Transcript of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
At the National Press Club
May 8, 2006
Listen
to my speech at the National Press Club
FEINGOLD: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Jonathan, and thank you, Katherine (ph) for the honor of
being asked to speak here at this great club.
I especially want to mention the presence of Ellen Proxmire. I know
she's here somewhere. Where is Ellen?
You know, this idea of...
(APPLAUSE)
... this idea of being a senator from Wisconsin was not a hard thing
to want to do when you grew up having the two greatest senators in the
country being your senators, both of whom we lost in the past year,
Gaylord Nelson and Bill Proxmire.
So, as a Wisconsinite -- and there are many badgers here who agree
-- we are grateful for the service of your husband.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I'm sure you've heard this, but I'll tell you. There's one thing
that I have heard in virtually identical language everywhere across
this country for months and even for years.
And it goes like this: Why don't you Democrats stand up? Why don't
you Democrats stand up for what you believe and state it boldly?
I got to every one of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year and hold a
town meeting. Pretty soon, I'll be holding my 1000th listening session.
And in every one of those counties, somebody says something like that.
I've heard it in Austin, Texas. I've heard it in Santa Monica. I've
heard it in Montgomery, Alabama. I've heard it in Philadelphia. And
the other day my car accidentally swerved over the Wisconsin border
into Iowa...
(LAUGHTER)
... and I heard the same thing in Cedar Rapids, in Des Moines, In Osceola
-- it's not Osceola; that's Wisconsin -- in Osceola, Johnston and Fort
Dodge.
I really have never seen anything like this consistency. After 24 years
as a legislator of that kind of a concern about the Democrats and the
Democratic Party.
Of course, they are asking us to stand up on domestic issues, especially
guaranteed health care for all Americans; a real commitment to alternative
energy and energy independence; a desire that we reject these unfair
trade agreements that have hurt so many jobs, especially in our part
of the country; and a desire that we return to the fiscal responsibility
of the Clinton years.
FEINGOLD: All of these issues and many more are ones that people want
us to stand up on.
Having said that, though, the greatest passion is for us to stand up
on the critical post-9/11 issues, from Iraq to the USA Patriot Act to
the president violating the law by authorizing illegal domestic wiretapping.
The president likes to say, in response to this sort of concern, that
some of us have a pre-9/11 perspective. Many Democrats and others around
this country want us to point out that the White House actually has
a pre-1776 perspective...
(LAUGHTER)
... and that we ought to have the guts to point that out.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, you don't hear this standup language here in this town. The consultants
and the pundits and others will tell you that those positions are, quote,
"losers" -- I've heard that literal language for this -- and
that it is dangerous to let there be any real light between our position
and the White House's position, or else you'll get called soft on terrorism.
You already hear people saying that this Michael Hayden nomination
will be a great opportunity for the White House to show the Democrats
are soft on terrorism.
And you bet the pundits in this town will somehow suggest that this,
too, just like my censure resolution, will cause the president's numbers
to shoot up.
You remember that happening, right? It didn't happen at all.
But that's what they're going to say. And it's not right.
I take a different view, with a major qualification. My view is that
we should appeal to basic American values in the post-9/11 era by saying
that we will stand up to this administration's mistakes in strategy
in the fight against terrorism; and that we will stand up to this administration's
unnecessary assault on the rule of law, in the guise of the fight against
terrorism.
But it is what I just called a qualification that is key. And that's
what I want to talk about today.
And that is that we must show the American people that we care deeply
about the most important issue. And that is: The Democrats, if we are
able to take over this year, will work with Republicans and do a better
job of winning the battle against Al Qaida and the associated networks.
FEINGOLD: Period. We have to be able to not only say that, but say
it in a way that is persuasive and valuable to the American people.
That is, our priority will be to literally protect the American people
and to make decisions based on our actual national security interests,
not some notion of, "This is the opportunity to finally expand
executive power," not some exotic theory of how to suddenly change
the whole world, and certainly some isolationist or cut-and-run approach
that pretends that the 9/11 attackers didn't mean business and that
they don't want to kill every one of us if they could.
We must also show knowledge, understanding and dedication and focus
in the fight against terrorism so that we can convince the American
people that we are up to the job and that we have the strength for the
job.
As we do it, we have to show passion and make it very clear to the
American people that we care every bit as much about the disaster that
occurred on 9/11, that we understand the pain of it and that we are
resolved to make sure it never happens again.
Now, I believe as good as Democrats may be on domestic issues, and
as bad as the Bush administration has been on domestic issues, and as
often dishonest and sometimes even incompetent as they've been on foreign
policy, if we do not show both a practical and emotional readiness to
lead in the fight against terrorism, we will lose in '06 and we will
lose in '08, just like we did in '02 and '04.
So what do we do?
Well, the first thing we do is we must get out of our political foxholes
and be willing to clearly and specifically point out what a strategic
error the Iraq invasion has been in light of our top goal of fighting
Al Qaida and the connected terrorist organizations.
Now, some people say -- even those who are Democrats say, "Well,
you know, we're in Iraq, we're there, now what do we do?"
Well, that's not an adequate way to discuss the issue.
FEINGOLD: It shouldn't be discussed in isolation. It should be put
every time in the context of 9/11, of what we had to do in Afghanistan
and the problems that have occurred because of the excessive focus on
Iraq itself.
We should, without overly focusing on issues of manipulation of intelligence
or theories of why went into Iraq, tell the American people just how
odd and bizarre it is that we went in there when we did, and how we
did it. I’d like to point out that two months after 9/11, the
State Department with George Bush’s name on it had a list of the
45 countries where it said Al Qaida was operating. Afghanistan, Uzbekistan,
Spain, Ireland, the United States – guess what country wasn’t
even on their list: Iraq. Wasn’t even on their list. Now we are
told there are some sixty to eighty countries where Al Qaida is already
operating. Perhaps some twenty more countries where there is the potential
for Islamic populations to be radicalized, and yet we are so focused
on Iraq.
Porter Goss, who now is leaving the CIA, said as early as February
of 2005 that the number one national security problem we had in America
was the fact that Iraq had become a training ground for terrorists,
would be exported to other places.
And just recently in the State Department release of their human rights
report they said the same sort of thing, that it had become a safe haven.
Think about how bizarre that is.
Remember the president saying after -- right after 9/11 that we will
confront the terrorists at a time and place of our choosing. Remember
what he has said recently, Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden have chosen
Iraq, so we must fight them there so they will not fight us in Boston
and New York.
Now, how do you square those two statements?
The fact is, you bet they chose it and we have played into their hands
by handling this situation in an unwise way.
This is what I like to call the roach motel theory, which is that somehow
all the terrorists are going to come from all over the world into Iraq
and we'll get them all.
(LAUGHTER)
That's the theory.
But you know what? It's not true. In fact, Iraq has become a crucible
for the recruitment and development of more and more terrorists who
are sworn to harm us.
Now, what I like to call this whole policy is our Iraq-centric policy.
It's like there are 64 pieces on a chess board and all the focus is
on that one piece. We've got to change this.
It is not only obviously a problem with the opportunity cost of not
being able to deal with terrorist problems in other places, but the
literal costs.
FEINGOLD: I don't need to tell you about all the deaths of American
soldiers, 17,800 wounded. The thing was going to cost -- we feared it
would cost as much as $100 billion. Now it's $320 billion that the Iraq
war has cost.
The military recruitment problems, including the recruitment of people
who want to be officers, is growing.
It is well know and well documented that a number of the things that
we are doing in Afghanistan were weakened and hurt militarily and otherwise
by the diversion of resources into Iraq.
And just to mention the nonmilitary costs. You know, the reconstruction
budget for Iraq is roughly $20 billion, much of that is going to security,
just for Iraq, just for reconstruction, more than all of the foreign
aid budget for all the other countries of the world combined, just for
the reconstruction budget.
So this is a very odd and dangerous choice to make at a time when we
must deal with the terrorist problem.
What I believe is most important now is to redeploy from Iraq. I have
specifically proposed that we have a timetable by the end of this year,
which I know from various sources, through the military and otherwise,
is a practical goal, to redeployment our military forces there, with
some exceptions, in order to make sure our troops are protected, to
help with the training, and to deal with specific special operations
that may have to occur.
But I believe that is the thing that can and should be done, and I
have offered amendments to do so.
The problem, though, is that as Democrats have stood up on this issue
last fall, we had a good amendment where we had 40 senators basically
vote for some kind of a timetable, again, there's a tendency to go back
in the foxhole, and that's what's happened.
We had a chance last week on the supplemental to do a timetable for
withdrawal amendment or redeployment, but instead a number of my Democratic
colleagues introduced amendments that were well thought out, they had
to do with interesting policy issues -- for example, one had to do with
should we leave if there's a civil war there.
FEINGOLD: Well, you know, how do you define a civil war? And is that
really the question? The question should be: What is most important
for the safety of Americans?
Another idea by my colleague, Joe Biden, actually has been unfairly
characterized as trying to split up the country into three parts. But,
you know, the problem is, when you start making proposals like this,
people start seeing visions of colonial powers and League of Nations.
And, frankly, I think at best we kind of look like political scientists
trying out theories on interesting specimens in the Middle East, or
at worst, we look like we're just meddling in the affairs of a fragile
but sovereign nation.
And, again, these are not bad policy ideas, but what do they have to
do with the core issue of: How do we protect Americans from terrorist
attacks around the world?
So I propose that we move in this direction. And I have long believed
that our presence there, the way we are present there, actually encourages
the growth of the anti-American movement around the world.
And I am very concerned that if we don't move in that direction, we
are never going to get on track on the broader fight against terrorism.
But what about the broader challenge of the fight against Al Qaida
and terrorism? At the risk of this speech becoming Iraq-centric, let
me turn to just a few quick observations.
It's been almost five years since we experienced this 9/11 attack.
But there are a number of lessons that we have not learned about the
nature of the threat.
It's been clearly laid out in the 9/11 report when they talked about
two elements: the Al Qaida network and the possibility of an ideology
around the world that would become radicalized that would feed that
network.
That's the challenge. And so the question isn't: What do we do in Iraq
or what shouldn't we do in Iraq?
FEINGOLD: The first question is: Are we focusing on the right places
and challenges?
Well, obviously, I don't think we are. And let me give you one example:
Indonesia. I had a chance to go to Indonesia in February. You know,
here is the fourth-largest country in the world, the largest Islamic
nation in the world. And I found out from our ambassador I was only
the second United States senator to even visit there in the last two
years.
Some of the Marines stay that when all of us go to Iraq to visit, which
we need to do, they call that military tourism. Just about everybody
goes over there to see what's going on, but what about this nation?
What about our reaching out to this situation there? And some people
said to me, "Wow, you're going to Jakarta. That sounds really dangerous."
No, it's not. Compared to Baghdad or Kabul, it's not anything like that.
But the fact is, one of the affiliates of Al Qaida, Jemaah Islamiyah,
is based in Indonesia. And they do want to radicalize that country.
They do want to turn the Islamic people in that country against us.
And they have not only done explosions in Bali but also in Jakarta itself.
We have got to understand that a country like that is on the border
in terms of whether they’re going to come with us or against us.
And if we do not engage in a very serious way with the fact that there
are terrorist elements there and put our resources there, in a place
called the Sulawesi Sea between the Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia
– it's a safe haven of terrorist activity that we are not putting
our resources into.
I hope Americans can learn just a fraction about Indonesia that they
know about Iraq, because it is one of the most important places in the
world and we give very little attention to it.
Are we thinking broadly enough about what the terrorist tactics really
are? Sometimes, I think people think it's just a military operation.
In fact, according to "The Next Attack," the book written
about this issue, it said, quote, "For the president, the fight
against terrorism is a manhunt -- that that's all it is."
Well, it's really much more complicated than that. Do you remember
the bombings in Kenya against the Israelis in Thanksgiving of a couple
years ago?
Well, it turns out that that occurred because a lobster-boat fisherman
actually was fishing with other lobster-boat fishermen in Mombasa Harbor
for six weeks. He got comfortable with it. And when the moment was right,
the mortars and the other things that were used for the attack were
floated in and sent over to those who committed the terrorist attack.
Now, what are we going to do? Blow up every lobster fisherman in Mombasa
Harbor?
No, we have to somehow get the confidence and have a feeling of the
people in that area having a stake in their own stability and having
a positive relationship with us.
And what have we learned about the lessons of failed states? You remember
Somalia? That was, sort of, the first place that President Clinton had
to take action, even the first President Bush.
Well, we had a very bad situation there militarily. We had to get out.
But you know what happened? We just got out of there hook, line and
sinker.
We had nothing there: virtually no intelligence, no presence in terms
of NGOs or any of the other things we want to do to stay engaged in
a place that we know is both in fact a place where terrorism has come
from and where, certainly, it can be bred again.
On this point, think about it: $1.6 billion a week for Iraq; $2 million
a year for Somalia. These are among the worst foreign policy choices
I think we have ever seen in this country.
This is a place where Osama bin Laden has contacts, where there is
piracy. And the pirating and transfer of military and other equipment
goes through these borders. And yet we don't really have a strategy
at all for Somalia.
Why is this, five years after 9/11?
And finally, do we really understand and work to connect the issue
of human rights and this issue with our bilateral relations with other
countries?
FEINGOLD: Two quick examples.
One is back to Indonesia. The region of Aceh was a major separatist
Islamic area in Indonesia for many years. And there was a great risk
there of that population becoming radicalized because they were treated
brutally by the Indonesian government and particular by the Indonesian
military.
The only thing that stopped it was a tsunami. This is Banda Aceh. And
because the tsunami was so devastating for Indonesia and for the rebels,
they did come together and they do have a peace agreement, and things
may get better and that area may not become radicalized.
But surely, we are not going to have a foreign policy based on tsunami.
We have to get ahead of these situations.
Finally, the same thing goes for Thailand, a country that is largely
Buddhist, a great ally of ours, but they have four or five Islamic provinces
in the south. And again, here you have a democratically-elected government
which has shown little concern for human rights in its tactics toward
the people that live in that area. It’s not a big separatist movement.
In fact, we couldn’t find any evidence of a connection at this
point between JI or Al Qaida in that area, but it is a very real possibility,
if we do not indicate to the Prime Minister and to the leaders in Thailand,
if you do not stop this tactic, you’re going to be growing home-grown
terrorists, and obviously those very individuals may well end up harming
Americans as well.
So I say all of this in the belief that somehow, we all have to be
talking about not this country or that, but how we can best protect
American lives at home and abroad. This is our most solemn responsibility,
and Democrats should be especially clear that we understand the post-9/11
world. To return to the outset, I think we should show we mean it. I
think we should show that this is just as important and personal for
us as it is for those who sometimes try to use this issue to intimidate
us.
For me, obviously, as for many people, it’s about my own kids,
my own daughter. She was just starting college at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison the week of 9/11. And she called me, when they could
finally track me down that day, and she sounded terrible. She wanted
to know if I was all right. I thought her voice had changed. I thought
she sounded like someone whose world had just shrunk.
You know what? She went back to work, and her mother and I said that,
you know, she could go her junior year abroad to either Ireland or Scotland
at that point, because obviously it was a scary time.
Well, she went to the University of Wisconsin and she did well, and
she went back and she had an internship in London last summer. Well,
I heard that voice again on July 7th, last year.
FEINGOLD: She had been in the subway about 45 minutes before. Not the
same line. She was fine. But she said to me, "Dad, should I come
home? Should I stay here?"
And I said, "No, you stay there. There's no way I want these terrorists
to be able to take away this experience from you."
This is what she agreed to do, and she had a wonderful time. And she
is reaching out now to the rest of the world, as we all must do. Because
it is, in fact, about our kids and our grandchildren that we must defeat
Al Qaida and the terrorist networks, so they can feel safe in our own
country and in the rest of the world as they seek to connect with other
peoples.
To do so, we must not just bluster and threaten. We must be smart and
effective and thoughtful, so that we can make the right calls for ourselves
and hopefully for all people in the world who not only reject terrorism,
but who really would benefit from a good relationship with America and
the American people.
Thanks for having me here today.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: To begin with names in the news, what do you think about
the nomination of General Michael Hayden to run the CIA?
FEINGOLD: Well, let me first say that I respect General Hayden. Being
a member of both the Judiciary, Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committee,
I've had a lot of exposure to the general in recent months, and he's
an impressive guy with a great record.
But I do have some serious concerns. As you know, I believe that this
warrantless wiretapping program that the president authorized was the
bailiwick of Mr. Hayden. And I know that he wasn't the top man, but
the fact is, he has stood with the president, others, in claiming that
somehow the president has inherent authority to do this.
I didn't vote for Attorney General Gonzales when he couldn't tell me
that the president wasn't above the law, and it would be very difficult
for me, if Mr. Hayden does not in some way indicate that he does not
feel this way.
The other problem, of course, to me, apart from the issues that are
being raised about having a man in the defense area, the military area
coming over -- that's an interesting debate that I'll be thinking about
-- what concerns me even more is: What do we need in this country right
now?
FEINGOLD: We need a situation where everything isn't politicized. We
need somebody who's not going to raise all these concerns because the
intelligence community is becoming too political for the good of America.
I'm not saying that's General Hayden's fault, but really a choice that
would have been more acceptable instead of a confrontation would seem
to have been the right thing at this point.
But I'm going to be fair about this. Those are two of my concerns.
I will be on the Intelligence Committee for the hearings. But I do have
a couple of major concerns.
MODERATOR: Please comment upon the failure of your initiative to censure
President Bush as a result of the lack of courage of Democrats who should
have supported you? Are they all short-sighted?
(LAUGHTER)
FEINGOLD: Not only was Rome not built in a day, but the only bill that
I saw pass this fast was once in the Wisconsin legislature when we had
a resolution commending the Girl Scouts for the cookies.
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, this is four weeks is this notion. You know, I introduced the
thing on a Monday. And I've been a legislator for 24 years. When you
introduce a bill, you don't have to pass it in 10 minutes. You go around
and get support. And the Washington pundits, the Republicans and Democrats
all said: He doesn't have any support. Well, you know, give me a little
time.
Since then, a courageous senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, has co- sponsored.
Barbara Boxer has co-sponsored. Pat Leahy of the Judiciary Committee
said that he would be inclined to support it. Former senator John Edwards
endorsed it. Our candidate from the last time, John Kerry, supported
it.
But even more exciting, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he
says it's a bad idea, but the other day I heard him say -- I heard Arlen
Specter say over and over again, the White House is just running roughshod
over us in the Congress. What are we going to do about it?
How can something that simply says, "Mr. President, you did something
wrong here, we wish you'd stop," be such a big deal.
My favorite thing is being lectured by members of the Judiciary Committee,
who are friends of mine, who literally came into the well of the Senate
when I was a senator in 1999 and asked that President Clinton be removed
from office. They called this an extreme step.
All I want to happen is for the president to acknowledge after we pass
the censure resolution, which we might do this year or next year, to
say, you know, I was trying to protect the American people. I got carried
away, I'm sorry, let's get back to work.
He should be able to say that.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: A lot of Iraq questions. This questioner writes, “Why
are we still in Iraq?”
FEINGOLD: Well, I think historians will debate this for a thousand
years. Why we went in, why we’re still there… What I see
it as is this problem of this administration thinking it’s a terrible
thing to admit that maybe you did something wrong.
There’s really three distinct failures, and each one should be
sufficient to say that this has been a disaster. The first was the false
basis to get in. The second was not planning for various contingencies.
I can show you the hearings we had where every one of these possibilities
was laid out before we went in. And the third was once you realize something
is a mess or isn’t going well, you have to adjust course.
Well, they’ve been willing to do none of that. And I guess it
has to do with some kind of a playbook in the White House, if you ever
admit you might have made a little mistake, the whole thing’s
going to fall apart. What I find is, if you admit you did something
wrong and you’re trying to fix it, people trust you more. People
will believe you more, because the White House has obviously a very
severe problem in this regard. So I see it as, they’ve won two
major elections using this approach, so maybe they figure, it’s
worked in the past, let’s keep doing it.
But let’s face it: it is hurting America, it is hurting our military,
it is weakening our country in the fight against Al Qaida, and that
is dead wrong. They should acknowledge some of their mistakes, and fix
them.
MODERATOR: How do you respond to critics who argue that the withdrawal
of U.S. troops will plunge Iraq further into chaos?
FEINGOLD: That’s a very difficult question. I’ve been there
twice, both with Senator McCain a year ago and just this year. And I’ll
tell you, the situation I see there both times was increasingly chaotic.
The number of attacks have increased with our presence there.
In al-Anbar province, which is, people say, this is a civil war, a
sectarian war - no, that’s all Sunni. Fallujah, Ramadi –
that isn’t a civil war situation, it is just a situation where
our presence – even our generals have suggested this – is
a stimulant to terrorist activity. That doesn’t mean our people
aren’t doing the best job they can. But they’re being put
in a situation that is reminiscent of the French in Algeria and the
Soviets in Afghanistan, where our very presence causes more problems
than it actually helps.
That is what we have to recognize in terms of Iraq, and that is why
I believe the situation would probably get better. The lesson of insurgencies
is when the occupying power leaves, it tends to lessen, rather than
increase, the level of violence. It will still be a problem, I believe
it would help defuse the situation.
MODERATOR: Do you think oil was a factor in the decision for war?
FEINGOLD: You know, people ask me this at town meetings all the time,
and I don’t know. We’ve heard the oil theory, we’ve
heard the theory about the President’s father being the subject
of a potential assassination attempt, we’ve heard geopolitical
theories, we’ve heard theories on the neoconservative notion that
Iraq should be used as a way to start a whole worldwide change. I honestly
don’t know.
It’s almost as if somebody got into this mindset, and they all
started talking each other into this idea when it made so very little
sense. But I don’t know, and I don’t want to claim without
proof that oil was the main factor. I think it’s a very complicated
thing that happened up at the White House, and I really am still astonished
that it happened.
MODERATOR: How do you compare today’s U.S. involvement in Iraq
with Vietnam?
FEINGOLD: I think it’s a mistake to make comparisons, because
it’s such a different time and such a different threat.
We remember feeling misled by the Johnson Administration and Kennedy
Administration at times and Nixon with regard to that war. I would say
one thing that is different is that the level of defensiveness and the
level of unity on the Republican side on not admitting that this was
a bad idea is actually different. I remember courageous Republicans
coming forth and talking about the problem in Vietnam, in a way, Pete
McCloskey and others, that helped get a national policy to cause us
to stop making the mistakes we were making in Vietnam.
Seems to me here that the one-party rule we have in this country is
causing us not to take a realistic view, and we need bipartisanship
in trying to solve this problem. So, I think the comparisons are very
difficult and not particularly helpful in terms of what’s happening
in Iraq.
MODERATOR: This questioner wants to know, “Where were all the
Democrats before the Iraq war? Why didn’t they more aggressively
challenge the administration’s case for Iraq, that it posed an
imminent threat? And why did most Democrats support the October 2002
authorization for the use of force?”
FEINGOLD: We should have done that. One of my colleagues said to me
the other day, “The only thing that matters is that we win in
2006, get the House and the Senate back, and that’s how we change
America.” Of course, I’m for that, and I’m campaigning
for it.
But I had to remind this colleague that we were in the majority in
the United States Senate when we voted for the Iraq War, and we were
in the majority in the United States Senate when the USA Patriot Act
went through. So don’t tell me about how being in the majority
is a be-all and end-all. You have to do the right thing. And when you’re
in the majority, you shouldn’t say, “Well, you know, now
we’re in the majority, we don’t want to lose the majority,
so we’re not going to stand up on that either.” That’s
where we’re heading if we don’t stand on principle.
And I am sad to say, that after this country did a wonderful job, and
the President did a wonderful job, after 9/11, going into the Afghanistan
invasion, and doing it the right way, lining up support from Islamic
countries and others, this Iraq situation was an effort at political
intimidation which succeeded.
I heard my colleagues say in private conversation, over and over again,
they didn’t think this was a good idea. But in the end, unfortunately,
the intimidation worked, and I believe many Democratic senators voted
for this war who didn’t really think it was the best idea. But
they were so concerned about the atmosphere and the obvious political
fears about what could happen if you were accused of being soft on terrorism,
that we allowed too many of our colleagues to be led into one of the
worst votes they could have possibly ever taken.
Those folks who did that were wrong, we as Democrats were wrong to
vote for this war, it was a chance to stand up and show that we had
a different view and a better view of the fight against terrorism, and
we missed that opportunity.
We’re missing the opportunity now too by not saying, what I’ve
been saying throughout this speech and answering questions, it is okay
to say that we should try to redeploy from Iraq. It is not a sign of
weakness. It is a sign of trying to actually deal with the threats around
the world that are most important.
MODERATOR: Switching gears, why has Congress tolerated the sending
of prisoners to secret prisons in countries known to torture?
FEINGOLD: I’m going to be limited in what I can say about this.
But, obviously, I don’t believe that Congress has tolerated that.
I believe there is tremendous concern and, in part, an effort to find
out exactly what has happened. So I would not put that in a category
where Congress is being – or certainly Democratic members of Congress
are being – placid. It’s just very, very difficult to get
at it. I intend to, but some of the material I already know about this
is obviously within the Intelligence Committee, but it is something
we cannot let sit.
It’s another example of where, in addition to all the other issues
I mentioned in the fight against terrorism, if we lose the confidence
of our friends and allies because we’re doing something like this,
it hurts us, just as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and violation of human
rights hurts our credibility in the world. So it is an important issue,
but it is not over at this point.
MODERATOR: According to this questioner, Director of National Intelligence
John Negroponte said today in a press briefing, that to his knowledge,
there is no warrantless wiretapping of purely domestic calls going on.
Does this allay your concerns?
FEINGOLD: No. Both in the public hearings of the judiciary committee
and in the intelligence committee opportunities, we repeatedly tried
to get the administration to tell us what this program really is. I
think it’s safe for me to tell you we weren’t told.
You know it’s public that only a subcommittee of the Intelligence
Committee is even being allowed to get occasional briefings from the
White House. It’s not really an investigation. So essentially,
even though the 1947 National Security Act requires that all members
of the Intelligence Committee be briefed on these matters, the White
House refuses to do so. It just leaves us in a position that is very,
very difficult.
MODERATOR: On another front, you voted against the Senate version of
the lobbying bill. The House has now passed its own version. Do you
expect the negotiators to produce a stronger or weaker bill, or at least
a bill you can support? Why or why not?
FEINGOLD: I would guess that, that was already a bad bill in the Senate,
and the idea that the contributions of the House will make it a strong
bill are zero.
(LAUGHTER)
It really is sad. We had a wonderful group of people working on this
thing, a bipartisan group. Of course, whenever I work with John McCain,
I feel like it’s an exciting opportunity to cut through all the
partisan nonsense. We were trying to have a strong bill on issues like
the revolving door, issues like the use of corporate jets by politicians,
free meals and gifts and the like. It really was a missed opportunity.
It really is not nearly strong enough.
People say to me, “How do you do this, Russ? How am I going to
have lunch with my friend the banker?” And I say, well, in Wisconsin,
we’ve had a rule for thirty years that if a politician goes out
to lunch, they have to just do this, you just take out the credit card.
If the person waiting on you is nice, they’ll split the bill.
It’s not that hard.
And yet, we still somehow have an idea in Washington, if somebody else
isn’t paying for it, you can’t do it. That just isn’t
right. So I regret this. I’m almost sure the bill will be weak.
We will have missed an historic opportunity to get rid of some of the
worst abuses that occur in this town.
MODERATOR: It took you seven years to pass the first McCain-Feingold
Bill. Will it take seven years to pass a strong lobbying bill?
FEINGOLD: That should have been my answer to the censure question.
(LAUGHTER)
I’m afraid that, as John McCain always says, these things usually
happen when there’s a scandal. And of course, John always says,
there’s more and more scandals coming, don’t worry. And,
of course, that had a lot to do with McCain-Feingold passing, the various
problems that happened in campaign finance.
But this Abramoff scandal was so significant that I thought it would
have worked. Maybe further revelations in this regard will help. But
if we just go two years from now and there isn’t another scandal,
it’ll just grow up again and get worse. The ability of people
to try to figure out ways to manipulate this stuff is endless.
You know about the whole Redskins thing, where under the rules McCain
and I passed years ago, you can take things under fifty dollars. Apparently,
the skybox – an amazing coincidence – the skybox, the football
game, the drinks, the private bathroom, all that good stuff, amazingly
enough: forty-nine dollars and fifty cents. What a fluke.
(LAUGHTER)
This is the kind of stuff you have to stay on all the time. We have
to take this opportunity to do it now.
MODERATOR: Are there specific parts of the Patriot Act that concern
you the most? Have there been specific parts that you know have caused
abuses of the rights of U.S. citizens?
FEINGOLD: Well, I don’t want to get into all the details of it,
but let me give two quick examples that have been a major part of my
opposition and, what was for a while there, the Democratic opposition,
until they decided that it was okay, even though it wasn’t changed.
And that is, the fact that your library business and medical records
can be obtained in a secret court on the mere say-so of the FBI, and
the judge in that FISA court has no discretion to say no. They just
have to say, “Look, we want this.” There has to be no proof
that you’ve done anything wrong. This is unacceptable.
The same thing goes with so-called “sneak and peek” searches.
We all know that the Fourth Amendment basically requires that there
should be a search warrant, but there are exceptions in extreme cases.
But that means the government comes into your house – you’re
not there – and they don’t tell you that they were there.
The general understanding is that should be seven days, only seven days,
unless a judge renews it. The Patriot Act gives them thirty days. What
justification is there for the government to have a thirty-day period
where somebody’s been in your house and you don’t know and
they don’t tell you about it?
These things can be changed, they were reasonable, and just to show
you how reasonable they are, the minute that they broke down my filibuster
on this, Arlen Specter introduces a bill with exactly the four provisions
that I think ought to be changed.
So again, it’s intimidation. It’s not the people on the
other side don’t believe we should do this, it’s intimidation.
MODERATOR: Many Americans believe this country is headed in the wrong
direction. What’s your vision for America?
FEINGOLD: I think we’re on the verge of a fabulous period in
this country. I go around this country, and I see young people’s
activism that I haven’t seen for a long time.
I see new communities in my state of Wisconsin – the Latino community.
When I first became Senator, you would rarely see a Latino in the northern-western
part of the state. Now they are key parts of so many of those communities.
We have Hmong people in our state, tens of thousands of them, who are
so new to this country that it must have seemed like a terrible mystery
to them, and they are becoming valuable and important members of the
community.
In other words, this nation is becoming so excitingly diverse, that
I believe what will come out of that is the kind of energy and creativity
and understanding of the rest of the world, in a way that we had perhaps
a hundred years ago, when so many of our families first came to this
country, and you look at the great things that came out of that.
So despite all the problems, and with a little help with changes in
some elections, I do believe this will be a great new era in this country,
and I am excited that I will have a chance to participate in some of
it.
MODERATOR: Senator Martinez, your colleague from Florida, will be here
on Friday to talk about immigration. What should be done?
FEINGOLD: Well, I think Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain were on
the right track. This is a terribly difficult issue, extremely divisive,
but those who are saying, “Enforcement first, let’s just
do enforcement first,” are not looking at the whole picture. We
cannot have a society where the idea is, if you can get in here illegally,
that’s great, then you’ll be treated fine. We can’t
have a system like that – it’s a violation of the rule of
law, and it also could be very dangerous for the country’s future.
But we do have eleven or twelve million people in this country, many
of whom are not only working hard, but absolutely vital to our state,
to our country. I heard one southern Republican governor say to me –
and he wasn’t from the Southwest – he said, “If you
send these folks back, you might as well just shut my state down.”
So it’s crucial to the economy, it’s crucial in terms of
fairness to those individuals to do the sort of thing that the McCain-Kennedy
bill does. It doesn’t provide amnesty, in my view. A person has
to pay a thousand dollar fine and gets a temporary permit. When that
expires, they have to go to the back of the line, get a green card,
pay another thousand dollar fine, and apparently go through an eleven-year
process to become a citizen. That, to me, isn’t just being irresponsible,
it’s a practical solution.
I’ll tell you this: what I’ve witnessed on this issue in
April, is this issue is starting to really divide America in a way that
is scary and dangerous. We need to pass legislation as soon as possible,
even if it isn’t perfect, to try to deal with both enforcement
and helping those who are in the shadows to have an opportunity to get
a permanent status in this country.
MODERATOR: President Bush and Congressional Republicans are now calling
for an increase in fuel economy standards for cars and trucks with gasoline
at three dollars a gallon. Do you believe them?
FEINGOLD: Well, it should be increased. I may not support the highest
level of increase because I want to be absolutely certain it isn’t
unfair to American auto workers.
I’ll be very candid with you – I’m from a place called
Janesville, Wisconsin. My grandfather bought the first Chevy truck ever
made in Janesville, Wisconsin, and I believe very firmly in the need
to do what we can to protect the environment, but, if at all possible,
protect those jobs.
Of course, a lot of it has to do with the companies themselves using
every opportunity to achieve fuel economic cars. I don’t want
to pass a fuel economy standard that is a gift to our competitors in
a way that doesn’t require them to be responsible as well. But
yes, it does have to come up, and we cannot leave it at the current
level.
MODERATOR: Another foreign policy question: what approach should the
U.S. take in dealing with Iranian nuclear policy?
FEINGOLD: This is one that is so loaded with how people take words
that I want to be very careful with it. I know that the President has
said that he does not want to take any option off the table. And I agree
with that statement. I believe that the American people have an inherent
right to defend ourselves if there’s a risk of us being attacked.
So I agree that you don’t literally take any option off the table.
But there’s a question of what you talk about, about what you
emphasize, about how you come off, and that’s where I’m
concerned that the President seems too quick to raise the specter of
either a conventional or nuclear option. I think that weakens the willingness
of some of our other countries in the world who are very concerned about
this to do everything we can to pass the sanctions and the other steps
that may be necessary in order to have a peaceful solution to this problem.
We cannot tolerate an Iran that is a nuclear power from the point of
view of military or weapons, I believe. But, you know, this is again
a case where we can handle this in a more intelligent way.
When I was in Indonesia, I met with the President there, President
Yudhoyono, and I had a few minutes with him, and I actually am impressed
with him and I think he’s going to try to do the right things,
but I got to say to him, “Why were you one of the five countries
that didn’t refer Iran to the Security Council?” And he
said to me, “Well, it was a question of timing.” But he
heard, from one of the two United States Senators who had even been
in Indonesia in those two years, that that is a concern in terms of
our relationship with Indonesia. In other words, cashing in our chits
and making sure that we know that all of our allies know, that they
are clear that we consider this to be one of the most important priorities
in the world. I think that’s the only way this will be resolved
in a proper manner.
MODERATOR: Could you please list your top five countries of concern.
FEINGOLD: Obviously, Indonesia, because I’ve mentioned it forty-three
times today. I’m very concerned about what is happening with Iran.
Obviously, China is an enormous potential and concern.
I am concerned about Russia and which direction Russia is heading at
this point, in terms of human rights and freedom of the press. One of
the problems is we have new challenges and new events occur, and those
of us from the Cold War era realize that that is a place that we cannot
just assume is not going to be a major issue for us in the future.
Finally, and I probably have missed some terribly important country,
I would mention Colombia and the whole situation in Latin America, because
if that situation does not get resolved in a way that sends the right
message to the rest of Latin America, I think it could connect with
many other difficult situations that are developing in Latin America.
Those are some of them, and yes, I did omit Iraq, on purpose, because
Iraq is important, but I don’t think it raises some of the challenges
and threats that some of these other situations do.
MODERATOR: Can you outline the principles upon which foreign policy
and national security should be based?
FEINGOLD: The first and foremost thing is the safety and national security
of the American people. The number one responsibility is to protect
Americans. Now, the question of how you do that is what I discussed
in my speech. And the notion that somehow that is just done militarily,
I think back in the sixties, people thought when you said “national
security,” that’s how many nukes are you for and what are
we going to do about Russia. That’s not what it is.
It’s being smart, it’s understanding this connection between
the violation of human rights and the people of a country feeling that
somehow the United States helped repress them. All I have to do is mention
the Shah of Iran and the whirlwind that we reaped because of our inappropriate
support for the Shah.
So, I think that is the foundation, it is protecting the American people,
but remember – and I like to say this because I think of Americans
traveling around the world, and they should do it more and more, it
would help us – it’s not just being secure here in our country,
it’s that Americans should be able to feel safe around the world.
I think that should be the foundation of our goals in terms of our foreign
policy.
MODERATOR: Should the U.S. get involved in Sudan? If so, how?
FEINGOLD: We should be much more involved in Sudan. The greatest amount
of work that I’ve done on the Foreign Relations Committee has
been with regard to Africa. For years, along with former Senator Corzine
and others, I have tried to get the policy to be more serious. We had
an excellent special envoy to help negotiate the twenty-year war between
the North and the South, Ambassador Danforth. And he did a fine job,
and they were able to at least move that in the right direction and
have a peace agreement.
I have not been able to understand, when this administration came out
pretty strong and said this was genocide in the western part of the
country, why they would not take the step of appointing somebody of
great stature to work on this issue every day. We have far too little
attention being paid to it, even less attention by our European friends,
by the way. Sometimes, in a situation like this, we’re lagging
behind – they’re even lagging behind more than we are. We
need to take the lead in demanding – and it’s going to take
probably some kind of a military force to supplement the AU, either
from the U.N or NATO.
And without it, you’re going to have the kind of incidents that
are occurring today. I visited a refugee camp just over the Chad border
two year ago of these refugees, and I felt completely safe. Apparently
today, people were attacked who were visiting in a refugee camp. This
is disassembling and we have got to work with the other countries in
the world to be very aggressive about it.
MODERATOR: This questioner wants to know why there is no concern about
voting machines: no paper trails, inadequate numbers of machines in
Democratic areas, problems in vote counting, no public outrage.
FEINGOLD: Oh, there is, just not in this time. If you go to any meeting
of Democrats or progressives anywhere in America, you will not get through
that meeting without somebody saying they’re worried sick about
the voting machines, and Diebold and all that. In fact, they’re
very concerned that we pass legislation, such as Representative Rush
Holt has proposed, with regard to paper trails.
We have the paper trail requirement in Wisconsin, but in order to have
that requirement, in order to have this work, I think it needs to be
a national requirement.
Now, of course, the party in power doesn’t want to have that
bill go through, so the tragedy is, we may have to go through another
election without that reform being passed, but it should be one of the
top priorities after the Democrats take over the Congress.
MODERATOR: What criteria are you weighing as you decide, after the
mid-term elections, whether you’re going to run for President?
FEINGOLD: Well, I am going to look at this in November and December
after I see, first of all, what happens with these elections. That’s
going to have an impact on what role I think I ought to play, whether
I should be a candidate or whether I should continue to do what I’m
doing in the Senate.
For me, I would think anybody would look at these things – the
first question I would ask myself is, “Am I up to the job? Am
I able to run this country in a responsible way?” And I don’t
consider it to be an adequate answer to that to say, “Look who
we got there now!”
(LAUGHTER)
This is what people who want me to run say. I think that’s an
insufficient answer to that question. Second is, if I somehow got the
nomination, could I win? Could I be elected? I happen to feel pretty
good about that one. But if I don’t really believe that, I’ll
be darned if I want to be the guy who wins the Democratic nomination,
but the Democrats don’t get the Presidency again.
Finally, obviously, the question is whether this is the right thing
for me as an individual and my family. People say, “Ah, politicians
always say that” – believe me, when even anybody’s
crazy enough to mention that you ought to do this, you think about that,
you think about that long and hard.
So those are the things I’m going to think about, and I’m
obviously pleased that anyone would ever mention it, but my greatest
thrill was to be a Senator from Wisconsin and to succeed people like
Bill Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson, I’m very, very happy doing that.
MODERATOR: Before I ask our last question, I wanted to give you the
official National Press Club coffee mug, suitable for sipping coffee
while you ponder whether you want to run or not, and a certificate of
appreciation for appearing before the club.
FEINGOLD: Thanks so much.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: Final question: have you and Senator McCain discussed the
presidential campaigns? What advice has he given you and what advice
are you giving him?
(LAUGHTER)
FEINGOLD: One time in the eight-year process of passing McCain-Feingold,
we were out on the floor of the Senate, and Mary Irvine, my chief of
staff, was sitting next to us, and I said to McCain, “Nobody’s
talking to us, John.” I said, “I know how this is going
to work: you’re going to get elected President, and you’re
going to go over there, and nobody’s ever going to talk to me
over here.” And he said, “No no! You’ll be in the
Cabinet. But not Secretary of Defense! Not Secretary of Defense!”
It was a joke conversation, but we kid around about this.
Obviously, I have a great regard for John McCain, and people say to
me, “What happens if he ran against you? Do you think you could
beat him?” I say, “I think he’d beat me in Wisconsin.”
(LAUGHTER)
So, we’re close, the odds of all this happening, obviously, are
thin, so I’m not going to worry about it. I do think it’d
be wonderful if we could elect either a Republican or Democratic President
that the American people could feel good about, could trust, and those
are some of the qualities I see in Senator McCain.
(APPLAUSE)
| 