Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last week marked the 5-year anniversary of President Bush's signing the Congressional resolution that authorized him to use military force in Iraq. That resolution has proved to be a disaster for our country, opening the door to a war that has undermined our top national security priority, the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. More than 5 years after the authorization of war, America is mired in a conflict that continues to have no end in sight. Nearly 4,000 of our soldiers have died and more than 27,000 have been wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, if not more, and at least 4.5 million have been displaced from their homes. The region is more unstable, and our credibility throughout the international community has been significantly damaged. We have spent over a half trillion dollars and stretched our military to the breaking point. Who knows how many more billions will be spent and how many brave Americans will die while the President pursues a military solution to problems that can only be solved by a political settlement in Iraq. At the same time, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and has developed new affiliates around the globe. Al-Qaida has been strengthened, not weakened, since we authorized military action against, and then want to war in, Iraq. Indeed, this senseless war has made us more vulnerable, not more secure. Yet it continues endlessly with only a small token drawdown of forces expected in the coming months, and no timeline from this administration as to when more troops will come home. The American people know this war does not make sense. They expect us to do everything in our power to end it. Now that does not mean neglecting domestic priorities, and there are plenty of those to address, but it does mean we cannot, in good conscience, simply put Iraq on the back burner. We cannot simply tell ourselves and our constituents we have done everything we could. Finding the votes to end this war is not an easy task, but for the sake of the country, we must keep trying. I, for one, am not prepared to say, in late October, with weeks to go before we adjourn for the year, that Iraq can wait until we come back in 2008. Believe me, the administration and its supporters would like nothing better than to change the subject from Iraq. Every time we insist on debates and votes on Iraq, they complain loudly that we are taking time away from the country's true priorities. But as we were reminded last November, however, ending the disastrous Iraq war is one of the American people's top priorities. It may well be their top priority, and we owe it to them to make it our top priority as well. While the administration continues to refuse to acknowledge that we have severely strayed off course, the war drags on and on, and more brave American soldiers are being wounded or killed. But it is not only the President and his administration that is at fault; many of my colleagues here in Congress have expressed concerns about the war but refuse to take real action to end it. They have prevented Congress from acting to secure our country and restore our global leadership. I will not stand idly by while this mistaken war continues. I will continue working to end this war and bring our troops home. I will continue looking in the days and weeks ahead for opportunities to debate and vote on ending the war, this year, and, if necessary, next as well. My colleagues may complain, they may be inconvenienced, they may prefer to focus on other matters. But this Congress has no greater priority than making right the mistake it made more than 5 years ago when it authorized this misguided war. I do not want to have to come to the floor again in a year to mark another anniversary of the war's authorization, and to again implore my colleagues to act. I do not want the American people to lose faith in their elected leaders for pursuing a war they rightly oppose. I do not want more American troops to be killed for a war that does not serve our national security interests. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly support the DREAM Act. This bill would give promising children, who played no part in their parents' decision to come to this country illegally, the chance to earn legal status through college attendance or military service. Some of my colleagues have suggested that this bill constitutes amnesty. But the term ``amnesty'' implies that these children did something wrong and are being absolved of the consequences of their actions. It is difficult to imagine how these children can be blamed for actions that their parents took when the children were too young to have any say. The United States does not visit the sins of parents on their children in other contexts and should not do so here. Furthermore, to call the bill ``amnesty'' ignores the fact that these children would be required to earn their legal status through academic achievement or military service. The children who would be granted legal status under the DREAM Act are those who have shown through their actions that they can make an important contribution to our country. At a time when our economy and our military are in need, turning these children away squanders a valuable resource. It also leaves these children in a permanent limbo, as many of them have little or no knowledge of the country from which their parents came and have known no home other than the United States. It serves neither justice nor our national interest to deprive these children of a future and to deprive ourselves of their potential contributions. That is why I support the DREAM Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations act. I am pleased to support this bill, which provides healthier funding levels for our labor, health, and education programs for the first time in many years. At a time of rising poverty levels, rising health care and heating costs, and classrooms in desperate need of funding, this bill helps promote programs that offer solutions to these problems. I am pleased that the Senate adopted four amendments I worked on. One was an amendment I cosponsored that Senator Collins offered to provide much needed additional funding to improve access to dental health in rural and underserved areas. Our amendment successfully doubled the funding for the Dental Health Improvement Act, bringing funding from $2 million to $4 million. The Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act authorized a new State grant program that is designed to improve access to oral health services in rural and underserved areas. States can use these grants to fund or create programs tailored to State needs. For example, they can use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They can also use the grant funds to establish or expand community or school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental clinics. In Wisconsin, funds were used to provide children with better access to sealants. This helps prevent further and more expensive dental work later in life. The Collins-Feingold amendment to increase funding for this important program will help fund additional State programs so that more people in our country will have access to essential oral health care. I thank Senator Collins for her work on this, and also thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for their assistance in passing this. Another adopted amendment will increase public access to automatic external defibrillators, or AEDs, in schools. In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other States, heart disease is the No. 1 killer. Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of them, emergency medical services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out for victims of cardiac arrest. Fortunately, AEDs are inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of advancements in AED technology, it is practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations on how to use these devices. Over the past 6 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support first responders-- local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. Approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. With every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only 8 minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives. If we give people in rural communities a chance, they may be able to reverse a cardiac arrest before it takes another life. Unfortunately, the President zeroed out the funding for the Rural AED program after the program was cut by 83 percent in fiscal year 2006 and kept at that level in fiscal year 2007. I am very disappointed that the program was eliminated in the President's budget. Our rural communities deserve better, and I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee recognized this by providing $3 million in funding for the program this year. That is double last year's funding level and, while it is still much lower than I would like, I hope the final version of this bill includes at least that much in funding. Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived. This story is incredibly tragic. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. This story helps to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives. The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a chance at life. The Feingold-Collins amendment provides modest funding for this act just $200,000. This funding, while not much in the grand scheme of the Federal budget, will help jump start this valuable program. This amendment as drafted would be funded through the Rural AED line; however, I am pleased that the managers share my goal of not taking away any of the already limited Rural AED funding and are looking for additional ways to fund the ADAM Act. I am pleased that our amendment passed the Senate by unanimous consent and I urge the conferees to maintain this small but important program. My third amendment that passed requires GAO to conduct an assessment of current State health care reforms and comment on the potential role that Congress could take in assisting States with their efforts. I offered this amendment along with Senators Graham, Bingaman, and Voinovich. There is momentum in many States to reform the broken health care system. This study would provide an overview of what is working in the States and the effect of Federal laws on State health care initiatives. In addition, the study would provide recommendations on how the Federal Government could better work with States to further efforts. While Congress may not be able to reach consensus on how to ensure all Americans access to health services, a State-based model allows consideration of politically diverse solutions that could eventually be widely applied. Gathering data on what works at the State level will assist Congress in looking at broader reforms, which is why Senator Graham and I have introduced legislation, with the backing of the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation, to encourage and expand State efforts to extend health care coverage. My fourth amendment directs GAO to examine the different techniques schools are using to prepare students to achieve on State standardized exams as well as meet State academic standards. Schools in Wisconsin and around the country are facing their sixth year under No Child Left Behind, NCLB, the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda, and I continue to hear grave concerns throughout Wisconsin about the Federal testing mandates contained in NCLB and the ongoing implementation problems with the law. Wisconsin teachers and parents are concerned about many of the unintended consequences of NCLB, including the narrowing of the curriculum to focus on the subjects that are tested under NCLB--reading and math. As a consequence of more narrowed curriculums, some students are experiencing reduced class time on other important subjects including social studies, civics, geography, science, art, music, and physical education. I have also heard numerous concerns that students are being drilled in reading and math in order to boost performance on these standardized tests, which may not be the best measure of students' higher order thinking skills. Many Wisconsinites are concerned that rote drill exercises in reading and math take the joy out of learning for students and have called for a reexamination of NCLB policies to ensure that a diverse and high-quality curriculum is taught in all of our Nation's schools. I voted against NCLB in large part because of its Federal testing mandate and the potential ramifications of the primary focus on test scores in order to determine adequate yearly progress in our schools. I also remain deeply concerned that NCLB's testing and sanctions approach has forced some schools, particularly those in our inner cities and rural areas, to become places where students are not taught, but are drilled with workbooks and test taking strategies, while in wealthy suburban schools, these tests do not greatly impact school curriculums rich in social studies, civics, arts, music, and other important subjects. I do not necessarily oppose the use of standardized testing in our Nation's schools. I agree that some tests are needed to ensure that our children are keeping pace and that schools, districts, and States are held accountable for closing the persistent achievement gap that continues to exist among different groups of students, including among students in Wisconsin. But the Federal one-size-fits-all testing and punishment approach that NCLB takes is not providing an equal education for all, eradicating the achievement gap that exists in our country or ensuring that each student reaches his or her full potential. My amendment calls on GAO to examine how the use of different preparation techniques varies based on the demographic characteristics of schools, including the concentration of poverty at schools, whether schools are located in a rural, suburban, or urban environment, and whether schools have been identified for improvement under NCLB. It is my hope that Congress will receive concrete data on how the student preparation varies among different types of schools so that we can get a better sense of how NCLB is impacting our Nation's schools. The disaggregation element of this GAO study should better help us determine whether various preparation techniques, including commercial test preparation programs and narrowing of the curriculum, are correlated with certain school demographics. I was also pleased to cosponsor an amendment from my colleague, Senator Brown of Ohio, to prohibit the Department of Education from continuing its problematic evaluation of the Upward Bound program until Congress has a chance to examine this policy as part of the Higher Education Act, HEA, reauthorization. I have been a strong supporter of the TRIO Upward Bound program for many years and continuously hear about the benefits it provides to Wisconsin students entering college, particularly first-generation college students. Because of my strong support for Upward Bound, I continue to be concerned about the Department of Education's evaluation of Upward Bound, including the mandate that colleges had to recruit more students than they can serve under the Upward Bound program. I agree that Upward Bound, like other Federal programs, needs to be evaluated to ensure Federal dollars are being spent wisely and effectively. But the Federal Government has a duty to design responsible evaluations of Federal programs, and I do not think the Department fulfilled that obligation with the design of this Upward Bound evaluation. I am pleased the Senate recognized that the ongoing evaluation is troublesome and agreed to prohibit funding for it until Congress can reexamine the Upward Bound evaluation as part of the ongoing HEA reauthorization. I am pleased that my colleagues supported all of my amendments and accepted them. I thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for their assistance and support with these amendments. I would also like to comment briefly on an amendment that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Wayne Allard, brought to a vote. This amendment would have redirected funds from programs deemed ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART. This program was enacted into law as part of the Government Performance Results Act and is intended to better target Government dollars to the most efficient programs. Senator Allard's amendment would have cut the programs considered ineffective by PART by 10 percent, and then sent these dollars to the Federal deficit. I share Senator Allard's goals of efficient Government spending and reducing the deficit; however, I have some concerns about the standards for evaluating Government programs in PART. There are several programs that are making a big, positive difference in communities, that score poorly on the assessment. Some of these programs I have supported for years, such as rural health programs, and various higher education programs. I think it is important to examine this tool more closely and see if there is a way to improve the assessment before cutting these programs. For this reason, I opposed this amendment, which would have had far-reaching implications. I was pleased to support final passage of this bill which provides essential funding for education, health care, and job training programs. Many of these programs have seen drastic cuts over the past 6 years and I am happy that we have been able to more adequately fund these programs in this bill. I am disappointed that the President continues to say that he will veto this bill and I hope that he will reconsider in the coming days. Too many Americans are depending on the employment, health care, and education services provided in this legislation and they are the ones who will be negatively impacted if the President follows through on his veto threat. Much more remains to be done to correct the inadequate funding for these programs in recent years, but this bill is a step in the right direction.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today is the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, one of this Nation's landmark environmental laws. Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has provided essential protection for our Nation's waters that enhance and contribute to human health and well-being, the economy, and the environment. Yet as we celebrate the 35-year anniversary of the enactment of the Clean Water Act, Federal protections of surface waters that provide drinking water to an estimated 110 million Americans remain threatened until the U.S. Congress acts. Two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have jeopardized the protection of these and many other of our Nation's waters by calling into question the Clean Water Act protections for entire categories of waters. In the 2006 consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Supreme Court left more than half of our Nation's waters without Federal protections. The impact of that decision is compounded by the 2001 case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, SWANCC, in which the U.S. Supreme Court limited the authority of Federal agencies to extend Clean Water Act protections to certain wetlands traditionally protected based on their use by migratory birds. The implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions are disturbing for the safety of our drinking water, habitats for wildlife, and fragile ecosystems around the country. At the crux of the debate is the term ``navigable waters,'' which the Supreme Court used to restrict the scope of the Clean Water Act in ways never intended by Congress. The fundamental purpose of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to protect the Nation's waters from pollution rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways. That is why Congress extended protections to ``waters of the United States,'' and the Environmental Protection Agency's and Army Corps of Engineers' regulations have properly established the scope of waters-- including all interstate and intrastate waters--needed to be protected in order to maintain the ``chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,'' as called for in the act. This goal cannot be achieved if Congress does not restore protections that the Supreme Court stripped from 53 to 59 percent of the total length of U.S. streams, excluding Alaska, and at least 20 million acres of so-called ``isolated'' wetlands in the lower 48 States, as estimated by the EPA. It is important to understand that though the recent court cases focused on dredge and fill permits under section 404, the definition of ``waters of the United States'' is integral to the Federal Government's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act as a whole. This definition is the linchpin for State water quality standards under Section 302 and Section 303, national performance standards under Section 306, toxic and pretreatment standards under Section 307, oil and hazardous substance liability under Section 311, aquaculture standards under Section 318, State water quality certifications under Section 401, and national pollution discharge permitting requirements under Section 402. In light of these Supreme Court decisions, Congress must reaffirm the original intent of the Clean Water Act and our commitment to ensuring that Americans have clean, safe water. The Clean Water Restoration Act, which I have introduced, will reestablish protection for all waters historically covered by the Clean Water Act. It will end the legal wrangling over the definition of waters protected by the original Clean Water Act by defining ``waters of the United States'' based on the longstanding definitions in EPA and U.S. Army Corps regulations. It is a straightforward, surgical fix. Unfortunately, special interest and industry groups that opposed the Clean Water Act in 1972 are back at it again, trying to sabotage any legislation that restores critical clean water protections. They are making claims that ``every wet area'' will be regulated, which could not be further from the truth--from the downright silly accusation that swimming pools will be regulated to the flat-out incorrect accusation that ground water will be regulated. My legislation does not broaden the scope of the Clean Water Act. Congress should not stand aside while the courts roll back more than 30 years of Federal protections for our waters. On the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the Clean Water Act, we must step in to bring clarity to a law left murky by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am pleased to credit the administration for identifying this proposed savings of an estimated $23 million per year in its fiscal year 2008 budget. Over 5 years, this could save as much as $115 million. We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and safety standards. Businesses that do not meet federal standards should bear the burden of the reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's expense. One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal budget. I have worked throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our Nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction. I ask unanimous consent the the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am pleased to credit the administration for identifying this proposed savings of an estimated $23 million per year in its fiscal year 2008 budget. Over 5 years, this could save as much as $115 million. We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and safety standards. Businesses that do not meet federal standards should bear the burden of the reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's expense. One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal budget. I have worked throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our Nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction. I ask unanimous consent the the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 and that the bill contains higher levels of funding for state and local law enforcement than Congress has provided in recent years. I believe that Congress, in partnership with states and local communities, has an obligation to provide the tools, technology and training that our Nation's law enforcement officers need in order to protect our communities. I have consistently supported a number of Federal grant programs, including the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Program, which is instrumental in providing funding to train new officers and provide crime-fighting technologies. I also have long supported funding for the Byrne grant program, which provides funding to help fight violent and drug-related crime, including support to multijurisdictional drug task forces, drug courts, drug education and prevention programs, and many other efforts to reduce drug abuse and prosecute drug offenders. I know how important these programs have been to Wisconsin law enforcement efforts, particularly in light of the recent increase in the violent crime rate across the country. I am pleased that the Senate approved an appropriation of $660 million for the COPS program for fiscal year 2008, $110 million above the CJS Subcommittee recommendation. This funding level, in conjunction with the House appropriation of $725 million, leaves me hopeful that Congress will ultimately fund COPS at an adequate level this year. I am pleased that both Houses of Congress took action to increase funding for COPS, especially as crime rates rise and the needs of law enforcement officers and our Nation's first responders continue to grow. Byrne grants also fared better in fiscal year 2008 than in recent years. The House bill allocates $42 million more than it did last year, and the Senate appropriated a total of $660 million, $105 million more than last year. The Democratic majority in Congress has made it a priority to work responsibly toward restoring funding for these programs--funding that has been disastrously slashed in recent years. The level of funding included in the final version of this bill puts Congress back on track towards funding Byrne grants at higher levels. I was pleased as well that the Senate agreed to Senator Menendez's amendment to bolster the funding for juvenile mentoring programs and Senator Dorgan's amendment to restore funding for the Drug Court program to fiscal year 2005 levels. These grant programs assist state and local governments in their efforts to pursue a comprehensive approach to crime reduction, including preventive measures and innovative approaches as well as more traditional law enforcement initiatives. I hope that increased funding for State and local law enforcement will become a trend that continues, and that the years of neglecting our State and local law enforcement officers are finally over. It is our responsibility to support the men and women who keep our communities safe. The Senate's work today is a good start.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is no secret that Africa has not been high on Congress's priority list historically. This is due to a number of reasons including that African issues have not generated the same kind of public passion and constituent attention as closer-to-home subjects like health care or education. But this is beginning to change. Interest in Africa is at its highest level in recent memory-- perhaps ever. I am concerned, however, that because the bulk of this attention is focused on humanitarian tragedies and grave violence we are depicting a continent caught in a downward spiral, which offers little motivation for long-term U.S. engagement. Funding relief efforts in response to crises--while an important element of U.S. policy--does not address fundamental issues such as the development of democratic institutions and civil society, good governance, security and justice sector reform, and regional security arrangements. We must provide more focus on these underlying concerns--and to do so requires consistent, long-term engagement, collaboration, and commitment from national governments, regional and international organizations and, of course, bilateral donors like the United States. Sporadic engagement that is devoid of a long- term strategy is like sticking a band aid on a gaping wound instead of taking a trip to the hospital. The abundant potential that exists in so many parts of Africa, and which the United States and others should be more actively promoting, is being stalled or even undermined by our quick-fix approach to problem-solving on the continent. Without identifying and developing the possibilities for more serious engagement, we may end up doing more harm than good. At the end of our August recess I traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, two countries that have made impressive gains since I was last there 7 years ago. But today I want to talk about the Democratic Republic of Congo primarily, because the situation is gravely deteriorating and urgent steps much be taken to stop it from devolving further and threatening the region writ large. Last year's historic elections in the DRC injected hopeful momentum into the war-torn country, thanks in large part to generous funding from the U.S. and others and with critical support from a strong United Nations peacekeeping mission--the largest in fact in the world. During my visit, however, I was troubled to learn of the new government's failure to consolidate and build upon this historic progress. A lack of capacity, political will, and democratic experience is reversing early gains and increasingly destabilizing an already fragile political situation. The local population is growing disenchanted with the government's inability to follow through on its election promises as decisions on key issues--including those on decentralization and the illegal exploitation of natural resources--are slow-rolled. One of the first promises President Kabila made after his election was to restore order in the war-ravaged provinces of his country. But violence in eastern DRC has only gotten worse in recent months, not better. More than 120,000 people--many of whom voted in favor of Kabila--have been forced from their homes because of increased fighting, with little attention or assistance from the capital. There is no easy solution to the rapidly unfolding conflict in the restive east, but it is clear that the underlying drivers for this continued violence must be addressed at the same time that the more immediate emergency needs are dealt with. On my trip, I visited a camp for internally displaced in eastern DRC. One Congolese man, living in a camp nestled in the rolling hills outside Goma spoke for many others when he told me: We want to restart our normal agricultural work and resume our lives. We want it to be stable enough so we can do that. I met with a group of displaced Congolese women who had been sexually abused and in many cases raped. Extreme sexual violence and rape in the DRC is so pervasive because it is committed by all actors and with little consequence. Sadly, afraid I am afraid it is not getting any better. Just 2 days after I left, tens of thousands more civilians were forced to flee their homes because of renewed fighting between the Congolese army and dissident General Laurent Nkunda's rebel forces, whose ammunition, weapons, and fighters are likely supplied by Rwanda. In early September, U.N. peacekeepers secured an informal, and I might add, already violated truce between the government and a main rebel leader. The U.N. Security Council has appealed for more dialogue between the two warring parties but this appeal needs to be significantly amplified and backed by incentives for peace. Neighboring countries--and particularly Rwanda--need to be part of this conversation, to ensure the current situation does not worsen while also effectively addressing longstanding regional tensions. In contrast, on a recent trip to Uganda, the U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs signaled that the U.S. would support regional efforts for a more militarized policy towards all rebel groups. In fact Assistant Secretary Frazer said: We feel we have the basis to assist in efforts to mop up the LRA and to get them out of Congo, out of Garamba Park. And so we will not sit still and just let them live in Garamba Park and cultivate land and kill animals. This is not the time to start talking about our support for a military solution to these conflicts. Instead, we should seek to build upon current diplomatic initiatives--both in the region as well as at New York last week at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly. We should work to expand existing forums such as the Tripartite Plus Commission to become genuine opportunities for political solutions. The United States, a proud champion of building strong and independent institutions that create the space for lively debate and discussion, should be advocating for enriched dialogue and diplomacy to address the entrenched problems that have allowed these conflicts to fester--or worsen. We should not be encouraging military operations if there are other legitimate avenues open--or if they have not yet been explored. Military action should be the path of last resort, period. The Great Lakes region is at a critical moment in its history and we run the risk of contributing to events that could have far-reaching and long-term repercussions if we do not engage responsibly. With its vast resources, the DRC could be an anchor of stability in an area that has been plagued by violence and destructive activity for decades. The changing nature of global threats could render sub-Saharan Africa--and the Great Lakes region in particular--ripe for exploitation by any number of rogue actors. We can stop this before it begins if we work to ensure stability for the long term. Our National Security Strategy states: We will work with others for an African continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. We must help strengthen Africa's fragile states and help build indigenous capability secure porous border. I know the United States has many priorities that compete for attention and resources, but if done right, and as part of a comprehensive long-term strategy, a little can go a long way towards achieving these lofty goals in Africa. The United States should increase engagement in and expand assistance to the eastern DRC. We should work in concert with other allies and press all regional governments--and in particular Rwanda--to adopt a renewed focus on a political solution for peace. It must be clear that the United States supports peaceful conflict resolution, and that we are not a war-mongering country that prioritizes quick military fixes over more protracted, but also more likely to be sustainable, political dialogues. First, we must increase our support for the DRC's security sector reform initiatives by working with the Congolese government to downsize, discipline, and further transform its military. The national army must no longer be allowed to commit grave human rights abuses with abandon as this only contributes to the rampant impunity and public legitimacy deficit indicative of a weak state. Justice sector reform, within and outside the security sector, is essential in this regard. Second, while Ambassador Bill Swing is doing an incredible job in the DRC as the Secretary General's special representative, we must augment diplomatic attention to the east part of the country by calling for the appointment of a U.N. special envoy who will work in conjunction with the current special envoy for northern Uganda--former Mozambique President Chissano. Such an initiative will jump start a regional process for political engagement that can help to reverse the current deterioration and work towards resolving longstanding grievances between a number of actors in the region. Time and time again on my recent trip I was pleased to learn of the credibility and integrity President Chissano has injected into the northern Uganda peace process; we need to see the same thing for eastern Congo. Third, we need to significantly augment U.S. government efforts in the region. The U.S. government needs to be fully engaged to bring about stability in eastern Congo and to establish conditions for a sustainable peace throughout the region. The dearth of U.S. personnel in the DRC means we have little choice but to outsource our diplomacy to others, which should not become the norm. In the face of a steadily increasing conflict that could ignite tensions throughout the region, we should be looking to robustly increase our on-the-ground presence before it is too late. It is the grim truth that our mission in Kinshasa is not equipped to handle the looming instability in the east and that we are limited in our engagement because we have no diplomatic presence in the conflict- affected areas. I do not wish to insinuate that this is due to lack of interest, concern, or dedication from the committed embassy team we have on the ground in Kinshasa. On the contrary, I got to know those individuals on my recent visit and was very impressed with both their capacity and resourcefulness with the limited means available to them. It is because of this administration's myopic focus elsewhere that we are not adequately able to respond in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo. As a first step, the Secretary of State should dispatch a ``booster'' team to help prepare the embassy to deal with the diplomatic, humanitarian, and security work needed in order to exercise our influence and to participate in a broader international effort to prevent eastern DRC from deteriorating into complete chaos. At the same time, we need to begin looking at serious infrastructure change that will enable our front line diplomats to have the resources and flexibility they need not just in Africa, but throughout the world. The United States has much to offer beyond public statements to ensure that violence in the DRC does not escalate further and that those who have been displaced can look forward to returning home sooner rather than later. We in Congress need to send a strong signal that we are not going to turn a blind eye to the deteriorating situation in the east--or to the administration's inadequate response. In eastern DRC, as in other parts of Africa, we must take steps today to promote political solutions that truly address the underlying causes of conflict, or else we will be grappling with these vicious crises for years to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I join Senator Kohl in introducing the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part of my continued efforts to improve our nation's schools. I am pleased to be working with the senior Senator from Wisconsin, who has been a longtime leader in this area. As far back as 1999, he has sponsored legislation to support breakfast programs, and he has continued his support through his work on the Agriculture Appropriations Committee since then. One often overlooked part of student classroom performance is nutrition and hunger, which can have a tremendous impact on students. I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide healthier food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack and Farm- to-Cafeteria programs. I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. When I talk to my colleagues and constituents about our proposal and the importance of breakfast and learning, it is not a hard sell. People understand immediately why this issue matters. Unfortunately, too many children go hungry and too many parents have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast, even if they get the help of reduced price meals. The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to the class, and I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, last year in my home State of Wisconsin, with the support of Senator Kohl, the Milwaukee Public Schools worked with the Hunger Task Force to implement universal school breakfast programs in more than 60 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents. We are set to debate the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, later this year. NCLB was the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, of 1965. NCLB set the important goal of closing the achievement gap that exists in our nation's schools. I disagree with some of the methods that NCLB employs, including relying primarily on high-stakes standardized tests to measure students and schools, but I strongly agree that the achievement gap needs to be closed. The latest scores from the National Assessment on Educational Progress NAEP were released last week and the scores show we have a very long way to go before we close that achievement gap in many States, including in my State of Wisconsin. There are a variety of education reforms that need to be pursued at the federal, state, and local level in order to close the achievement gap. One step Congress can take is to support programs to comprehensively address the needs of children, including their nutrition, health, and social needs. Our Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act is legislation that is designed to help address some of those needs. Too many students in some of our nation's most disadvantaged schools walk into school in the morning hungry, or eat junk food for their breakfast. By working to provide these students with access to a nutritious breakfast, we are telling these students that we value them and that we want to help them achieve all that they can in school. Much more needs to be done to address other needs of our students, but this bill is a step in the right direction. Our legislation would target the schools most in need, those with 65 percent more of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program, with the funds necessary to implement a universal free breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways, aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers to creating a universal school breakfast program. In fiscal year 2006, 10 million more students participated in free and reduced price lunch than breakfast. This disparity is troubling to me and many others. Our bill would work with existing meal programs, not replace them. Provision 2 of Section 11(a)(l) of the National School Lunch Act allows schools to establish their free and reduced meal rates for a 4 year period if they serve all meals at no charge. The combination of not having to collect free and reduced price information from students annually, and not having to collect daily meal money from students, results in significant administrative savings. While schools participating under Provision 2 must cover the lost revenue from the reduced and full price meal costs, for the high-needs schools such as those targeted by this program, the typically higher participation rate also means the school can benefit from some economies of scale and receive a better price for the food. The grants this bill would provide would help schools make the initial investments needed to establish a universal breakfast program and make up for the lost revenue. Some universal breakfast programs, like the one I mentioned in Milwaukee, have demonstrated that universal free breakfast programs create an economy of scale that actually makes the cost per student lower. The Milwaukee program served breakfast in the classroom, which, according to teachers and others involved, further improved the economy of the program, as well as the positive impact of breakfast on students' attention. While our bill has some preferences, including a target for the poorest schools, it is important to note that it has tremendous flexibility for the states and school districts. Schools will be able to tailor their universal breakfast programs to the needs of their own students. It also gives schools the option of purchasing locally grown foods and linking with local farmers, which provide excellent opportunities for nutrition lessons and can even be incorporated into other subjects such as science and math. This bill is just a start; much more should be done to increase participation in breakfast programs and provide schools with the ability and resources to design programs that address the needs of their students and communities. Our bill does not intend to replace broader efforts, but rather to provide some immediate assistance for the schools most in need. Furthermore, by including a reporting requirement and encouraging researchers to study the effectiveness of the funded programs in improving student learning, this legislation would provide useful evidence about the need for broader investment and how to ensure those resources are best spent. I would like to thank Senators Tester, Sanders, Kerry, Durbin, Obama, Bingaman, and Domenici for their support for this legislation. The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act is also supported by the Hunger Task Force, Community Food Security Coalition, the School Social Work Association of America and the Wisconsin School Social Workers Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide breakfast to more in-need students.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I join Senator Kohl in introducing the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part of my continued efforts to improve our nation's schools. I am pleased to be working with the senior Senator from Wisconsin, who has been a longtime leader in this area. As far back as 1999, he has sponsored legislation to support breakfast programs, and he has continued his support through his work on the Agriculture Appropriations Committee since then. One often overlooked part of student classroom performance is nutrition and hunger, which can have a tremendous impact on students. I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide healthier food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack and Farm- to-Cafeteria programs. I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. When I talk to my colleagues and constituents about our proposal and the importance of breakfast and learning, it is not a hard sell. People understand immediately why this issue matters. Unfortunately, too many children go hungry and too many parents have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast, even if they get the help of reduced price meals. The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to the class, and I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, last year in my home State of Wisconsin, with the support of Senator Kohl, the Milwaukee Public Schools worked with the Hunger Task Force to implement universal school breakfast programs in more than 60 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents. We are set to debate the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, later this year. NCLB was the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, of 1965. NCLB set the important goal of closing the achievement gap that exists in our nation's schools. I disagree with some of the methods that NCLB employs, including relying primarily on high-stakes standardized tests to measure students and schools, but I strongly agree that the achievement gap needs to be closed. The latest scores from the National Assessment on Educational Progress NAEP were released last week and the scores show we have a very long way to go before we close that achievement gap in many States, including in my State of Wisconsin. There are a variety of education reforms that need to be pursued at the federal, state, and local level in order to close the achievement gap. One step Congress can take is to support programs to comprehensively address the needs of children, including their nutrition, health, and social needs. Our Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act is legislation that is designed to help address some of those needs. Too many students in some of our nation's most disadvantaged schools walk into school in the morning hungry, or eat junk food for their breakfast. By working to provide these students with access to a nutritious breakfast, we are telling these students that we value them and that we want to help them achieve all that they can in school. Much more needs to be done to address other needs of our students, but this bill is a step in the right direction. Our legislation would target the schools most in need, those with 65 percent more of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program, with the funds necessary to implement a universal free breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways, aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers to creating a universal school breakfast program. In fiscal year 2006, 10 million more students participated in free and reduced price lunch than breakfast. This disparity is troubling to me and many others. Our bill would work with existing meal programs, not replace them. Provision 2 of Section 11(a)(l) of the National School Lunch Act allows schools to establish their free and reduced meal rates for a 4 year period if they serve all meals at no charge. The combination of not having to collect free and reduced price information from students annually, and not having to collect daily meal money from students, results in significant administrative savings. While schools participating under Provision 2 must cover the lost revenue from the reduced and full price meal costs, for the high-needs schools such as those targeted by this program, the typically higher participation rate also means the school can benefit from some economies of scale and receive a better price for the food. The grants this bill would provide would help schools make the initial investments needed to establish a universal breakfast program and make up for the lost revenue. Some universal breakfast programs, like the one I mentioned in Milwaukee, have demonstrated that universal free breakfast programs create an economy of scale that actually makes the cost per student lower. The Milwaukee program served breakfast in the classroom, which, according to teachers and others involved, further improved the economy of the program, as well as the positive impact of breakfast on students' attention. While our bill has some preferences, including a target for the poorest schools, it is important to note that it has tremendous flexibility for the states and school districts. Schools will be able to tailor their universal breakfast programs to the needs of their own students. It also gives schools the option of purchasing locally grown foods and linking with local farmers, which provide excellent opportunities for nutrition lessons and can even be incorporated into other subjects such as science and math. This bill is just a start; much more should be done to increase participation in breakfast programs and provide schools with the ability and resources to design programs that address the needs of their students and communities. Our bill does not intend to replace broader efforts, but rather to provide some immediate assistance for the schools most in need. Furthermore, by including a reporting requirement and encouraging researchers to study the effectiveness of the funded programs in improving student learning, this legislation would provide useful evidence about the need for broader investment and how to ensure those resources are best spent. I would like to thank Senators Tester, Sanders, Kerry, Durbin, Obama, Bingaman, and Domenici for their support for this legislation. The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act is also supported by the Hunger Task Force, Community Food Security Coalition, the School Social Work Association of America and the Wisconsin School Social Workers Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide breakfast to more in-need students.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment with Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse, Kennedy, Harkin, Sanders, Wyden, Schumer, and Durbin. I appreciate the support of the Senate Democratic leadership and so many of my colleagues for this amendment. The amendment we are offering is simple--it would require the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008, with narrow exceptions. It is very similar to the amendment that we offered last month, so I won't take up too much time explaining what it does. I do, however, want to explain why the Senate should take up this issue again, so soon after we last considered it. Some of my colleagues like to call Iraq ``the central front in the war on terror.'' But they don't spend as much time talking about the other areas where al-Qaida and its affiliates are operating, nor do they recognize that the administration's singular focus on Iraq is depriving those other areas of the attention and resources they need. Take Afghanistan, for example, where an already weak government is grappling with a resurgence of the Taliban and rising instability. Reports indicate that there has been a 20 to 25 percent increase in Taliban attacks in recent months. Because this administration seems blind to the threats to our national security outside of Iraq, Afghanistan has been relegated to the back burner for far too long, at grave cost to our national security. Last week, President Bush met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in New York City, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly opening session, but according to news reports he made no mention of the Taliban's resurgence. That's a pretty big omission. After all, it was the Taliban that supported bin Laden and provided him and his associates with sanctuary in the run up to 9/11, and shortly thereafter. President Bush was right to take us to war in Afghanistan. That was a war focused on those who attacked us on 9/11 and on the government that provided a safe haven to al-Qaida. But with the 2003 invasion of Iraq we have been significantly distracted and the war in Afghanistan, once the main show, now has a supporting role, at best. As a result, al-Qaida has protected, rebuilt, and strengthened its safe haven in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. You only have to look at the front page of today's Washington Post--and see the headline ``Pakistan Losing Fight Against Taliban and Al-Qaeda''--to realize how dangerous this situation is to our national security. We have taken our eye off the ball, Mr. President. The war in Iraq has shifted our focus and our resources. We are focused on al-Qaida in Iraq--an al Qaida affiliate that didn't exist before the war--rather than on al-Qaida's safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In Afghanistan, the absence of adequate security and development has led to increased disillusionment with the national government, which has in turn resulted in increasing civilian support for the re-emerging Taliban. It goes without question that the vast majority of Afghans have no desire to return to the Taliban era, but the inability of President Karzai to extend control outside the capital has meant that much of the Afghan population suffers from pervasive fear and instability. We may see Afghanistan once again engulfed by chaos, lawlessness, and possibly extremism. As long as Bin Laden and his reconstituted al-Qaida leadership remain at large, Afghanistan's future can not be separated from our own national security. But with our myopic focus on Iraq--and so many of our brave troops stuck in the middle of that misguided war--we have lost sight of our priorities. Mr. President, we are attempting to help stabilize and develop Afghanistan ``on the cheap,'' and that just isn't good enough. Afghanistan is teetering on the edge. Pockets of insecurity across the nation are becoming strongholds for anti-government insurgents who are, in turn, exploiting the local population to support their anti- western agenda. This problem is compounded by the dearth of sufficient international ground troops, which has coincided with coalition forces using increased air attacks against insurgents. Those attacks carry a greater risk of civilian casualties, undermining our support among the populace. Although the majority of attacks on civilians are perpetrated by the Taliban and other insurgent groups, the lack of ground troops is seriously undermining our efforts in Afghanistan. We also face instability and insurgent attacks in Iraq, of course. But unlike in Iraq, where 165,000 U.S. troops are stuck in a civil war that requires a political solution, in Afghanistan we are fighting with far fewer troops to protect and advance the political progress of the Afghan people. Our troops accomplished their mission in Iraq when they took out Saddam Hussein--maintaining a massive troop presence in that country just fuels anti-Americanism and serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists. We have not accomplished our mission in Afghanistan-- denying a safe haven to those who aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks. Instead of seeing the big picture--instead of placing Iraq in the context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless enemy, al Qaida--this administration persists in the tragic mistake it made over 4 years ago when it took the country to war in Iraq. That war has led to the deaths of more than 3,700 Americans and perhaps as many as 1 million Iraqi civilians. It has deepened instability throughout the Middle East, and it has undermined the international support and cooperation we need to defeat al-Qaida. Mr. President, the war in Iraq is not making us safer; it is making us more vulnerable. It is stretching our military to the breaking point and inflaming tensions and anti-American sentiment in an important and volatile part of the world. It is playing into the hands of our enemies, as even the State Department recognized when it said that the war in Iraq is ``used as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity in neighboring countries.'' It would be easy to put all the blame on the administration, but Congress is complicit, too. With the Defense appropriations bill before us, we have another chance to end our complicity and reverse this President's intractable policy. Finally, we can listen to the American people, save American lives, and protect our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq. I understand that some Members of Congress do not want to have this debate now, on this bill. They would rather keep the Defense Appropriations bill ``clean'' and postpone Iraq debates until we take up the supplemental. I respect their views, but I disagree. Like it or not, this is, in part, an Iraq bill. It isn't possible to completely separate war funding from regular DOD funding, Mr. President. In fact, this bill pays for a significant part of our operations in Iraq. It is therefore appropriate and responsible that we attach language bringing that war to a close. That is why I am again offering an amendment with Majority Leader Harry Reid to effectively bring the war to an end. Our amendment is very similar to the amendment we introduced last month to the Defense authorization bill. It would require the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. At that point, with our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with narrow exceptions for troops to do the following: provide security for U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure; train the Iraqi Security Forces, ISF, and conduct operations against al-Qaida and affiliates. In order to make clear that our legislation will protect the troops, we have specified that nothing in this amendment will prevent U.S. troops from receiving the training or equipment they need ``to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.'' I hope we won't be hearing any more phony arguments about troops on the battlefield somehow not getting the supplies they need. It is false, phony, and it is a red herring and should not be used on the floor of the Senate. Passing this amendment will not deny our troops a single bullet or meal. It will simply result in their safe redeployment out of Iraq. When I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year on Congress's power of the purse, Walter Dellinger of Duke Law School testified about my proposal. This is what he said: There would not be one penny less for salary for the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the Armed Forces are utilized. The Feingold-Reid amendment is a safe and responsible use of Congress's power of the purse. It is the path we took in 1993 when, in the aftermath of the ``Black Hawk Down'' incident, the Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill that set a funding deadline for U.S. troop deployments in Somalia. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment, sponsored by the current senior Senator from West Virginia. And many of these Senators are still in this body, such as Senators Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison, Lugar, McConnell, Specter, Stevens, and Warner. They recognized that this was an entirely appropriate way to safely redeploy U.S. troops. With their support, the amendment was enacted, and the troops came home from Somalia before that deadline. In order to avoid a rule XVI point of order, this amendment is slightly different than the version we offered last month. The new amendment only covers funds in the 2008 Defense appropriations bill, and it omits the first two sections of the old Feingold-Reid amendment which required the President to transition the mission and to begin redeployment within 90 days. In addition, the exceptions for operations against al-Qaida and for training the ISF are less detailed and restrictive than they were before. But the intent is the same. After consulting with the parliamentarians, we have made these changes to ensure we are not blocked from getting a vote. The heart of Feingold- Reid--the requirement that our troops be redeployed by June 30, 2008-- remains. Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their right. But I hope they will not do so on the grounds that we should keep the Defense appropriations bill clean, or that a brief debate and vote on this amendment will somehow delay that bill. Passing a defense spending bill without even discussing the most important national defense and national security issue facing our country is simply irresponsible. As long as our troops are fighting and dying for a war that doesn't make sense, as long as the American people are calling out for an end to this tragedy, as long as the administration and its supporters press ahead with their misguided strategy, we have a responsibility to debate and vote on this issue again and again and again. By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can refocus on our top national security priority--waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its affiliates. We can refocus on developing a comprehensive strategy for dealing with deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan that link together the policies and programs needed to establish a viable state there, and we can focus on the other areas around the world, from North Africa to Southeast Asia, where al-Qaida and its affiliates are operating. The war in Iraq is the wrong war. It is overstretching our military and undermining our national security. It is time for the war to end. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his very strong voice in support of our amendment and in support of ending this mistaken war. I really do appreciate it, and I thank him for his help on this and hope for a strong showing on the floor of the Senate on this. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally charged on both sides.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I assume this will not come out of the time we have on this side.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go back to the quorum call and, when we do so, the time be evenly divided between the sides.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to our cosponsor on this issue, Senator Durbin.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains on each side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time I have be reserved for further debate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.