Floor Statements

Madam President, last spring, a first grade teacher at Barton Elementary School in Milwaukee contacted my office seeking help in furthering a project her classroom had started. The Ruby Bridges Project began as a modest effort to teach a first grade class in Milwaukee, WI, about the courage and bravery another first grader displayed on November 14, 1960, when she became the first child to integrate a public elementary school in New Orleans, LA. Soon, the Ruby Bridges Project grew and expanded because these first graders at Barton Elementary School wanted to teach other students in Milwaukee about Ruby Bridges. These first graders' efforts were featured in the local media and supported by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and then State Superintendent of Education Elizabeth Burmaster, who wrote letters of commendation for the project. The class

also started a petition which garnered over 2,000 signatures from Wisconsinites, and which was sent to President Obama asking him to designate a national day of recognition honoring Ruby Bridges.

On November 14, 1960, Ruby Bridges became the first African-American child to attend William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans, LA. While she is forever immortalized in Norman Rockwell's painting as a six-year-old child being escorted to school by U.S. Marshals, with tomatoes splattered in the background, her story is one of courage, bravery and a lifelong commitment to raising awareness of diversity through improved educational opportunities for all children. Even though Ruby Bridges endured riots and protests and retaliations against her family, she attended school at William Frantz every day during the 1960-61 school year. She was supported by her teacher, Ms. Barbara Henry, who herself faced retaliation and was not invited back to teach at William Frantz the following school year. Ruby went on to graduate high school and college, have a career and raise a family.

In 1999, Ruby Bridges established the Ruby Bridges Foundation to help eliminate racism and improve society by educating students around the country about her experiences, discussing ongoing efforts to promote diversity and providing lessons students could take back to their communities. Even today, 49 years after Ruby Bridges became the first child to attend integrated school in New Orleans, LA, her story provides an inspiring example for our young people. The story of Ruby Bridges has affected and influenced the lives of children across the country and one first grade class in Milwaukee, WI, in particular.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this Senate resolution recognizing November 14, 2009, as the 49th anniversary of the first school integration in New Orleans, LA, and commending Ruby Bridges for her bravery, courage and lifetime commitment to raising awareness of diversity through education.

Madam President, it is with great sadness that I mark the passing of an important judicial figure in Wisconsin and a dear family friend, Myron Gordon.

Myron was a good friend of my father, Leon Feingold, for many years, and I was privileged to know him well myself. He was a man of so much integrity, and I admired him tremendously, as my father did. In his obituary in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, people describe him as a ``giant'' of the legal profession and the ``king of judges,'' and he truly was.

His outstanding character served him well in his many years on the bench, on Milwaukee County Civil Court, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and, finally, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where he served as a Federal judge until his retirement in 2001.

Myron had so many wonderful qualities that came through in his work. He was very wise, and he was absolutely fairminded, refusing to play favorites in the courtroom or be swayed by outside opinion. He was an example for us all, and I am so glad that he was able to serve the State he loved so well for so many years. I was fortunate to know him, and Wisconsin is fortunate to have benefited from his lifetime of service and his commitment to the public good. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, in 2002, then-Senator Biden chaired a series of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on U.S. policy toward Iraq. These hearings challenged many prevailing assumptions and called into question the wisdom of invading Iraq. To the detriment of our Armed Forces, our counterterrorism efforts, and the standing of the United States around the world, our government ignored those prescient warnings.

Our country is again contemplating sending tens of thousands of troops into battle, this time as an escalation of the 8-year war in Afghanistan. In fact, the escalation has already begun, with an additional squadron to begin deploying in November.

Sadly, the impact of our expanding military engagement in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly and painfully clear, as October has become the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began, and more servicemembers have been killed this year than in the first 4 years combined.

I commend Senator John Kerry for holding a series of exceptional hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee over the past month on U.S. policy in this critical region. Expert witnesses have provided a sober analysis of the situation there.

I urge my colleagues, if they have a chance, to read the transcripts of these hearings and consider the opinions of this diverse group of former military officials, intelligence officers, diplomats, academics, and experts in the region. Of course, a handful of the witnesses supported an escalation of our military involvement in Afghanistan, but the majority of the regional experts--including CIA veterans who have deep experience in the region--questioned whether the stated aims of our military strategy are achievable or necessary in order to deny al- Qaida an uncontested safe haven in Afghanistan. Many expressed concern that our current military-focused approach may be making things worse.

President Obama has refocused our attention on the Afghanistan- Pakistan region, and for this I give him great credit. I am also pleased to see this administration is taking the time to have serious discussions about our strategy and the many possible alternatives. We must find a way to relentlessly pursue al-Qaida's global network without destabilizing this critical region, overstretching our military or needlessly spending money we do not have. This will require a smaller, more targeted,

and sustainable military strategy combined with far more robust regional diplomatic engagement.

I would like to go over what I consider to be some of the myths that are being used to support the notion of a significant buildup of troops in Afghanistan.

One is that preventing a potential al-Qaida safe haven in Afghanistan is more important than addressing existing safe havens elsewhere. That is not what we heard at the hearings.

The committee's hearings have revealed that calls for an open-ended or increased military presence in Afghanistan are based upon several flawed assumptions or myths. The first common myth is that preventing a potential al-Qaida safe haven in Afghanistan is more important than other potential safe havens. Again and again, we hear that if we do not send more troops, the Taliban will regain control of Afghanistan and again provide a safe haven in which al-Qaida could reestablish training facilities or launch attacks on the United States. That statement may be true, but it contains a number of assumptions that need to be closely examined. Will more troops make a difference? How likely is it the Taliban will actually regain control of Afghanistan? Even if it does, what will its relationship be with al-Qaida? But the biggest unasked question is: What are the costs of pursuing this strategy and is it necessary to address the very real threat posed by al-Qaida?

Al-Qaida already has a safe haven in Pakistan and is operating in other countries around the globe. Addressing this global threat requires a smart and sustainable use of our resources around the world, including in Afghanistan, rather than disproportionately directing our resources toward only one of many potential safe havens.

Several witnesses called into question even the likelihood that the Taliban would overrun Kabul. Even if the Taliban were to continue to exert control over certain areas, experts challenged the simplistic assumption that al-Qaida would then be able to reestablish the kind of operational freedom it had in Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

Moreover, sending more troops to Afghanistan may not prevent an al- Qaida safe haven there. As General McChrystal noted in his own assessment, even if we send additional troops, they would necessarily be focused on limited areas and would still leave substantial portions of the country outside the control of the Afghan Government or U.S. forces.

Several witnesses questioned whether we can afford to dedicate so many resources to one country when we face a global adversary. Instead, as Robert Grenier, the former CIA station chief in Islamabad during the 2001 invasion in Afghanistan, testified:

The best that we can hope for is not a permanent

elimination of a safe haven [in Afghanistan] . . . but rather

the elimination of an uncontested safe haven. [W]e need to be

in a place where we can continue to play the game, which

means that we need to be able to do that on a sustainable

basis. . . .What we are currently doing I believe is not

sustainable either by us or by the Afghans.

We have to have a sustainable, targeted counterterrorism strategy that can contest potential safe havens and, thus, prevent al-Qaida from regaining the footing they had in the 1990s. Trying to achieve total elimination of such safe havens through a large-scale, open-ended military mission is not only infeasible, it is physically and politically unsustainable and could provoke even greater instability in the region. It is time we develop a counterterrorism policy for Afghanistan that places it in the context of al-Qaida's many current and potential safe havens, including in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa and many other places around the world.

A second oft-cited myth is, we already tried engaging in such a limited counterterrorism operation in Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion and the situation on the ground only deteriorated.

On the contrary, the strategy of the United States in Afghanistan, over the past 6 years, has been uncoordinated and neglected and much of the limited resources went to pursuing militants in Afghanistan while al-Qaida was rebuilding in Pakistan. This strategy failed not because it was targeted at al-Qaida but because it generated resentment among the local population and created a groundswell of opposition. It also failed because it turned a blind eye to the corruption and lack of legitimacy of both the Afghan and Pakistani Governments. The previous administration's extreme reliance on Pervez Musharraf not only failed to achieve our immediate counterterrorism goals, but it undermined the perception among the Pakistani population that we were working with them against mutual threats. As a result, we lost a crucial opportunity to eliminate al-Qaida and the Taliban from, and bring stability to, Afghanistan.

By contrast, the Obama administration has focused on Pakistan and supported the emergence of a civilian government that shares our counterterrorism goals. We have a strong interest in Pakistan's continued military operations. We must remain engaged so any tactical successes are accompanied by rules of engagement that protect the civilian population and ensure humane treatment of displaced persons, which are essential to ensuring that these successes actually result in strategic victories.

Much more remains to be done, including efforts to strengthen responsive civilian governance and encourage Pakistan to tackle the deeper socioeconomic problems that the Director of National Intelligence has testified are driving instability in that country. None of this will be easy, but counterterrorism in Pakistan will not be achieved through our escalation in Afghanistan. One thing is certain. At no point in the last 8 years has this kind of comprehensive, focused strategy for Pakistan been attempted.

In Afghanistan, I am not suggesting we would necessarily just limit ourselves to what some have called an over-the-horizon presence. We may need to maintain bases and consider a range of counterterrorism options. But we will never return to the neglect and strategic drift of the pre-9/11 period, nor should we resume the unfocused mission we saw for much of the previous administration.

This recognition is why several witnesses testified that a targeted counterterrorism strategy, which has never been tried before, would likely succeed in denying al-Qaida an uncontested safe haven. This sustainable strategy, along with a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of troops of the United States from Afghanistan, could easily reduce the perception that we are engaging in an open-ended military occupation of that country.

As to a third myth, there are many who argue that a larger military presence is required in order to stabilize Afghanistan. However, many of the experts testified that an increase of foreign troops in Afghanistan will likely provoke additional militancy.

Reports indicate that militancy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan has increased over the years. According to Milt Bearden, the former CIA station chief in Islamabad: ``40,000 troops will beget 40,000 more enemy . . . '' We must appreciate that our military presence may well be counterproductive and, in fact, driving the conflict, creating more militants than it is eliminating.

Indeed, it may even be undermining our ability to divide our enemies. CIA veterans Robert Grenier and Mark Sageman testified that, in Mr. Grenier's words, Afghans ``tend to coalesce against what is perceived as an outsider.''

It is not surprising, then, that many of the witnesses who appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee agreed that a political solution is essential to stability in Afghanistan. As Mr. Bearden testified, there is no ``military solution--for us or the Afghans.''

We can and will relentlessly pursue al-Qaida. We have to find a way to do so that does not further destabilize the region. Increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan will only make this more difficult.

As to a fourth myth, another frequently cited myth is we must maintain a large military presence in Afghanistan in order to prevent the destabilization of Pakistan. In reality, our massive military footprint in Afghanistan has contributed to instability in Pakistan.

Several witnesses agreed the majority of Pakistanis would not welcome an increased military presence in Afghanistan. Mr. Grenier stated:

I think that a large increase in U.S. presence in

Afghanistan would not be welcomed by the majority of

Pakistanis. I think that it would make the struggle seem all

the more starkly one of the U.S. against Muslims as opposed

to the U.S. supporting Afghans in their own struggle.

As former British diplomat Rory Stewart testified, the ``stabilized Pakistan'' rationale for a military presence in Afghanistan also ignores ``the real drivers of the problems in Pakistan. Pakistan will not stand or fall on Afghanistan. It's about the Pakistani government, it's about the Pakistani military, it's about the Pakistani economy and the Pakistani society . . . by and large, Afghanistan is far less important to the future of Pakistan than we're suggesting.''

In fact, our presence in Afghanistan could be counterproductive. CIA veteran Paul Pillar recently testified in the House that ``an expanded U.S.-led counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would be more likely to complicate rather than to alleviate the task of Pakistani security forces insofar as it succeeded in pushing additional militants across the Durand line.'' We need to carefully consider the unintended consequences of sending additional troops to Afghanistan, lest we further destabilize its nuclear-armed neighbor, Pakistan.

The Afghanistan hearings provided a crucial forum to question conventional wisdom, justifying our current and proposed military strategy. These expert witnesses have challenged many of the assumptions underlying many of the myths I outlined.

In his testimony before the House, Pillar warned that:

An expanded military effort in the cause of

counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would be unwarranted. The

benefits in terms of ultimately adding to the safety and

security of the American people would be marginal and

questionable. At best, the difference such an effort would

make in the terrorist threat facing Americans would be

slight. At worst, the effort would be counterproductive and

would not reduce the threat at all. Even at its best, the

benefit would be, in my judgment, outweighed by the probable

costs of the counterinsurgency.

There is strong consensus that we must not abandon Afghanistan, and the lack of strategy and focus on this region that occurred over the past 6 years must not be repeated. But there has also been significant agreement among the witnesses that we continue to greatly overestimate the potential benefits and underestimate the risks associated with maintaining or expanding a large, open-ended military presence.

I urge my colleagues, again, to review this excellent testimony from these hearings. We need to reduce our unsustainable military presence in Afghanistan in order to pursue al-Qaida without further destabilizing the region and work through diplomatic channels and the provision of assistance to support the emergence of legitimate, competent governments in both countries that will be effective partners in fighting terrorism.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce, along with Senators Klobuchar, Tester, Harkin and Kerry, the Same Day Registration Act of 2009, a bill that would significantly increase voter participation by allowing all eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day or the same day that they vote.

In many ways, the machinery of our democracy needs significant repair. We live in an age of low turnout and high cynicism. The American people have lost faith in our election system, in part because they are not confident that their votes will be counted or that the ballot box is accessible to each and every voter regardless of ability, race, or means.

What we see instead are long lines at polling places; faulty voting machines; under-trained, under-paid, over-worked poll workers; partisan election administrators; suspect vote tallies; caging lists; intimidation at the polling place; misleading flyers; illegal voter- file purges; and now, the Supreme Court approving discriminatory voter ID laws. If people cannot trust their elections, why should they trust their elected officials?

Three years ago, Professor Dan Tokaji, a leading election law expert, called for a ``moneyball approach to election reform.'' Named after Michael Lewis' book about the Oakland A's data-driven hiring system, Tokaji's approach is quintessentially progressive, as that term was understood at the turn of the century. ``I mean to suggest a research- driven inquiry,'' Tokaji wrote, ``in place of the anecdotal approach that has too often dominated election reform conversations. While anecdotes and intuition have their place, they're no substitute for hard data and rigorous analysis.''

This bill embodies the moneyball approach to election reform. In stark contrast to many so-called election reform proposals, this bill addresses a real problem--low voter turnout; it targets a major cause of the problem--archaic registration laws; and it offers a proven solution--same day registration SDR sometimes known as Election Day registration, EDR.

The bill is very simple: it amends the Help America Vote Act to require every state to allow eligible citizens to register and vote in a Federal election on the day of the election, or on any day where voting is permitted, like during early voting. Voters may register using any form that satisfies the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act, including the Federal mail in voter registration form and any state's standard registration form. North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, is exempted from the bill's requirements.

The bill itself is simple, but it addresses a significant problem: the low voter turnout that has plagued this country for the last 40 years. We live in a participatory democracy, where our government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a consent embodied in the people's exercise of their fundamental right to vote. It is self evident that a participatory democracy depends on participation.

This may be a government of the people, Mr. President, but the people are

not voting. Since 1968, American political participation has hovered around 50 percent for Presidential elections and 40 percent for congressional elections. Even in 2008, a record-breaking year, national turnout was only 61.7 percent of the voting age population. The U.S. may be the only established democracy in the world where the fact that nearly 40 percent of the electorate stayed home is considered cause for celebration.

In fact, our predecessors in the Senate would be surprised to find us celebrating such low turnout: a 1974 report by the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service bemoaned the ``shocking'' drop in turnout in the 1972 election. And what was the number that so troubled the Committee? Fifty-five percent.

The report went on: ``[i]t is the Committee's conviction that our disquieting record of voter participation is in large part due to the hodgepodge of registration barriers put in the way of the voter. Such obstacles have little, if anything, to recommend them. At best, current registration laws in the various states are outmoded and simply inappropriate for a highly mobile population. At worst, registration laws can be construed as a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who desperately need entry into the decision-making processes of our country.''

What a shame, that the Committee's findings are still valid. Our archaic registration laws have been reformed, but they are still archaic. We have passed a number of important bills designed to combat low turnout, but turnout is still low. America is even more mobile than it was in 1974, and yet our registration laws are still out of touch with the reality that more than 40 million Americans move every year. Worst of all, our registration laws still fall especially hard on the young, the old, and the poor.

We have long known that complicated voter registration requirements constitute one of the major barriers to voting. In fact, many states adopted voter registration in order to prevent certain segments of the population from voting. Alexander Keyssar, the preeminent scholar on the history right to vote in this country, writes that although ``[r]egistration laws emerged in the nineteenth century as a means of keeping track of voters and preventing fraud; they also served--and were intended to serve--as a means of keeping African-American, working-class, immigrant, and poor voters from the polls.''

It is time for a fundamental change. A large body of research tells us that unnecessarily burdensome voter registration requirements are the single largest factor in preventing people from voting. Simply put, voter registration restrictions should not keep eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote. The solution to this problem is same day registration.

Decades of empirical research confirm same day registration's positive impact on turnout. As one academic paper states, ``the evidence on whether EDR augments the electorate is remarkably clear and consistent. Studies finding positive and significant turnout impacts are too numerous to list.'' Mr. President, studies indicate that same day registration alone increases turnout by roughly 5 to 10 percentage points.

In general, States with same day registration boast voter turnout that is 10-12 percentage points higher than States that require voters to register before Election Day. Turnout in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which implemented same day registration over 35 years ago has been especially high: in 2004, for example, when national turnout was just 55 percent, 78 percent of eligible Minnesotans and 75 percent of eligible Wisconsinites went to the polls. The last time national voter turnout was above 70 percent, it was 1896, there were only 45 States, and the gold standard was the dominant campaign issue.

Critics might worry about the possibility of fraud, but same day registration actually makes the registration process more secure. Voters registering when they vote do so in the presence of an elections official who verifies the voter's residency and identity on the spot. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's Secretary of State, points out that same day registration ``is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you--not a postcard in the mail. That is a no-brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.''

In contrast to most election reforms, the cost of same day registration is negligible. A recent survey of 26 local elections officials in six same day registration States found that ``officials agreed that incidental expense of administering EDR is minimal.'' In fact, same day registration may actually result in a net savings because it significantly reduces the use of provisional ballots. Provisional ballots, which are required by the Help America Vote Act, are expensive to administer. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that provisional ballots cost State and local governments about $25 million a year.

In some States the number of provisional ballots cast is surprisingly large. For example, in 2004, more than 4 percent of California's registered voters cast provisional ballots--that is 644,642 provisional ballots. In Ohio, 157,714 provisional ballots were cast, about 2 percent of all registered voters.

In contrast, in 2004 only 0.03 percent of voters in SDR states cast a provisional ballot. In Wisconsin, only 374 provisional ballots were cast. In Maine, only 95 provisional ballots were cast. In fact, only 952 provisional ballots were cast in all the SDR states combined in 2004. To be sure, this bill is no cure-all: it does not address long lines, deceptive flyers, and faulty voting machines. Other bills, good bills, address those issues.

The bottom line is this: the Same Day Registration Act would substantially increase civic participation, improve the integrity of the electoral process, reduce election administration costs, and reaffirm that voting is a fundamental right. It has been proven effective by more than 30 years of successful implementation in Minnesota and Wisconsin and decades of empirical research. Same day registration is good for voters, good for taxpayers, and good for democracy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce, along with Senators Klobuchar, Tester, Harkin and Kerry, the Same Day Registration Act of 2009, a bill that would significantly increase voter participation by allowing all eligible citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day or the same day that they vote.

In many ways, the machinery of our democracy needs significant repair. We live in an age of low turnout and high cynicism. The American people have lost faith in our election system, in part because they are not confident that their votes will be counted or that the ballot box is accessible to each and every voter regardless of ability, race, or means.

What we see instead are long lines at polling places; faulty voting machines; under-trained, under-paid, over-worked poll workers; partisan election administrators; suspect vote tallies; caging lists; intimidation at the polling place; misleading flyers; illegal voter- file purges; and now, the Supreme Court approving discriminatory voter ID laws. If people cannot trust their elections, why should they trust their elected officials?

Three years ago, Professor Dan Tokaji, a leading election law expert, called for a ``moneyball approach to election reform.'' Named after Michael Lewis' book about the Oakland A's data-driven hiring system, Tokaji's approach is quintessentially progressive, as that term was understood at the turn of the century. ``I mean to suggest a research- driven inquiry,'' Tokaji wrote, ``in place of the anecdotal approach that has too often dominated election reform conversations. While anecdotes and intuition have their place, they're no substitute for hard data and rigorous analysis.''

This bill embodies the moneyball approach to election reform. In stark contrast to many so-called election reform proposals, this bill addresses a real problem--low voter turnout; it targets a major cause of the problem--archaic registration laws; and it offers a proven solution--same day registration SDR sometimes known as Election Day registration, EDR.

The bill is very simple: it amends the Help America Vote Act to require every state to allow eligible citizens to register and vote in a Federal election on the day of the election, or on any day where voting is permitted, like during early voting. Voters may register using any form that satisfies the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act, including the Federal mail in voter registration form and any state's standard registration form. North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, is exempted from the bill's requirements.

The bill itself is simple, but it addresses a significant problem: the low voter turnout that has plagued this country for the last 40 years. We live in a participatory democracy, where our government derives its power from the consent of the governed, a consent embodied in the people's exercise of their fundamental right to vote. It is self evident that a participatory democracy depends on participation.

This may be a government of the people, Mr. President, but the people are

not voting. Since 1968, American political participation has hovered around 50 percent for Presidential elections and 40 percent for congressional elections. Even in 2008, a record-breaking year, national turnout was only 61.7 percent of the voting age population. The U.S. may be the only established democracy in the world where the fact that nearly 40 percent of the electorate stayed home is considered cause for celebration.

In fact, our predecessors in the Senate would be surprised to find us celebrating such low turnout: a 1974 report by the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service bemoaned the ``shocking'' drop in turnout in the 1972 election. And what was the number that so troubled the Committee? Fifty-five percent.

The report went on: ``[i]t is the Committee's conviction that our disquieting record of voter participation is in large part due to the hodgepodge of registration barriers put in the way of the voter. Such obstacles have little, if anything, to recommend them. At best, current registration laws in the various states are outmoded and simply inappropriate for a highly mobile population. At worst, registration laws can be construed as a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who desperately need entry into the decision-making processes of our country.''

What a shame, that the Committee's findings are still valid. Our archaic registration laws have been reformed, but they are still archaic. We have passed a number of important bills designed to combat low turnout, but turnout is still low. America is even more mobile than it was in 1974, and yet our registration laws are still out of touch with the reality that more than 40 million Americans move every year. Worst of all, our registration laws still fall especially hard on the young, the old, and the poor.

We have long known that complicated voter registration requirements constitute one of the major barriers to voting. In fact, many states adopted voter registration in order to prevent certain segments of the population from voting. Alexander Keyssar, the preeminent scholar on the history right to vote in this country, writes that although ``[r]egistration laws emerged in the nineteenth century as a means of keeping track of voters and preventing fraud; they also served--and were intended to serve--as a means of keeping African-American, working-class, immigrant, and poor voters from the polls.''

It is time for a fundamental change. A large body of research tells us that unnecessarily burdensome voter registration requirements are the single largest factor in preventing people from voting. Simply put, voter registration restrictions should not keep eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote. The solution to this problem is same day registration.

Decades of empirical research confirm same day registration's positive impact on turnout. As one academic paper states, ``the evidence on whether EDR augments the electorate is remarkably clear and consistent. Studies finding positive and significant turnout impacts are too numerous to list.'' Mr. President, studies indicate that same day registration alone increases turnout by roughly 5 to 10 percentage points.

In general, States with same day registration boast voter turnout that is 10-12 percentage points higher than States that require voters to register before Election Day. Turnout in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which implemented same day registration over 35 years ago has been especially high: in 2004, for example, when national turnout was just 55 percent, 78 percent of eligible Minnesotans and 75 percent of eligible Wisconsinites went to the polls. The last time national voter turnout was above 70 percent, it was 1896, there were only 45 States, and the gold standard was the dominant campaign issue.

Critics might worry about the possibility of fraud, but same day registration actually makes the registration process more secure. Voters registering when they vote do so in the presence of an elections official who verifies the voter's residency and identity on the spot. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's Secretary of State, points out that same day registration ``is much more secure because you have the person right in front of you--not a postcard in the mail. That is a no-brainer. We have 33 years of experience with this.''

In contrast to most election reforms, the cost of same day registration is negligible. A recent survey of 26 local elections officials in six same day registration States found that ``officials agreed that incidental expense of administering EDR is minimal.'' In fact, same day registration may actually result in a net savings because it significantly reduces the use of provisional ballots. Provisional ballots, which are required by the Help America Vote Act, are expensive to administer. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that provisional ballots cost State and local governments about $25 million a year.

In some States the number of provisional ballots cast is surprisingly large. For example, in 2004, more than 4 percent of California's registered voters cast provisional ballots--that is 644,642 provisional ballots. In Ohio, 157,714 provisional ballots were cast, about 2 percent of all registered voters.

In contrast, in 2004 only 0.03 percent of voters in SDR states cast a provisional ballot. In Wisconsin, only 374 provisional ballots were cast. In Maine, only 95 provisional ballots were cast. In fact, only 952 provisional ballots were cast in all the SDR states combined in 2004. To be sure, this bill is no cure-all: it does not address long lines, deceptive flyers, and faulty voting machines. Other bills, good bills, address those issues.

The bottom line is this: the Same Day Registration Act would substantially increase civic participation, improve the integrity of the electoral process, reduce election administration costs, and reaffirm that voting is a fundamental right. It has been proven effective by more than 30 years of successful implementation in Minnesota and Wisconsin and decades of empirical research. Same day registration is good for voters, good for taxpayers, and good for democracy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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. 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. . . .

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.