Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I share the sense of outrage and disgust that has been expressed by so many Americans since the allegations and horrifying pictures of deeply troubling abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have come to light. I am particularly sickened by the damage that has been done to the brave men and women of the United States military. The depraved acts of a few risk tarnishing the reputation of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women who behave honorably every day, even in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. These acts also put our troops at risk, by casting them in the role of abusers, making it more difficult to gain the trust and cooperation of Iraqis. Anytime the Geneva Convention is violated, the framework of basic standards on which all military personnel and their families depend is weakened. I am also troubled by the irreparable damage done to American power. Our power does not come only from military might or economic muscle. We also derive power from what we stand for. Our commitment to basic human rights, to human dignity, and to the rule of law gives us power to persuade and to lead and to inspire. When this commitment is called into question, American power is diminished, and this is a terrible loss. Now that these appalling acts have been exposed and reported around the world, we must proceed to show the world something else--that our military, our political system, and our society do not condone this behavior, that we are capable of a full and transparent accounting for what has happened and how it has happened, that we will take action to correct the failures in the system, and that we are committed to addressing these abuses through the rule of law.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Harkin amendment, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. The Bush administration's final overtime regulation is much the same as its proposed regulation. The largely cosmetic changes that the administration grudgingly made at the eleventh hour did not change the rule's result: the loss of overtime benefits for millions of American workers, many of whom rely on overtime to help support their families. Making a bad proposal a little better does not mean a good result for American workers. As a recent editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel rightly pointed out, ``. . . why hurt anybody? Gain for some workers shouldn't mean pain for others.'' I could not agree more. And this rule will lead to uncertainty for millions of hard-working Americans and their families who rely on overtime pay to get by. It is true that the new rule increases the minimum salary threshold to $23,660, thereby ensuring that workers who are earning less will be guaranteed overtime pay. While this is a positive step, it is regrettable that this increase does not keep up with inflation, especially since it has been 29 years since the last adjustment. In addition, this rule exempts so-called ``highly compensated'' employees who earn more than $100,000 per year and have one job duty that can be classified as administrative, executive, or professional. This is a new exemption which is not indexed for inflation, thus leaving even more workers open to a loss of overtime benefits in the future. But those who are in the most jeopardy of losing their overtime benefits may be those workers whose salaries fall between $23,660 and $100,000. These workers are not guaranteed overtime, and the new duties tests included in the final rule could strip overtime pay from millions of these low- and middle-income Americans. The final rule changes the process by which a worker can be declared to be exempt from the wage and hour protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), thus opening the door to denial of overtime benefits to millions of workers who currently are entitled to this extra pay for working more than 40 hours per week. In essence, this rule, which we will allow to move forward if we do not pass the Harkin amendment, will create a larger force of employees who can be required to work longer hours for less pay. This could also mean fewer opportunities for paid overtime for the workers who would remain eligible for it. Who are these workers? They are veterans, registered nurses, journalists, financial services employees, assistant managers, team leaders, chefs, insurance claims adjusters, and computer employees, just to name a few. And several industries successfully lobbied the administration to include specific exemptions for their employees-- exemptions that have been pending in Congress for a number of years and that have not been adopted. And the rule contains a roadmap for employers who wish to find ways around paying overtime to those workers who are still eligible for it. The administration's public relations campaign on this rule does not reflect the reality of this rule. It will deny overtime to millions. It will, despite the administration's claims to the contrary, have a negative effect on veterans, on blue collar workers, and on union members. I find it interesting that the Department of Labor's materials for this rule call it ``Fair Pay: Overtime Security for the 21st Century Workforce.'' There is little that is fair about this rule for the millions of workers who are poised to lose their overtime pay if this rule takes effect as scheduled in August. I am also deeply concerned about the process by which this rule was finalized. A small number of Members of Congress and the administration were able to run roughshod over the will of a bipartisan majority of the Senate and the House to resuscitate this proposal by deleting language that would have blocked it from the omnibus spending bill. I regret that the administration resorted to veto threats and backroom negotiations to save this proposal, which is the latest in a series of assaults on working Americans that have been perpetrated by this administration. Right out of the gate, the President made it his first legislative priority to overturn a federal ergonomics standard that was more than ten years in the making. In addition, this administration has launched a campaign to aggressively contract out Federal jobs, systematically dismantle the Federal civil service system, gut worker protections, and undermine collective bargaining rights. And this administration contends that outsourcing jobs to other countries is good for the American economy. With so many long-term unemployed workers and others working more than one job and depending on overtime just to make ends meet, it is unfortunate that the administration dug in its heels on a proposal to deny overtime to many of those who need it most. And it is unfortunate that the final rule does so little to improve the proposed rule, which a majority of the Senate and the House are on record against. I urge support for the Harkin amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 2358, the Anti-Gang Act. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities. Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The Anti-Gang Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics. The Anti-Gang Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorney Generals to remain in public service and allow them to take their wealth of experience and use it to combat gang violence. The Anti-Gang Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute that was never intended to be used against violent street gangs with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The Anti-Gang Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement before seeking an indictment and that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. Finally, the Anti-Gang Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence without being able to tell us why this is necessary and what effect it might have on the criminal justice system. With this review, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juveniles. Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks and walk their streets without fearing that ever-spreading gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The Anti-Gang Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 2358, the Anti-Gang Act. This critical legislation will provide State and Federal law enforcement with the tools and resources needed to successfully fight the expanding presence of violent gangs that bring drugs like methamphetamine into our communities. Time and time again, we in Congress have heard the call of prosecutors and law enforcement for more resources to combat the problem of gang violence. The Anti-Gang Act gives local prosecutors and law enforcement what they have asked Congress for most--targeted financial assistance. The bill will help combat the growth and proliferation of violent gangs by authorizing funds for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. In addition, grant money will be made available for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang violence. These funds will not be tied to restrictive formulas that would keep the majority of the assistance from reaching suburban and rural communities. This money will be able to go to the communities in Wisconsin and the rest of the country where rural and smaller law enforcement agencies are financially limited in their ability to deal with the exploding increase in gang violence associated with methamphetamines and other narcotics. The Anti-Gang Act also promotes hiring and long-term service of highly qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program. Prosecuting gangs is some of the most demanding and challenging work a prosecutor will tackle. Loan forgiveness will allow Assistant District Attorneys and Assistant Attorney Generals to remain in public service and allow them to take their wealth of experience and use it to combat gang violence. The Anti-Gang Act also replaces the current Federal RICO statute that was never intended to be used against violent street gangs with a tough statute that not only criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, but addresses the serious problem of the recruitment and retention of gang members. The Anti-Gang Act targets gang violence and gang crimes in a logical, straightforward manner. The bill also recognizes that the vast majority of gang investigations and prosecutions have been and will continue to be done at the State and local level. The bill requires that Federal prosecutors consult with State and local law enforcement before seeking an indictment and that a Federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice. Finally, the Anti-Gang Act will provide Congress with the data necessary to decide whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on more juvenile cases and to house additional prisoners. Some have proposed indicting and prosecuting more juveniles in Federal courts as a way of combating gang violence without being able to tell us why this is necessary and what effect it might have on the criminal justice system. With this review, Congress can intelligently consider whether to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juveniles. Our citizens should be able to send their children to school, use their parks and walk their streets without fearing that ever-spreading gang violence will grow unfettered in their community. The Anti-Gang Act is an important step towards making all of our neighborhoods safe and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, people around the world are joining together to solemnly remember and honor the men, women and children who perished in the Armenian genocide. Eighty-none years ago, 1\1/2\ million Armenians were systematically massacred at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Over 500,000 more were forced to flee their homeland of 3,000 years. Before genocide was defined and codified in international law, Armenians experienced its horror. Yet it appears that the international community did not learn the lessons of Armenia's genocide. Throughout the 20th century, the international community failed to act as governments in Germany, Yugoslavia and Rwanda attempted to methodically eliminate people because of their religion or ethnicity. Minority groups were abandoned by the international community in each instance to be overwhelmed by violence and despair. In Armenia, as in Rwanda and the Holocaust, the perpetrating governments scapegoated their minority groups for the difficulties they faced as societies. They justified their campaigns of hatred with political and economic reasons in an attempt to rationalize their depravity. This is why we must remember the Armenian genocide. To forget it is to enable more genocides and ethnic cleansing to occur. We must honor its victims by reaffirming our resolve to not let it happen again. In the shadow of the Holocaust, in 1948, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. What Winston Churchill once called a ``crime without a name'', was now called ``genocide'' by the Convention and defined as ``acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.'' The Convention required its parties to create domestic legislation to hold perpetrators of genocide accountable for their actions and to place these perpetrators before domestic courts or international tribunals. The international community has a long way to go in punishing and especially, preventing genocide. But we have made the first steps. As we move forward, we must learn the lessons of Armenia's genocide. Can we recognize the rhetorical veils of murderous leaders, thrown up to disguise the agenda at hand? Have we, the international community, learned that we must not stand by, paralyzed, as horrors occur, but work collectively to prevent and stop genocides from occurring? We owe the victims of the Armenian genocide this commitment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, today to introduce legislation that will help improve and streamline Federal support for community-based emergency medical services. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for local officials and EMS providers to help Federal agencies improve existing programs and future initiatives. Congress has long recognized the important role played by EMS providers. However, Federal support for EMS has been unfocused and uncoordinated, with responsibility scattered among a number of different agencies. In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited the need to increase coordination between the federal agencies involved with EMS issues but not much progress has been made since that report was issued. The Federal Government doesn't even have a good handle on how much it is spending on EMS or what the needs are for EMS. The bill we introduce today is a good first step towards addressing the deficiencies in our current EMS policies. This legislation establishes a federal interagency committee whose purpose will be to coordinate federal EMS activities, identify EMS needs, assure proper integration of EMS in homeland security planning, and make recommendations on improving and streamlining EMS support. Although Federal law, PL 107-188, called for the establishment of a working group on EMS, this legislation goes further in detailing the role and function of the interagency committee. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will certainly iron out any overlap that may exist. This legislation also establishes an advisory council for the interagency committee that includes representatives from throughout the EMS community. The advisory committee, made up of non-Federal representatives from all EMS sectors and from both urban and rural areas, will provide guidance and input to the interagency committee on a variety of issues including the development of standards and national plans, expanding or creating grant programs, and improving and streamlining Federal EMS efforts. The advisory council is a critical component of this legislation because it is the channel through which local EMS practitioners can directly impact and help reform national EMS policy. I want to thank the American Ambulance Association, the Association of Air Medical Services, the Emergency Nurses Association, the National Association of EMS Physicians, the National Association of State EMS Directors, and the National Registry of EMTs for their support of this bill. I also want to thank all of those Wisconsinites who provided so much helpful input in coming up with this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Marvin Birnbaum of the University of Wisconsin, Fire Chief Dave Bloom of the Town of Madison, and Dan Williams, chair of Wisconsin's EMS advisory board for their advice and guidance. EMS providers are a critical component of our Nation's first responder network. We must act now to streamline and coordinate federal EMS support and work to better understand the needs of the EMS community. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, today to introduce legislation that will help improve and streamline Federal support for community-based emergency medical services. Our proposal will also provide an avenue for local officials and EMS providers to help Federal agencies improve existing programs and future initiatives. Congress has long recognized the important role played by EMS providers. However, Federal support for EMS has been unfocused and uncoordinated, with responsibility scattered among a number of different agencies. In 2001, the General Accounting Office cited the need to increase coordination between the federal agencies involved with EMS issues but not much progress has been made since that report was issued. The Federal Government doesn't even have a good handle on how much it is spending on EMS or what the needs are for EMS. The bill we introduce today is a good first step towards addressing the deficiencies in our current EMS policies. This legislation establishes a federal interagency committee whose purpose will be to coordinate federal EMS activities, identify EMS needs, assure proper integration of EMS in homeland security planning, and make recommendations on improving and streamlining EMS support. Although Federal law, PL 107-188, called for the establishment of a working group on EMS, this legislation goes further in detailing the role and function of the interagency committee. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will certainly iron out any overlap that may exist. This legislation also establishes an advisory council for the interagency committee that includes representatives from throughout the EMS community. The advisory committee, made up of non-Federal representatives from all EMS sectors and from both urban and rural areas, will provide guidance and input to the interagency committee on a variety of issues including the development of standards and national plans, expanding or creating grant programs, and improving and streamlining Federal EMS efforts. The advisory council is a critical component of this legislation because it is the channel through which local EMS practitioners can directly impact and help reform national EMS policy. I want to thank the American Ambulance Association, the Association of Air Medical Services, the Emergency Nurses Association, the National Association of EMS Physicians, the National Association of State EMS Directors, and the National Registry of EMTs for their support of this bill. I also want to thank all of those Wisconsinites who provided so much helpful input in coming up with this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Marvin Birnbaum of the University of Wisconsin, Fire Chief Dave Bloom of the Town of Madison, and Dan Williams, chair of Wisconsin's EMS advisory board for their advice and guidance. EMS providers are a critical component of our Nation's first responder network. We must act now to streamline and coordinate federal EMS support and work to better understand the needs of the EMS community. I therefore ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to speak today on S. 2290, the revised, but still misnamed, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. Reluctantly, I will oppose the motion to proceed to this bill. I say ``reluctantly'' because I support the concept of a national trust fund to compensate victims of asbestos-related diseases and address the severe strain that cases brought by those victims have placed on our legal system and our economy. Ten thousand Americans now die each year--a rate approaching 30 deaths per day--from diseases caused by asbestos. My home State of Wisconsin ranks 16th in the Nation in asbestos-related deaths. I was encouraged when the defendant companies in some of the many lawsuits that have been filed, their insurers, and organized labor began serious negotiations back in 2002 to try to develop legislation for a national trust fund that the Congress could enact on a consensus basis to address this serious problem. This was an issue that called out for a bipartisan solution. Unfortunately, those discussions were short-circuited before an agreement could be reached. What began then was a process that has turned the asbestos issue into a partisan issue when it really shouldn't be. A bill very much slanted toward the defendants and insurers was introduced last spring by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Although I disagreed with the chairman's decision to call a halt to negotiations, I do give him credit for at least allowing the Judiciary Committee to work on the bill, in contrast to the process that was followed on the series of ill-advised medical malpractice bills that have been brought directly to the floor during this Congress. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing and then an extraordinary four meetings to mark up the bill. Two dozen amendments were debated and voted on. The bill that emerged in July 2003 after that intensive work by the committee still did not win my support. But all of the committee members who voted against it agreed that it was much improved over the original bill. The committee's work could have been the foundation for further bipartisan negotiation that might have led, if all parties were willing to come to the table and compromise, to a bill that could be overwhelmingly approved by the Senate. So what happened over the last 10 months? Well, the first thing that happened is that the insurers went to the Republican leadership and said they couldn't live with even the limited improvements that the committee approved. So no sooner had an amended bill come out of committee then its supporters started backing away. Instead of trying to make the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee more acceptable to victims of asbestos in a serious effort to solve what we all agree is a difficult and important problem, the proponents of this legislation went backward. And so in many respects the bill that the Senate is being asked to take up is worse than the committee bill. Important amendments adopted in committee that provide some certainty that money will be available to future victims of the horrible diseases caused by asbestos, and we know with certainty that there will be thousands of such victims, were removed by the sponsors of S. 2290. By what definition does that represent ``fairness''? Let me talk for a minute about some of the specific provisions that have led me to conclude that I cannot in good conscience vote to proceed to this bill. The first issue is money. CBO estimates that between $124 billion and $136 billion will be needed to pay an expected 1.7 billion asbestos claims over the 27-year life of the fund. Some experts think that estimate might be too low. S. 2290 provides for a maximum of only $114 billion for the fund. The bill reported from the committee, as a result of amendments offered in committee by Senators Feinstein and Kohl, included total funding of $154 billion. How can it be fair for a compensation fund to be doomed to failure from the start because it is underfunded? Another issue is related to the issue of the adequacy of the fund. Senator Biden offered an amendment that was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the committee. It basically said to people who have claims that if the fund isn't adequately funded they will not be left empty-handed. It called for a return to the tort system for claimants who do not receive the payments that the bill calls for. S. 2290 substitutes a much weaker sunset amendment that would leave victims waiting for years and years without compensation before they are permitted to again pursue their claims in court. How is that fair? I am concerned in addition that this bill treats certain companies such as Halliburton very favorably by capping their liability to the fund at a fraction of what they have already set aside to pay claims to asbestos victims. These companies have already agreed to settle claims against them and agreed to pay billions of dollars in compensation. Those settlements have been on hold as Congress considers this legislation and if it passes, the companies will save literally billions of dollars that they otherwise were prepared to pay to asbestos victims. How is that fair? I am also very concerned that this bill would overturn longstanding settlements under which some victims have been receiving regular payments for years. How can it be fair to people who have settled their claims already, or who have even received jury verdicts in their favor that are now on appeal, to have to start over in an administrative process that could take years to get up and running and years to complete? An amendment offered by Senator Feinstein in committee would have postponed the effective date of the bill until the fund was up and running. That would have allowed at least some far-advanced cases to proceed to final judgment. The deletion of the Feinstein amendment is another step backward taken by the sponsors of this bill. We have an asbestos crisis not only because lawsuits are threatening the financial well being of American companies but because people are getting sick and dying. Some companies knew that exposure to asbestos caused asbestosis, a tragic lung disease, as early as 1918. In 1966, the Director of Purchasing for Bendix Corporation, now a part of Honeywell, stated in an internal memo `` . . . if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products, why not die from it.'' There are countless other industry documents that have been uncovered to show that the industry knew it was endangering its workers' health by continuing to use asbestos. A 1958 National Gypsum Memo, for example, stated: ``Because just as certain as death and taxes is the fact that if you inhale asbestos dust you get asbestosis.'' We need to make sure that any national solution to the asbestos litigation issue keeps faith with people who have been injured by this dangerous product. And we now know that the problem is not limited to people who worked with asbestos. It is also the families of the men and women who worked with asbestos who have contracted asbestos-related diseases. Even consumers who used hair dryers, electric blankets, attic insulation, home siding and ceiling and floor tiles have suffered injury from asbestos exposure. These victims need compensation, and this hazardous substance needs to be banned once and for all. We all want to see a resolution to this crisis, we want these victims to get the compensation they deserve. That is why I am so disappointed in the final version of this bill. Instead of working toward a negotiated solution that the whole Senate can support, the sponsors of this bill have assured its failure by going backward. Again I ask, how is that fair? Reluctantly, I will vote against the motion to proceed, and I hope the message that comes from the failure of this bill is not that no solution to the asbestos problem is possible, but rather that the only way to reach a solution is to involve all the interested parties, and Senators from both sides of the aisle, and try to arrive at a truly fair bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Wisconsin has inspired some of the greatest conservationists this Nation has ever known. Wisconsinites have had a powerful influence on the environmental movement. I now hold the Senate seat held by Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day, and a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. I am pleased that Wisconsin can lay claim to the genesis of Earth Day, a day of national and international remembrance of the importance of our natural resources and a clean environment. I know that the people of Wisconsin, living in such a beautiful and ecologically diverse State, feel a special connection to our natural resources and share a long tradition of our State government achieving excellence in its conservation policies. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Gaylord Nelson, a former member of this body and a distinguished former Governor of the State of Wisconsin, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for changing the consciousness of a nation. He is the living embodiment of the principle that one person can literally change the world. During his 18 years of service in the Senate, Gaylord Nelson brought about significant change for the ``greener'' in both our Nation's law and the institution of the Senate itself. He is the coauthor of the Environmental Education Act, which he sponsored with the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and he sponsored the amendment to give the St. Croix and the Namekagon Rivers scenic protection. In the wake of Rachel Carson's book ``Silent Spring,'' Gaylord Nelson, along with Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, directed national attention to the documented persistent bioaccumulative effects of organochlorine pesticides used in the Great Lakes by authoring the ban on DDT in 1972. He was the primary sponsor of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Act, protecting one of northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas. And Senator Nelson, of course, was the founder of Earth Day. Thanks to him, here we are, 34 years later, taking time out of our lives to think about conservation. Earth Day is an event which in addition to changing the environmental consciousness of the country literally stopped the Senate. Members of both bodies voted to adjourn their respective Houses in the middle of the legislative week to attend Earth Day events, an adjournment that would be extremely rare today. Here in this body, the Congressional Record indicates, at 3:31 pm. on Tuesday, April 20, 1970, our colleague the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, adjourned the Senate until Friday, April 23, 1970. In the other body, Chamber action was adjourned from the middle of the day on April 21, 1970, the actual date of the first Earth Day, through April 23 of that year. In addition to Gaylord Nelson, the list of Wisconsin environmentalists includes Sierra Club founder John Muir, whose birthday is the day before Earth Day. Also notable is the writer and conservationist Aldo Leopold, whose Sand County Almanac helped to galvanize the environmental movement. Finally, Wisconsin also produced Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society. Conservation is part of our culture in Wisconsin, and the people Wisconsin are very environmentally savvy. Every year I hold a town hall meeting in each one of Wisconsin's 72 counties, and protecting the environment is a top issue. Earth Day has become an important part of who we are. From Milwaukee, WI, to Mumbai, India, millions of people across the world are taking Senator Nelson's legacy to heart. They are volunteering this weekend to conserve the environment--whether it is in their backyard, local river, or park. I hope that on this Earth Day 2004, the Congress will re-dedicate itself to achieving the bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment that existed for nearly two decades. The Clean Water Act, for example, passed the U.S. Senate in 1971 by a vote of 86 to 0. When President Nixon vetoed it, the Senate overrode his veto, 52 to 12. The Endangered Species Act, which is under such attack right now, was passed by the Senate on a 92 to 0 vote in 1973. Unfortunately, during the course of this congressional session we have faced numerous proposals to roll back the environmental and health and safety protections upon which Americans depend. From clean water to clean air, the list of environmental rollbacks is stunning and disturbing. We need to work together to protect the environment, not revert to the times when we saw the Cuyahoga River catch fire, when at least one of the Great Lakes was considered ``ecologically dead,'' and when dumping of toxic wastes into rivers was standard operating procedure. In the upcoming months, I hope that Wisconsinites and citizens across America use this Earth Day to collect their thoughts and voice their opinions about pending Federal legislation and its impact on the environment. Wisconsinites value a clean environment, not just for purely aesthetic or philosophical purposes, but because a clean environment ensures that Wisconsin and the United States as a whole remains a good place to raise a family, start a business, and buy a home. It is important on this Earth Day 2004 that we keep the need for strong environmental laws in mind. Let's continue to move forward, not roll back.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for S. Res. 330, which expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should communicate to the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, cartel and non-OPEC countries the position of the United States in favor of increasing world crude oil supplies so as to achieve stable crude oil prices. I am proud to again be a cosponsor of this resolution. In the 106th Congress, I was a cosponsor of a virtually identical resolution along with, among others, the current Secretary of the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, the need to stand up to OPEC is even more pressing today than it was two Congresses ago. Ensuring access to and stable prices for imported crude oil for the United States and major allies and trading partners of the United States is vital to United States foreign and economic policy. Regrettably, the 2004 OPEC production cuts have resulted in outrageous increases in oil prices. The eleven countries that make up OPEC produce 40 percent of the world's crude oil and control three-quarters of proven reserves, including much of the spare production capacity. When OPEC instituted its production cut in February 2004, it reduced production by 2,000,000 barrels per day. From February to March 2004, crude oil prices have gone from $28 per barrel and now exceed $38 per barrel. High gasoline prices are inextricably linked to high crude oil prices. And these high oil and gas prices hurt Americans across the Nation and from all walks of life. Farmers, teachers and small business owners are among those getting hit hard by these skyrocketing costs. For gasoline, the increases in crude oil prices have resulted in a pass-through of cost increases at the pump to an average national price of $1.80 per gallon. These are the highest gas prices we have seen in 13 years. We cannot allow this foreign oil cartel to wreak havoc on our economy. The President should use diplomatic pressure to urge OPEC to increase production. The actions of this cartel have real consequences for Americans. And in an already shaky economy, high oil and gas prices can put working families over the financial edge.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. A number of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2004, will solve the problem for today and into the future. Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland,'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and 25 percent of the country's butter a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of cheese, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hard-working farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist. One concern of Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. There programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years. Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies. Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers--Social Security Act Sec. 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a)--have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC, making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits. Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs. Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2004 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. By linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again. In addition to providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It actually provides a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run. Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law. When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. Due to inflation, the Tax Code has not kept up and many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2004.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. A number of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2004, will solve the problem for today and into the future. Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland,'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and 25 percent of the country's butter a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of cheese, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hard-working farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist. One concern of Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. There programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years. Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies. Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers--Social Security Act Sec. 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a)--have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC, making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits. Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs. Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2004 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. By linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again. In addition to providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It actually provides a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run. Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law. When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. Due to inflation, the Tax Code has not kept up and many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2004.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the conference report on H.R. 3108. While there is much to commend in the measure, the conferees failed to include meaningful relief for the multiemployer pension plans to which thousands of mostly small businesses and their workers contribute. That was not the case when this measure left the Senate, nor was it apparently the case in the conference committee prior to the intervention of the Administration. Members of the conference committee have noted that bipartisan negotiations on this measure in committee had been productive prior to the insistence by the White House that the provisions extending relief to multiemployer plans be greatly restricted, leaving thousands of businesses and 9.4 million workers high and dry. Particularly disturbing are reports that while multiemployer plan relief was drastically reduced by the conferees, special consideration was provided for at least one large corporation that contributes to a multiemployer plan. The Wall Street Journal today reported that ``the final provisions also showed the remarkable influence'' of that corporation, noting that it ``used the bill to pursue its own agenda'' and that the provisions in the conference report were ``tailored to provide the most help'' to the fund to which the company contributed. This tailored assistance stands in stark contrast to the lack of relief to the thousands of smaller employers and the workers they employ. Mr. President, I supported the pension relief package that the Finance Committee crafted a few weeks ago. I am pleased that some of the provision in that measure remain in the conference report, and that with the expected passage of this legislation many plans will get the relief they need. But I regret that while conferees reportedly tailored multiemployer relief to help at least one large corporation, they abandoned the multiemployer relief that helps thousands of small businesses and their workers. I very much hope this body will act to correct that serious flaw without delay.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I spoke earlier about the conference report to H.R. 3108. I wanted to discuss one additional provision of the bill that has not received much attention in the debate because it was not part of the bill until just a day or two ago. I am very troubled by the eleventh hour addition to this conference report of a provision that purports to grant an antitrust exemption to the graduate medical resident matching programs. We have had no hearings on that issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and no language has ever been presented to the Committee or to the Senate. For the managers of this bill to insert a controversial provision with no Senate debate or discussion is the worst way to legislate, particularly in the complicated area of antitrust law. I note, in addition, that Subsection (b)(3) of section 207 explicitly preserves the right to bring an antitrust lawsuit alleging any type of price-fixing arrangement among two or more graduate medical education programs. Therefore, the antitrust exemption that is described in subsection (b)(2) apparently does not apply to the lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I join my colleagues Senators Craig and Durbin in urging the administration and Congress to support the SAFE Act. The SAFE Act is a much needed bill that amends a few provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act in a reasonable way to preserve our constitutional rights and protections while still protecting our Nation against terrorism. More than 2 years after the PATRIOT Act passed so overwhelmingly, without close scrutiny by Congress, I am delighted that there is now growing support for close examination of application of the law and for changes to the law to ensure that, as we fight terrorism, we also protect the civil liberties of Americans. There is reason for hope. In Congress and in communities across the country, the American people are beginning to realize that the PATRIOT Act went too far. In Congress, there is bipartisan support for changes to the law. I am pleased to join my Republican colleagues, Senators Craig, Crapo, Sununu, and Murkowski, as a cosponsor of the SAFE Act. Over 275 communities and four States have now passed resolutions expressing opposition to certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Mr. President, the attacks of September 11, 2001, presented a new and unique challenge to this country. I can think of nothing more important than responding to that terrible challenge and protecting Americans against terrorism. As I said during debate on the PATRIOT Act and continue to say today, I believe most of the Act's provisions were necessary and proper, such as increasing the number of border patrol agents and allowing the FBI access to voicemails as a part of wiretaps. But we must be sure that, in conducting the fight against terrorism, the country's highest priority, we also respect the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. History shows that America should not let fear, however justified, cause us to sacrifice our liberty or the liberty of others in the name of national security. The Palmer raids, the McCarthy hearings, the internment of Japanese-Americans, these are all events that have been judged poorly through the lens of history. Today, we are again faced with a grave threat but we can and must face it without potentially abusing the power of the Federal Government or trampling fundamental constitutional rights and protections. I am pleased that Members of Congress and the American people are beginning to realize the values at stake. There is healthy debate across the country in city councils, State legislatures, town hall gatherings, and in Congress, on how best to preserve a free and open society and to protect our Nation against future terrorist attacks. In contrast, the administration does not seem interested in engaging in a good faith dialogue with the American people and Members of Congress about our legitimate concerns and reasonable proposals. Instead, the President has prematurely called for lifting the sunset on certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are due to expire. Congress has a responsibility to exercise oversight and demand accountability from the agencies using authority granted to them by Congress. Nearly 2 years before some provisions of the PATRIOT Act will sunset, the administration should be engaging in good faith discussions and negotiations on how it is using the powers it has and how best to protect our country from terrorism while also protecting the civil liberties of our citizens. I am pleased that both Senator Hatch and Representative Sensenbrenner, the Chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, respectively, have disagreed with the President and have stated that close scrutiny of the PATRIOT Act will be undertaken before Congress will consider lifting the sunset provisions. I commend them for taking this position. It is the right thing to do and the proper role of Congress. In addition to prematurely calling for lifting the sunset provisions, the administration has already threatened to veto the SAFE Act if it is enacted. That is unfortunate, and very unusual. The administration has issued a veto threat of a bill that was introduced just a few months ago and has not even had a hearing yet. Thousands of bills are introduced each year. The administration could spend a lot of time issuing veto threats for every one it disagrees with. Obviously, it is worried about this one. But veto threats at this early stage do not contribute to a productive dialogue, and they certainly will not deter the growing bipartisan interest in reevaluating the PATRIOT Act. I would like to take a moment to talk about the SAFE Act and why it is a reasonable proposal. As my colleagues Senators Craig and Durbin have discussed, the SAFE Act makes important modifications to enhance judicial review of the FBI's roving wiretap and so-called ``sneak and peek'' search activities. I would like to comment on another important modification to the PATRIOT Act contained in the SAFE Act, the section 215, or business records, fix. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the Government could compel the production of only certain business records in connection with a counter- intelligence or international terrorism investigation, namely, hotel, rental car, airline, and storage facility records. This was a narrow set of records, and so it made sense to change the law. I agree with that change, to allow the FBI access to more categories of business records. But the PATRIOT Act went too far because it also weakened the ability of the courts to exercise their proper role as a check on the executive branch, and it took away the requirement of individualized suspicion. The PATRIOT Act changed the standards for allowing the FBI access to such records. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, investigators had to state, in their application to the secret FISA court, specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertained was a suspected terrorist or spy. If a court agreed, it would issue the order. The PATRIOT Act, however, vastly expanded this power so that investigators no longer have to show ``specific and articulable facts.'' Now, investigators need only state that the records are ``sought for'' a counter-intelligence or international terrorism investigation. Upon receiving the application for a court order, the judge must--must--issue the order. He or she does not have discretion. The judge cannot review the merits of the request. For example, a judge cannot review facts to determine whether the scope of the request is reasonable. So long as the FBI asserts that the records are ``sought for'' a foreign intelligence investigation, the judge must issue the order. The SAFE Act sponsors and I, as well as librarians, privacy advocates, and an increasing number of Americans, believe this provision of the PATRIOT Act goes too far. We recognize that there is enormous potential for abuse if the FBI is allowed access to personal information, such as medical records, library records, or newspaper or magazine subscription records, all with no meaningful judicial review and without a requirement of some showing that the records pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy. The SAFE Act would simply re-insert a pre-PATRIOT Act standard so that he role of the judge as a check on the executive branch is real and effective. Like the standard prior to the PATRIOT Act, under the SAFE Act the FBI would need to state specific and articulable facts to support its application. The SAFE Act simply restores the judicial oversight that existed prior to the PATRIOT Act, giving the court the power to ensure that the Federal Government is not engaging in a fishing expedition at the expense of innocent Americans. This is a reasonable response to protect both our security and our privacy. The administration has not shown how this prudent safeguard would harm the fight against terrorism or impair its ability to get access to information it needs to protect the country. I might add that according to the administration, as of last September, almost 2 years since enactment of the PATRIOT Act, the administration claims it had not yet used section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. It is unclear whether they have used it since that time, and I have recently sent the Attorney General a letter asking him whether it has been used. But regardless of whether it has been used zero times or a handful of times, it is nevertheless difficult to understand how re- inserting an important judicial check would harm the fight against terrorism. I urge the administration to reconsider its position on the SAFE Act. The American people have thoughtfully expressed their fears and wishes. They want the Federal Government to protect them against terrorism, but they also want the Federal Government to be respectful of the Constitution every step of the way. With passage of the SAFE Act, we can reassure the American people that we are working to protect their rights and liberties, as well as their safety. I urge my colleagues and the administration to support the SAFE Act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Wax, an intern on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of my remarks on the SAFE Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, once again we are faced with an ill- advised medical malpractice bill coming to the Senate floor without any committee consideration. Some argue that we have a malpractice insurance ``crisis'' that is driving doctors from the practice of medicine, particularly in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, or OB/GYN. This is a serious issue and it deserves close examination. But we haven't yet explored the issue in the Senate at all. Nor have we examined the issue of how malpractice cases may be affecting the practice of emergency medicine. No committee has held hearings or marked up a bill on these topics. In fact, no work has apparently been done behind the scenes since the Senate refused to invoke cloture on S. 2061. Instead, once again, an extreme and unbalanced proposal has been brought directly to the floor and Senators are expected to vote for it without any committee having looked into the facts or considered alternatives. That is not how the legislative process should work. I would like very much for Congress to address the problem of malpractice insurance premiums once we understand the seriousness of the problem and the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. But by bringing this bill directly to the floor only 6 weeks after a nearly identical bill failed to achieve the necessary vote, the majority shows that it is not serious about addressing the problem. It appears that what is going on here is a cynical exercise, designed only to fail and to provide fodder for political attacks. This issue deserves better and I hope that there will be some effort to address it in a serious, bipartisan manner. I will vote nay on cloture.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution commemorating the 10th anniversary of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Ten years ago, a deliberate, centrally-planned, and organized campaign of violence was set in motion, and eventually it took the lives of some 800,000 Rwandans. The campaign targeted ethnic Tutsis, but also ethnic Hutus who espoused moderate political beliefs and paid for their commitment to equal rights for all Rwandans with their lives. Millions were displaced, and the institutions and infrastructure of the country were shattered. As this horror unfolded, the international community, including the United States, failed to act. The United Nations Mission for Rwanda was scaled down when the massacres started rather than being reinforced. The U.S. engaged in semantic strategies of avoidance, referring to massacres and atrocities and finally ``acts of genocide,'' but refusing to acknowledge the truth for fear it should make plain our responsibility. If some of the Rwandan voices that will be heard during this time of commemoration and reflection sound angry, well, we have to accept that their anger is justified. The world had said ``never again'' to genocide. And then we abandoned the people of Rwanda to an unspeakable national nightmare. Today, the people of Rwanda still struggle to cope with the legacy of the genocide, with the trauma of their national experience, and with the search for justice and accountability. And they still struggle with fear. The United States can and should insist that those who devised and implemented the plan for genocide be held accountable for their actions. Four years ago I was proud to introduce legislation that extended the Rewards for Justice program, so that today the U.S. is helping to track down those who have been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and are still at large. In addition, we can and do assist the Government of Rwanda in strengthening its own capacity to address the backlog of genocide-related cases awaiting trial, sometimes through the formal justice system, and sometimes through the community-based gacaca courts. But today I want to urge my colleagues to seize on this moment not only to reflect on the past, not only to honor the dead, but to think about the future and to care for the living. And the people of Rwanda today do need assistance. Too many Rwandans live in a context of crushing poverty. Approximately 9 percent of the adult population is HIV positive, and life expectancy is about 40 years. There is much development work yet to be done. In Rwanda today, basic human rights are still not guaranteed. The most recent State Department human rights report on Rwanda makes reference to ``politically motivated disappearances; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of opposition supporters.'' No one with even a cursory grasp of Rwanda's history could fault the government for being sensitive to ethnically divisive forces. But, not all dissent is divisive, and history teaches us that imposing order alone is not enough to guarantee stability and security. Order without justice tends to crumble. Suppressing legitimate disagreements, allowing intimidation to silence citizens--these acts undermine security rather than enhance it. The people of Rwanda, including the leadership of the country, find themselves in a tremendously difficult position. I can imagine, but I cannot know, the challenges of governing in the wake of a tragedy of this magnitude. But I do know that those of us in the international community only compound our past mistakes when we do not interest ourselves in the future of the Rwandan people today, when we do not concern ourselves with freeing the next generation from fear. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of solemn commemoration. It acknowledges the terrible past, but it also expresses hope for the future. The people of Rwanda have picked themselves up and have set about rebuilding their lives and their country. The world failed them ten years ago. Let us resolve not to fail them again.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday the 9/11 Commission heard the public testimony of current and former Cabinet and National Security Council officials. It is critically important to make certain the historical record is accurate and complete and to establish all of the facts surrounding what the various elements of the U.S. Government knew about the terrorist threat before September 11, 2001. The most important task before us, our first priority, should be to stop future attacks, to crush the terrorist organizations that are trying to kill us and trying to kill our children. Over 2\1/2\ years have passed since that horrible day. We are dutybound to get our post-September 11 response right, and I think getting it right means keeping this fight focused on the terrorist networks that attacked this Nation. Putting it more simply, it means keeping our eye on the ball. We need to take this fight to the terrorists. That is why every Member of this body voted to go after those responsible for attacking this country on September 11, 2001. But the further we get from September 11, I am concerned that we are not doing enough to root out the terrorists in Afghanistan. Recently, we have all heard a lot about the spring offensive in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I support the offensive and I remain deeply grateful for the service of our men and women in uniform. But why is this offensive happening this spring? We are talking about forces that attacked this country in 2001. This offensive should have taken place last spring. In fact, by the end of last spring, Rand Beers, who had served as counterterrorism adviser to this administration in the National Security Council, had resigned his job and was voicing his concerns about the insufficient effort in Afghanistan. ``Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what is going on,'' he told a reporter. The director of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University just found that ``the low level of funding for the reconstruction of Afghanistan remains astonishing, given the importance with which major nations claim to regard it and the consequences of the previous neglect of that country.'' When it comes to terrorists in Afghanistan, we need to finish the job and finish them off. Then we need to make sure that we support the Afghan people and help them create a climate in their country that will make it impossible for terrorist forces to survive there in the future. Make no mistake: The al-Qaida network is not confined only to Afghanistan. It would be misleading and dangerous to suggest that eliminating a handful of al-Qaida leaders eliminates the threat from the network. None of these al-Qaida forces should ever know a moment's peace. We must wage a relentless campaign against al-Qaida around the world, and we will not be done until they have nowhere left to hide. I joined my colleagues in authorizing the use of force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks. When I cast that vote, I expected a serious campaign targeting the terrorists who attacked this country. I am pretty confident most Americans expected the same thing. What we did not expect was that elements of that effort would be left to tread water so that we could focus resources on the war in Iraq instead. Instead of keeping our eye on the ball, instead of focusing on winning the fight we are in, this administration launched into a tremendously costly initiative in Iraq. Of course, they have used a whole lot of different arguments to justify this war, and a lot of arguments trying to link the war to the fight against terrorism, even though on January 8 of this year, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated he had not seen any ``smoking gun or concrete evidence'' of ties between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Even though the report The Network of Terrorism, published by the State Department in the wake of 9/11, which begins with the words of the President of the United States, listed 45 countries where al-Qaida or affiliated groups were known to have operated--and guess what, Iraq was not one of the 45. Iraq was not on the list in the report. Even though Richard Clarke, the man whom the Bush administration chose to head up counterterrorism policy within the National Security Council, told the President and members of his Cabinet that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. By the summer of 2002, national security debates weren't about the fight against terrorism anymore; they were all about the invasion of Iraq. We got sidetracked. We are facing one of the most serious threats to our national security in the history of this country, and I dare anyone to say that is an exaggeration, but what did we do? We took our eye off the ball. As I said before, even as our brave troops were taking Baghdad, 10 men allegedly involved in the bombing of the USS Cole--a terrorist attack that killed 17 American sailors--escaped from a prison in Yemen. That news was disturbing, and I wanted answers, answers about what we knew about their escape, the circumstances of their detention and the security of the facility, about the implications of this lapse. The answers were of a deeply troubling ``no one is minding the store'' variety. I can assure you I tried again and again to get some information about this. This month, reports indicate these escapees have finally been recaptured. Of course this is good news. But we must take steps to avoid this kind of scenario in the future. We must give these issues the focus they deserve and devote resources and support to monitoring these situations closely and acting to protect our interests. As you know, by October 2003, even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld indicated in a memo that, despite over 2 years having passed since September 11, ``relatively little effort'' had gone into developing ``a long range plan'' to win the fight against terrorism. In the memo of the Secretary of Defense, he pointed out that there is no consensus within the national security community in the U.S. about how to even measure success in this fight. No thoughtful and useful way to tell where we stand? So not only have we lost our focus in this fight, we don't even have a way to measure our lack of focus. This is our most important national security priority. Something is not right with this picture. Iraq is a mammoth undertaking. We only have so many national security resources, and all the resources we used to fight the war with Iraq-- the military resources, the intelligence resources, the money, effort, and the long hours--all of them came from what is surely a finite supply. The fight against the terrorists who attacked this country had to be addressed with what was left, wedged into the margins. Jeffrey Record, visiting professor at the Army War College, published a paper that very clearly acknowledged this problem. His analysis indicated that the U.S. fight against terrorism has been ``strategically unfocused.'' He writes as follows: In the wake of the September 11, 2001, al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the United States, the U.S. Government declared a global war on terrorism. The nature and parameters of that war, however, remain frustratingly unclear. The administration has postulated a multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass destruction proliferators; terrorist organizations of global, regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to have conflated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that posed no serious threat to the United States. Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. He continues: This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaida. The war against Iraq was not integral to the [Global War on Terrorism], but rather a detour from it. Some have argued that Iraq itself is the central front in the fight against terrorism, despite the absence of significant evidence linking the Saddam Hussein regime to terrorists who attacked this country. They point to the indisputable fact that in post-Saddam Iraq, terrorists are operating in Iraq and they are targeting our brave American soldiers as well as innocent American and Iraqi and other civilians. This is a true statement. It is also a painful reality. But it is not a strategy for defeating al-Qaida. Just because there are attacks in Iraq does not mean there will not be attacks elsewhere. The terrorists working for and with the al-Qaida network will not all be attracted to Iraq. We can't bring them all in there and defeat them there. Right now, terror cells are plotting and planning and operating in many other places around the world--in the Middle East, in east Africa, in southeast Asia, in northern Africa, in central Asia. Pretending that a ``roach motel'' strategy against terrorist networks is a viable way to protect our national security would be almost laughable if the consequences were not so deadly serious. There are heartbreaking human costs to the families of killed and injured troops, and there are astronomical economic costs--costs that America is writing bad checks to cover--as well. And there is the cost we can never know or measure, the cost of missed opportunities to make progress in the fight against al-Qaida and associated terrorist networks. I am glad the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein is gone. I am glad the Iraqi people have a chance at a better life. I recognize it is not in our national interest to let Iraq dissolve into chaotic disorder, but my first priority is my concern for the American people, and I doubt our effort in Iraq has helped to eliminate the terrorist threat we face from the forces that actually attacked us on September 11. I also fear that the way the administration has approached Iraq--the blurring of facts, the conflating of villains, the shifting justifications for war--may undermine our capacity to lead the global fight against terrorism. As David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq said on March 22, ``We are in grave danger of having destroyed our credibility internationally and domestically with regard to warning about future events.'' International credibility matters. It is part and parcel of our country's power--our power to inspire, to motivate, to persuade. Our enemies have a global network. We must have a global response. That means close cooperation with countries around the world. It means sharing intelligence, and coordinating with other countries to clamp down on terrorist financing, squeezing terrorist networks out of the shadows in which they operate, leaving them vulnerable and exposed. But since September 11, we have seen a loss of this critical American power. In fact, today, a majority of people living in Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey say they believe the U.S. is conducting its campaign against terror to dominate others and control the world's oil. Somehow the fight against terrorism, which was and should still be a rallying point for global unity and resolve, has become divisive. We know that the military plays a critical role in fighting terrorism. But some have twisted the importance of the military's role into an argument that suggests that fighting terrorism is about nothing but military force. I believe at best this is delusional and wildly dangerous at worst. Military force absolutely must be part of our response, and all of us in the Senate voted to give the President the authority to use it. And the vast resources available to DOD, which unfortunately do not always trickle down to the level of our men and women in the field, makes it tempting to turn to our Armed Forces for solutions again and again. But we all know this is true: The answers do not lie with the military alone--and it is not fair to our brave men and women in uniform to make them bear the brunt of conducting the fight against terrorism all by themselves. We must also take a hard look at all the other forms of power that America has at its disposal, strengthen those tools, and apply them wisely. Consider what a quick glance at the international section of daily newspapers tells us--uranium seizures at insecure borders, money laundering through the diamond trade that has been linked to terrorist financing, and pirates boarding chemical tankers, steering them for a while, and then disappearing. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, I know that we do not have the intelligence resources that we should around the world. I know that we do not really have any policy at all to deal with Somalia, a failed state in which terrorists have operated and found sanctuary. I know that there is a great deal of work to be done to help countries in which we know terrorists have operated. We need to improve the basic capacities of border patrols who could stop wanted individuals, and customs agents who could help stop weapons proliferation and auditors who could freeze terrorist assets. And we can do more to root out the corruption that undermines these safeguards at every turn. In the wake of the terrible bombings in Madrid, my heart goes out to the people of Spain, and my judgment tells me that too many people are misinterpreting the subsequent Spanish election. I don't believe that the Spanish people will let their political choices be dictated to them by terrorists. The real lesson, the most important lesson that we can draw from recent events in Spain is this: A democracy cannot be unified and mobilized to fight terrorism when citizens believe that their government is willing to mislead them about the threats they face, and when they believe that their government does not have its eye on the ball. Americans know that the battle against terrorism is not a matter of choice, and they know that the battle is worth fighting fiercely. We will not run scared, and we will not be frightened into abandoning our most cherished national values or liberties. So let us move forward to harness the strength of this great country, to learn from our mistakes, to use all of the tools at our disposal, and to stay focused on the most important national security priority before us--fighting and defeating the forces that have attacked our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Twenty minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Alexander, in introducing legislation to draw attention to the horrifying situation in northern and eastern Uganda. When most of my colleagues think of Uganda, they probably think, quite rightly, of Uganda's inspiring example of how a concerted effort on the part of government and civil society can save lives in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Or perhaps they recall the brutal history of the Amin era, and reflect on the extraordinary progress that the Ugandan people have made in closing that chapter of their history and rebuilding their country. Today, so much of Uganda is vibrant and exciting. A lively debate about the pace and depth of democratization has been underway for years. Ugandan leaders, including civil society leaders, work to fight against the insidious influence of corruption, just as leaders here in our country do. Ugandan officials devote time and energy to fostering a climate the encourages enterprise and increased trade and investment so that the next generation of Ugandans might know even more progress. And importantly Uganda is a strong partner in cooperating with the United States and with the rest of the vast global coalition committed to fighting international terrorist networks. It is in part because there is so much that is positive and promising about Uganda and about our relationship with Uganda that the situation in northern and eastern Uganda is so very shocking. For more than 17 years, a conflict has raged between the Lord's Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda. All conflict comes with costs, but this one has been particularly atrocious. The LRA's campaign has been characterized by the forced abduction of thousands of Ugandan children--possibly over 25,000 children. These children have been terrorized, tortured, forced to participate in extraordinarily brutal acts, pressed into service as soldiers and used as cannon fodder, and forced into sexual servitude. Throughout the region, about 1.4 million people are displaced, often forced into camps by the government. They cannot plant their crops, they cannot support themselves, and insecurity makes it difficult to get humanitarian assistance to these populations. Acute malnutrition is widespread, sanitary conditions often do not meet even minimal standards. Worse, often these camps have insufficient protection, and the LRA has targeted these civilian communities of the displaced. Just last month, a displaced persons camp was attacked by the LRA, and in a 3- hour period, some 200 unarmed civilians were hacked, shot, and burned to death. Many fear that targeting of civilians will only increase with the government's efforts to arm and train local defense forces, and local leaders warn of the potential for these forces to take the form of ethnic militias, harkening back to some of the worst days of Uganda's history. Reputable human rights organizations have reported disturbing abuses committed by Ugandan security forces in the region, and an absence of reliable mechanisms for holding those responsible to account. The recent history of Ugandan military adventures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in Ituri, does not inspire confidence. Thankfully, Uganda has withdrawn from the DRC. But lingering questions about the military's commitment to basic human rights standards remain. I believe that the Ugandan military and the Ugandan government want to answer those questions definitively, and to reaffirm their commitment to developing professional and responsible forces. But pretending that these questions and concerns do not exist is not in the interest of Ugandans, it is not in the interest of Americans, and it is not in the interest of the kind of solid, frank, genuine partnership that I believe we all wish to cultivate with Uganda. The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children reports that at least 50,000 people--the majority of them children an adolescents--flee their homes nightly in search of secure places to stay until dawn. Dusk brings seemingly endless lines of children walking into town centers from homes that are often miles away, sleeping en masse in makeshift shelters if they are very lucky, sleeping on the streets where they are extremely vulnerable to exploitation if they are not. This is not something that happens occasionally. This has become a nightly ritual, a way of life, for the civilians caught up in this nightmare. Children, some of whom have been abducted and have escaped only to be abducted again, know much about fear. But they know little about school. They know little about safety. They know very little about the promise of a better future. And the entire structure of their community has been shattered. The human tragedy is devastating and the implications are quite serious. If Sudan is continuing to support the LRA, I am concerned about what this tells us about the nature of the Sudanese regime. I am troubled by the prospect that some will, for their own purposes, cast the conflict in northern and eastern Uganda in purely ethnic terms, lumping civilians who have been victimized in with the LRA forces responsible for their suffering. I worry about the potential for regional fractures when one part of the country lives in such a different world from the rest, enjoying none of the stability and development that we all so admire. I want Uganda to succeed. I want the volume of positive news to increase. And that means that we must address this serious issue frankly today. This legislation asks the administration to report to Congress on a number of issues relating to the situation in northern and eastern Uganda. I ask for these reports because I certainly do not have all of the answers. But I know enough about the problem to know that these reports will help the Congress to make informed decisions about how to proceed in our relationship with Sudan and about how to most effectively help the people of northern and eastern Uganda. Once again, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for joining me in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Alexander, in introducing legislation to draw attention to the horrifying situation in northern and eastern Uganda. When most of my colleagues think of Uganda, they probably think, quite rightly, of Uganda's inspiring example of how a concerted effort on the part of government and civil society can save lives in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Or perhaps they recall the brutal history of the Amin era, and reflect on the extraordinary progress that the Ugandan people have made in closing that chapter of their history and rebuilding their country. Today, so much of Uganda is vibrant and exciting. A lively debate about the pace and depth of democratization has been underway for years. Ugandan leaders, including civil society leaders, work to fight against the insidious influence of corruption, just as leaders here in our country do. Ugandan officials devote time and energy to fostering a climate the encourages enterprise and increased trade and investment so that the next generation of Ugandans might know even more progress. And importantly Uganda is a strong partner in cooperating with the United States and with the rest of the vast global coalition committed to fighting international terrorist networks. It is in part because there is so much that is positive and promising about Uganda and about our relationship with Uganda that the situation in northern and eastern Uganda is so very shocking. For more than 17 years, a conflict has raged between the Lord's Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda. All conflict comes with costs, but this one has been particularly atrocious. The LRA's campaign has been characterized by the forced abduction of thousands of Ugandan children--possibly over 25,000 children. These children have been terrorized, tortured, forced to participate in extraordinarily brutal acts, pressed into service as soldiers and used as cannon fodder, and forced into sexual servitude. Throughout the region, about 1.4 million people are displaced, often forced into camps by the government. They cannot plant their crops, they cannot support themselves, and insecurity makes it difficult to get humanitarian assistance to these populations. Acute malnutrition is widespread, sanitary conditions often do not meet even minimal standards. Worse, often these camps have insufficient protection, and the LRA has targeted these civilian communities of the displaced. Just last month, a displaced persons camp was attacked by the LRA, and in a 3- hour period, some 200 unarmed civilians were hacked, shot, and burned to death. Many fear that targeting of civilians will only increase with the government's efforts to arm and train local defense forces, and local leaders warn of the potential for these forces to take the form of ethnic militias, harkening back to some of the worst days of Uganda's history. Reputable human rights organizations have reported disturbing abuses committed by Ugandan security forces in the region, and an absence of reliable mechanisms for holding those responsible to account. The recent history of Ugandan military adventures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in Ituri, does not inspire confidence. Thankfully, Uganda has withdrawn from the DRC. But lingering questions about the military's commitment to basic human rights standards remain. I believe that the Ugandan military and the Ugandan government want to answer those questions definitively, and to reaffirm their commitment to developing professional and responsible forces. But pretending that these questions and concerns do not exist is not in the interest of Ugandans, it is not in the interest of Americans, and it is not in the interest of the kind of solid, frank, genuine partnership that I believe we all wish to cultivate with Uganda. The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children reports that at least 50,000 people--the majority of them children an adolescents--flee their homes nightly in search of secure places to stay until dawn. Dusk brings seemingly endless lines of children walking into town centers from homes that are often miles away, sleeping en masse in makeshift shelters if they are very lucky, sleeping on the streets where they are extremely vulnerable to exploitation if they are not. This is not something that happens occasionally. This has become a nightly ritual, a way of life, for the civilians caught up in this nightmare. Children, some of whom have been abducted and have escaped only to be abducted again, know much about fear. But they know little about school. They know little about safety. They know very little about the promise of a better future. And the entire structure of their community has been shattered. The human tragedy is devastating and the implications are quite serious. If Sudan is continuing to support the LRA, I am concerned about what this tells us about the nature of the Sudanese regime. I am troubled by the prospect that some will, for their own purposes, cast the conflict in northern and eastern Uganda in purely ethnic terms, lumping civilians who have been victimized in with the LRA forces responsible for their suffering. I worry about the potential for regional fractures when one part of the country lives in such a different world from the rest, enjoying none of the stability and development that we all so admire. I want Uganda to succeed. I want the volume of positive news to increase. And that means that we must address this serious issue frankly today. This legislation asks the administration to report to Congress on a number of issues relating to the situation in northern and eastern Uganda. I ask for these reports because I certainly do not have all of the answers. But I know enough about the problem to know that these reports will help the Congress to make informed decisions about how to proceed in our relationship with Sudan and about how to most effectively help the people of northern and eastern Uganda. Once again, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for joining me in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the ongoing crisis in Darfur, a region in western Sudan that has been the site of atrocities for months. A recent report from the International Crisis Group spells out the horrifying facts of the situation. The report indicates that 830,000 people have been displaced as a result of the conflict, and thousands have been killed. Government-supported militias have deliberately targeted civilians, sometimes focusing on unprotected villages with no apparent link to the rebels other than their ethnic profile. According to credible reports, militia atrocities have included indiscriminate killing and mutilation, rape on a massive scale, and the looting and destruction of food reserves and other property. Outright and indiscriminate government bombing has also been verifiably reported since the conflict began. We must ask ourselves two questions. First, what can be done to help the innocent men, women, and children caught up in this nightmare? The U.S. must work with the international community to signal our collective resolve and to insist that the Government of Sudan stop playing games with humanitarian access. Khartoum needs to feel the pressure, and all parties need to work urgently for a settlement. But we must also ask, what do these developments in Darfur tell us about the Government of Sudan? The reports from the region seem to confirm that the Government of Sudan has no qualms about backing attacks on innocent civilians. I want the administration's extremely laudable peace initiative in Sudan to succeed. Many dedicated professionals have devoted countless hours to this enterprise, and many courageous Sudanese have taken difficult steps in the pursuit of a just peace. But my doubts about the prospects for a future of peace and cooperation are growing, rather than dissipating, at each new report on the Darfur crisis. I doubt the stability and sustainability of a peace agreed to by a party that accepts organized atrocities as just one more tool in its toolbox of governing. What kind of peace can be achieved with this kind of partner? Can we truly have confidence in this government's good faith? What kind of future cooperation can we realistically expect? As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs, I have been engaged on issues relating to Sudan for many years. I was proud to work with my colleague on that subcommittee for several years, Senator Frist, on the Sudan Peace Act. I recognize the complexity of Sudanese dynamics, and I certainly understand that the situation in Darfur is different from the conflict between the Government of Sudan and the forces of the south, most prominently the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement. But some of the elements of the Darfur crisis are, unfortunately, quite familiar. We have seen obstacles thrown up to humanitarian access, we have seen the near-total abdication of responsibility for the basic security and well-being of Sudanese civilians, and we see government-backed militias employed to keep some of the dirtiest of the dirty working at some token distance from officials. On December 16, 2003, the State Department issued a statement expressing ``deep concern'' about the humanitarian and security situation in Darfur. The statement indicated that: the United States calls on the Government of Sudan to take concrete steps to control the militia groups it has armed, to avoid attacks against civilians and to fully facilitate the efforts of the international humanitarian community to respond to civilian needs. But it then contained this final sentence: The fighting in Darfur is not linked to the ongoing peace talks between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army in Kenya. I am among many observers who fear that this sentence was interpreted in Khartoum as a signal that the disincentives articulated by the U.S. in the context of the peace talks will not be applied because of abuses in Darfur. I urge the administration to insist that the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team be permitted to investigate alleged attacks on civilians throughout the country, including attacks in Darfur. The Government of Sudan should have no formal or informal veto power over this team's investigations. The team was established as a confidence- building measure, and it was agreed to by all parties. But to suggest that the Government of Sudan should be able to pick and choose areas in which the team is permitted to conduct its inquiries undermines confidence. I do respect the fact that delicate diplomacy is ongoing, and I want to be able to celebrate a lasting end to Sudan's north-south civil war as much as any Member of this body. But none of that changes the fact that what is happening in Darfur is inexcusable, it is undermining the Naivasha peace process, and it is casting a pall over the future of Sudan at a time when light had finally begun to shine on that long- suffering country. It is time to stop expressing quiet concern, and to start treating this crisis with the urgency it deserves.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Haitian people find themselves embroiled in yet another political crisis. Following Jean Bertrand Aristide's departure on February 29, 2004, the Haitian people once again are forced to pick up the pieces of their broken political system. Again, they must renew their search for democracy, a search that has lasted for two hundred years with little progress. Thirty coups after Haiti established its independence in 1804, Haitians continue to live in severe poverty, battling HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and a political culture of thuggery and violence. The United States has played an important role in Haiti's history. From U.S. military intervention in 1915 and the 19-year occupation that followed to the restoration of President Aristide in 1994 by U.S. forces, politics in Haiti have been deeply influenced by its larger and more powerful neighbor. Now, the United States has an obligation to assist in rebuilding Haiti in collaboration with our international partners. However, our assistance must be shaped and implemented with an eye to our previous mistakes. For too long, our approach has been ad-hoc and short-term, and the Haitian people have suffered. It is no wonder that some are suspicious of democracy and the role of the United States today. This is not to say that the United States must take most of the blame for the political turmoil in Haiti. Haiti's leaders, and especially President Aristide, must also acknowledge their responsibility in Haiti's current political crisis. However, our flawed nation-building attempt in the 1990s, allegations of international support for Haiti's rebels, and the departure of President Aristide suggest a need for introspection by U.S. policymakers, humanitarian and development organizations and others. Policymakers knew that Haiti's democracy was in trouble for years. Why did the administration fail to take meaningful action until Haiti was on the verge of collapse? As the rebels gained control of Haitian territory from early to mid-February, the U.S. administration largely channeled its diplomatic efforts through the Organization of American States and the Caribbean Community, CARICOM. On February 21st, the United States backed a CARICOM proposal, which called for a power- sharing compromise between Aristide and the opposition. However, as soon as Haiti's political opposition rejected the proposal, rather than defending Haiti's democratic process and institutions, the administration quickly backed down. With rebel forces moving toward the capital of Port-au-Prince on February 28, 2004, the administration increased pressure on Aristide to resign, stating that ``His failure to adhere to democratic principles has contributed to the deep polarization and violent unrest that we are witnessing in Haiti today.'' Aristide resigned the next day and flew into exile on a U.S. aircraft. President Aristide was no paragon of democratic virtue. He encouraged his supporters in their violent campaign against the opposition, and his regime was a corrupt one. But a world in which legitimately elected officials, found wanting, can be run out of office by gangs of armed thugs is a world in which the thugs, in fact, are in charge. The people of Haiti, like people all over the world, deserve better. U.S. complicity in President Aristide's ouster sent the wrong message to violent rebel leaders, who have committed their own atrocities in Haiti's past. A transition guided by the rule of law, rather than the threat of violence, would surely have been preferable. In the past weeks, a number of my constituents have raised important questions. What ties exist between rebel leaders and the government of the United States? Did the U.S. government impede efforts by the international community, particularly the Caribbean Community, CARICOM, to prevent President Aristide's resignation? I believe that the American and Haitian people deserve the answers, and a full accounting of the events surrounding Aristide's departure. Equally important, we must help Haiti move forward and break out of this pattern of instability and underdevelopment. We should continue to assist in establishing security and disarming all parties to the conflict, and I commend the American troops who answered the call to service and are now on the ground in Haiti. However, I believe that the administration's decision to commit troops will require a full vetting by Congress. As long as American troops are in harm's way in Haiti, the Congress has a direct role and responsibility to either ratify or repudiate the use of U.S. military troops. We must also ensure the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance to communities in need. Haitian Supreme Court Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre should have the full support of the United States in working to make Haiti's constitution the guide for the transition and succession process from this point on. And in the longer term, the United States should work with the rest of the international community to help bolster the institutions that are essential to consolidating Haiti's democracy and stability, and assist the Haitian people in holding people accountable for their flagrant violations of human rights. The United States cannot ignore Haiti. Not only do we have a moral obligation to help the Haitian people, who are starving in our own backyard, but there are other national security interests at stake for the United States. A country in crisis so close to our borders creates a political vacuum in the region, where international crime and terrorism can flourish. As we saw in Afghanistan, a country in chaos allows for the emergence of dangerous forces, that directly threaten our security. In addition, the refugee flow created by instability and oppression will wash up on our shores, causing hardship for the Haitian people and overwhelming U.S. communities. I urge Congress to look closely at recent events in Haiti, to ensure that lingering questions are answered forthrightly, and to lend the support that Haiti desperately needs as it moves forward in establishing peace and security.