of a department with the word ``security'' in its name is not sufficient cause to be stripped of collective bargaining rights. I urge my colleagues to support the Nelson amendment and to oppose the Gramm amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the administration's ``discussion draft'' of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. This proposal is unacceptable. The administration has been talking about war in Iraq for quite some time now. Surely they had the time to draft a more careful, thoughtful proposal than the irresponsibly broad and sweeping language that they sent to Congress. Apparently the administration put forward such broad language as a negotiating tactic--asking for everything in the hopes of getting merely a lot. But we are not haggling over a used car. We are making decisions that could send young Americans to war and decisions that could have far- reaching consequences for the global campaign against terrorism and for America's role in the world in the twenty-first century. To put forth such irresponsible language is to suggest that the President actually wants the authority to do anything he pleases in the Middle East--and that suggestion is likely to raise tensions in an already explosive region. To pepper the resolution with so many completely different justifications for taking action signals a lack of seriousness of purpose, and it obscures the nature of the mission on the table. And then to insist on immediate action while remaining largely incapable of pointing to any imminent threat and unwilling to flesh out the operation actually being proposed reveals a troubling approach to our national security. The administration has a responsibility to define what the threat is. Is it a link between the Iraqi Government and al-Qaida, or is it Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction? So far I certainly would conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the first charge about al-Qaida, but the administration keeps using it whenever they feel like without information. Why? Are they trying to gloss over the real possibility that this focus on Iraq, if not managed with diplomatic skill, will, indeed, do harm to the global campaign against terrorism? The threat we know is real--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction or WMD--is unquestionably a very serious issue. What is the mission? Is the mission on the table disarmament or is it regime change? Has anyone heard a credible plan for securing the weapons of mass destruction sites as part of a military operation in Iraq? Has anyone heard any credible plan for what steps the United States intends to take to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not remain a problem in Iraq beyond the facile ``get rid of Saddam Hussein'' rallying cry? Saddam Hussein is a vile man with a reckless and brutal history, and I have no problem agreeing that the United States should support regime change. I agree with those who assert that Americans, Iraqis, and the people of the Middle East would be much better off if he were no longer in power. But he is not the sole personification of a destabilizing WMD program. Once Hussein's control is absent, we have either a group of independent, self-interested actors with access to WMD or an unknown quantity of a new regime. We may face a period of some chaos, wherein a violent power struggle ensues as actors maneuver to succeed Saddam. Has anyone heard the administration articulate its plan for the day after? Is the administration talking about a long-term occupation? If we act unilaterally, that could mean a vast number of Americans on the ground in a region where, sadly, we are often regarded as an imperialistic enemy. Given the disarray in Afghanistan and the less than concerted American response to it, why should anyone believe that we will take Iraq more seriously? Certainly, it is undesirable for the United States to do this alone, to occupy a Middle Eastern country, and make our troops the target of anti-American sentiment. Of course, Mr. President, I am sure you and I would agree, none of these concerns is a rationale for inaction. Let me repeat that. None of these concerns is a rationale for inaction. This is not about being a hawk or a dove. This is not about believing that Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. He is a monster. Iraq's weapons programs are real, and only a fool would believe that the United States should simply hope for the best and allow recent trends to continue. Equally, Mr. President, only a person lacking in wisdom would send American troops wading into this mire with a half-baked plan premised on the notion that the Iraqis will welcome us with open arms; that somehow the WMD threat will disappear with Saddam, and that U.S. military action to overthrow the Government of Iraq will somehow bring the winds of democratic change throughout the entire Middle Eastern region. We do not make decisions crucial to our national security on a leap of faith. Congress is the body constitutionally responsible for authorizing the use of our military forces in such a matter. We cannot duck these tough issues by simply assuring our constituents that somehow the administration will ``work it out.'' That is not good enough. We must not fail to demand a policy that makes sense. Let me be clear about another important point: Maybe a policy that makes sense involves the United Nations, but maybe it does not. It is less important whether our actions have a formal U.N. seal of approval. What is important is whether or not action has international support. More important still is whether or not action will promote international hostility toward the United States. In the context of this debate on Iraq, we are being asked to embrace a sweeping new national doctrine. I am troubled by the administration's emphasis on preemption and by its suggestion that, in effect, deterrence and containment are obsolete. What the administration is talking about in Iraq really sounds much more like prevention, and I wonder if they are not using these terms, ``preemption'' and ``prevention'' interchangeably. Preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself. Prevention is believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. It is the difference between having information to suggest that an attack is imminent and believing that a given government is antagonistic toward the United States and continues to build up its military capacity. It is the difference between having intelligence indicating that a country is in negotiations with an unquestionably hostile and violent enemy like al-Qaida to provide them with weapons of mass destruction and worrying, on the other hand, that someday that country might engage in such negotiations. Of course, prevention does have an important role in our national security planning. It certainly should. We should use a range of tools in a focused way to tackle prevention--diplomatic, sometimes multilateral, economic. That is one of the core elements of any foreign policy, and I stand ready to work with my President and my colleagues to bolster those preventive measures and to work on the long-term aspects of prevention, including meaningful and sustained engagement in places that have been far too neglected. Unilaterally using our military might to pursue a policy of prevention around the world is not likely to be seen as self-defense abroad, and I am not at all certain that casting ourselves in this role will make the United States any safer. Would a world in which the most powerful countries use military force in this fashion be a safer world? Would it be the kind of world in which our national values could thrive? Would it be one in which terrorism would wither or would it be one in which terrorist recruits will increase in number every day? Announcing that we intend to play by our own rules, which look as if we will make up as we go along, may not be conducive to building a strong global coalition against terrorism, and it may not be conducive to combating the anti-American propaganda that passes for news in so much of the world. Fundamentally, I think broadly applying this new doctrine is at odds with our historical national character. We will defend ourselves fiercely if attacked, but we are not looking for a fight. To put it plainly: Our country historically has not sought to use force to make over the world as we see fit. I am also concerned this approach may be seen as a green light for other countries to engage in their own preemptive or preventive campaigns. Is the United States really eager to see a world in which such campaigns are launched in South Asia or by China or are we willing to say this strategy is suitable for us but dangerous in the hands of anybody else? The United States does have to rethink our approach to security threats in the wake of September 11, but it is highly questionable to suggest that containment is dead, that deterrence is dead, particularly in cases in which the threat in question is associated with a state and not nonstate actors, and it is highly questionable to embark on this sweeping strategy of preventive military operations. So as we seek to debate Iraq and other issues critical to our national security, I intend to ask questions, to demand answers, and to keep our global campaign against terrorism at the very top of the priority list. This Senate is responsible to all of the citizens of the United States, to the core values of this country, and to future generations of Americans. We will not flinch from defending ourselves and protecting our national security, but we will not take action that subordinates what this country stands for. It is a tall order, but I am confident that America will rise to the occasion. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the memory of Carl Thompson, one of the founders of Wisconsin's modern Democratic Party. I was proud to know Carl, and had the pleasure of serving with him in the Wisconsin State Senate. Wisconsin was lucky to have him as a leading voice for progressivism in our State. Carl was the youngest delegate at the founding convention of the State Progressive Party in Wisconsin. From those early days he never wavered from his commitment to an honest Government that truly served the interests of the people. Twice the Democratic candidate for Governor, Carl spent a lifetime dedicated to serving Wisconsin, whether he was running for the State's top office or serving 30 years in the Wisconsin State Senate. He also served as a member of the State's Labor and Industry Review Commission. When I served with Carl in the 1980s, I was struck, as was everyone who knew Carl Thompson, by his dedication to the great State of Wisconsin, and to the people he served. He was a powerful advocate for veterans' housing, and was one of the State's leading voices on the importance of preserving our First Amendment freedoms. Carl Thompson was also a great storyteller with a wonderful wit and sense of humor. I am deeply saddened by Carl Thompson's passing, but I know that his leadership has left a lasting mark on the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and our State. He will be remembered for many years to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to call attention to the tenuous food security situation in sub-Saharan Africa. The United Nations estimates that 14.4 million people are in need of immediate food aid and humanitarian assistance in southern Africa, where drought and poor harvests have combined with manmade factors-- including economic mismanagement and politically-motivated disruption of agriculture in Zimbabwe--to create deadly conditions for the people of Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, and Lesotho. This food crisis is striking a population already devastated by HIV/AIDS, compounding the difficulty of African families' struggle for survival. I have asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the causes of the food shortage and the obstacles to successfully addressing it in the hopes of gaining greater clarity as the relationship between natural and manmade obstacles to food security in the region. In the Horn of Africa, food shortages are again threatening the well being of millions. As the people of Ethiopia and Eritrea struggle to recover from a costly war and severe food shortage in 2000, many have had no opportunity to reestablish their own economic security. Large numbers of people are living on the margin, and are extremely vulnerable to food shortages. In Angola, the brutal civil war is finally over, but the legacy of that conflict and of years of neglect has left hundreds of thousands malnourished and seeking assistance. And in West Africa, disturbing reports suggest that the people of Mauritania and Senegal are also threatened by food shortages linked to drought. Sadly, from Burundi to Liberia, populations living in conflict zones also suffer from resulting food shortages. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I know that our interests throughout the sub-Saharan region are many, from promoting democracy and development to combating terrorism and other international criminal activity. None of those aims can be vigorously pursued when populations are weakened and governments distracted by desperate hunger and humanitarian catastrophe. I also know that our foreign policy agenda today is a crowded one, and that many crucially important issues compete for resources and attention. There are some baseline conditions that we must strive to maintain if other elements of our policy are to have a meaningful impact around the world. Basic food security is one of those baseline conditions. We need strong partners, and the strength of the region is being sapped every day by hunger. Working with others to fight off starvation, and then to help strengthen food security systems to avoid future crises, must always be a priority. I will work with my colleagues and the administration to ensure that the United States finds a way to give food security issues throughout sub-Saharan Africa the attention that they deserve, and I urge my colleagues to support efforts to address the problem in the region.