Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I recently made a brief visit to New Orleans to see for myself where things stand now, not quite 11 months after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast. Katrina, of course, was the first of two major hurricanes to ravage that area last year. I only had the chance to see a small part of the area hit by that first storm, but what I did see was striking. The news reports cannot fully convey the devastation or the enormity of the problems the region faces in trying to put things back in working order. One problem feeds into another. Businesses can't get back up and running without employees. Workers don't want to return without a safe place to live, without a school for their children, and without health care and other essential services upon which we all rely. Hospitals and other health providers face the same staffing shortages that businesses face. The neighborhood schools face challenges both in the physical infrastructure--providing a safe place in which kids can learn--and staffing shortages. All of these issues must be addressed. Housing is an overarching challenge. I saw neighborhood after neighborhood still empty and unlivable. The outside shell of some homes was still standing, but the inside was uninhabitable because of the flood of toxic liquid filth that soaked into those houses. I also saw lots where homes had stood but where now there was nothing but a slab of concrete. While many are living in the notorious FEMA trailers, many others, I understand, are having a hard time getting approval for a trailer. I was pleased to learn a little bit more about the so-called Katrina cottages that might be an alternative to the trailers, and I look forward to learning still more about them. So much still needs to be done that one can be overwhelmed by the size of the task that remains. I have a great deal of respect for those who have made the commitment to remain in or move back to the city, for those who are working to make the neighborhoods habitable again, for the State and local law enforcement, the National Guard, and all the other dedicated individuals who are working so hard to bring the region back. I still have a lot to learn about the particulars of what is needed in New Orleans and the other areas ravaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--what is working, what has not worked, what Congress can still do to help. My central message today is that people from other parts of the country should not think that the gulf coast has recovered from those two hurricanes. That simply isn't the case. People are making progress, but there is still a very long way to go. To put it in perspective, I will compare it to another place I visited earlier this year: Banda Aceh, Indonesia. I was there in February, a little more than a year after it was devastated by the tsunami in late 2004. Having been to both places, I was struck by what the people in Banda Aceh and New Orleans had in common, both because of what they went through and because of the incredible resilience they have shown in the wake of those tragedies. But I was just as struck by how those places differed--especially how, in many ways, New Orleans seemed worse off than Banda Aceh did a year after the disaster. When I visited Banda Aceh in February 2006--a little over a year after the original tsunami hit--though many of the reconstruction programs had yet to be completed, there was visible progress being made, thanks in large part to the generosity of the American taxpayer. I saw homes, roads, buildings, and bridges being built with funds that the American Government generously gave to the victims of the tsunami. I strongly support the aid we have given to those in Banda Aceh and others who were the victims of the tsunami in 2004, and no one disputes that we have responsibility to help them rebuild. But we cannot let the disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita be forgotten. We have a special duty to the people of the Gulf Coast who still need us. Almost a year later, after more than 1,500 people were killed and countless lives were disrupted, our fellow Americans do still need us. We still need to stand by them as they rebuild their lives, and I know the people of Wisconsin stand ready to help.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Because all amendments that can be considered to S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act of 2006, had to be filed prior to the bill coming to the floor, I would like to inquire of the bill managers whether or not they would agree with me that reasonable modifications by the authors to their amendments would be acceptable as is the normal Senate practice.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the managers and agree with them.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join the city of Milwaukee and the entire State of Wisconsin in mourning the loss of Mayor Frank Zeidler. When he passed away on July 7, Wisconsin lost one of its most principled and progressive leaders. Mayor Zeidler was born in 1912 in Milwaukee, WI, and lived there throughout his life. He grew up in the Merrill Park neighborhood on the city's west side and attended Marquette University and the University of Chicago. In addition to his long career in public service to the city of Milwaukee, Zeidler read relentlessly, loved statistics, collected fossils, and rewrote Shakespeare. Mayor Zeidler served in public office for more than 20 years and is widely known as Milwaukee's last socialist mayor. His career in public service began in 1938 when he was first elected to public office as county surveyor, and he then went on to serve for 7 years on the Milwaukee School Board. Then, in 1948, he was elected to serve as mayor of the city of Milwaukee, a position he would hold for over a decade. When he took office, his goal was to act in ``the public welfare'' and he did so by presiding over Milwaukee during a period of growth and prosperity. Under Mayor Zeidler's leadership, Milwaukee reached new heights, as he improved city services and led Milwaukee in a time of strong economic growth. During his 12 years in office, Mayor Zeidler presided over a period of great development and prosperity: Milwaukee factories were booming, poverty and crime remained low, and the city's population peaked at over 740,000. He also revamped and expanded a wide array of city services. It has been said that Mayor Zeidler was the ``opposite of a politician in it for the money.'' In 1953, when he earned $16,500 as the mayor of Milwaukee, he gave $2,400 of it back to the city. By 1983, when he was 70 years old, it was reported that he received Social Security but did not take a pension. He also took the bus for most of his life. Zeidler was an expert on the history of Milwaukee and a man of unquestioned personal integrity. This is what made him one of Milwaukee's most respected political figures and local institutions. In 1985, the Greater Milwaukee Conference on Religion and Urban Affairs began awarding a Frank Zeidler Award for contributions to social concerns in the religious community. Then, in 1995, the Milwaukee government office building immediately east of City Hall was named the Frank Zeidler Municipal Building. Throughout his life, Mayor Zeidler remained an active and respected member of the Milwaukee community. Wisconsin will always be grateful for what he achieved, and for who he was--a man dedicated to principle, progressive ideas, and public service.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee recently had an opportunity to mark up historic legislation that would permit civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. I say historic because such cooperation will dramatically shift 30 years of nonproliferation policy towards India and potentially set the United States-India relationship on a new foundation. Our relationship with India is one of our most important. As we look ahead to the coming decades, it is clear that United States-India relations will be crucial to establishing a secure, sustainable, and prosperous global system. But as we consider a fundamental shift in the international nonproliferation regime, we must also make sure we have adequate protections in place to guard against the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology. I appreciate the fact that the legislation we were asked to mark up represented a substantial amount of work from Chairman Lugar, Ranking Member Biden, and their staffs. This bill was a substantial improvement over the original proposal, which would have removed any meaningful congressional oversight from consideration of a nuclear cooperation agreement with India and which had virtually no protections for nonproliferation concerns. However, I remain concerned with the broader implications of this legislation. My primary concern is this: the threat of nuclear weapons to the United States and the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear material are among the gravest dangers that our country faces. It is crucial to our national security that the nuclear nonproliferation framework remains strong. I want to make sure that the United States, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is working to strengthen the international treaties and regimes that have been designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. That is why I offered an amendment that would simply spell out in greater detail that this deal will be only civilian in nature and that none of the assistance the United States provides to India will be used for strengthening or further developing India's nuclear weapons arsenal. This is something we are already committed to under article 1 of the NPT. The amendment would have required the President to certify that he had received sufficient assurances that U.S. assistance would not contribute directly or indirectly to the development of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. This should not have been a controversial requirement, but unfortunately my amendment was defeated during markup. However, I was pleased to have four of my Democratic colleagues vote in favor of my amendment. They recognized that this is an important, legitimate concern and that a Presidential determination along these lines would have provided protections against the diversion of U.S. technology, equipment, and fuel toward a nuclear weapons program. In the absence of such protections, I was compelled to vote against this legislation. My ``no'' vote does not mean that I am opposed to the entire deal. I will work with my colleagues to ensure that the final version of this bill contains adequate protections against the spread of nuclear weapons technology. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly oppose S.J. Res. 12. Make no mistake, we are talking here today about modifying the Constitution of the United States to permit the Government to criminalize conduct that all of us find offensive and wrong, but that is protected by the first amendment. This amendment would, for the first time, amend the Bill of Rights. I cannot support this course. Let me make one thing clear at the outset. Not a single Senator who opposes the proposed constitutional amendment, as I do, supports burning or otherwise showing disrespect to the flag. Not a single one. None of us think it is ``OK'' to burn the flag. None of us view the flag as ``just a piece of cloth.'' On those rare occasions when some malcontent defiles or burns our flag, I join everyone in this Chamber in condemning that action. But we must also defend the right of all Americans to express their views about their Government, however hateful or spiteful or disrespectful those views may be, without fear of their Government putting them in jail for those views. America is not simply a Nation of symbols, it is a Nation of principles. And the most important principle of all, the principle that has made this country a beacon of hope and inspiration for oppressed peoples throughout the world, is the right of free expression. This amendment threatens that right, so I must oppose it. We have heard at various times over the years that this amendment has been debated that permitting protestors to burn the American flag sends the wrong message to our children about patriotism and respect for our country. I couldn't disagree more with that argument. We can send no better, no stronger, no more meaningful message to our children about the principles and the values of this country than if we oppose efforts to undermine freedom of expression, even expression that is undeniably offensive. When we uphold first amendment freedoms despite the efforts of misguided and despicable people who want to provoke our wrath, we explain what America is really about. Our country and our people are far too strong to be threatened by those who burn the flag. That is a lesson we should proudly teach our children. Amending the first amendment so we can bring the full reach of the criminal law and the power of the state down on political dissenters will only encourage more people who want to grandstand their dissent and imagine themselves ``martyrs for the cause.'' Indeed, we all know what will happen the minute this amendment goes into force--more flag burnings and other outrageous acts of disrespect of the flag, not fewer. Will the amendment make these acts any more despicable than they are now? Certainly not. Will it make us love the flag any more than we do today? Absolutely not. It has been almost exactly 17 years since the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is a form of political speech protected by the first amendment. Proposals to amend the Constitution arose almost immediately and have continued unabated. But while the interest of politicians in this course of action seems as strong as ever, public interest in it seems to be waning. Opinion polls show support for the amendment has fallen. Amending the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration is just not the foremost thing on the minds of the American people. Perhaps that is because it is long since clear that our Republic can survive quite well without this amendment. Nearly a generation has passed since the Texas v. Johnson decision, and our Nation is still standing strong. That alone shows that this amendment is a huge overreaction and an entirely unnecessary step. The last time that the full Senate voted on, and rejected, this constitutional amendment was in the year 2000. I think it is fair to say that patriotism since then has not only survived without this amendment, it has flourished, and in very difficult times, much more difficult than the country faced in 1989, when the Supreme Court struck down flag desecration statutes, or in 1995 when I first voted on the amendment in the Judiciary Committee. Indeed, outward displays of patriotism are greater today than they were in 2000. We all know why that is. Our country was viciously attack on September 11, 2001, and America responded. We didn't need a constitutional amendment to teach Americans how to love their country. They showed us how to do it by entering burning buildings to save their fellow citizens who were in danger, by standing in line for hours to give blood, by driving hundreds of miles to search through the rubble for survivors and to help in cleanup efforts, by praying in their houses of worship for the victims of the attacks and their families. September 11 inspired our citizens to perform some of the most selfless acts of bravery and patriotism we have seen in our entire history. No constitutional amendment could ever match those acts as a demonstration of patriotism, or create similar acts in the future. We do not need a constitutional amendment to teach Americans how to love their country or how to defend it from our enemies. I know that many veterans fervently support this amendment. I deeply respect their opinions and their right to urge the Congress to pass it. But I also want the record to be clear that many of those who have served our country in battle oppose the amendment as well. In 1999, a number of veterans formed a group called the Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights. These veterans, who served our country in five different wars, strongly believe it is wrong to pass an amendment to protect the flag that takes away the freedom the flag represents. I'd like to share with my colleagues the views of these brave veterans, who, in my opinion, represent the very best of the American spirit. Let me start with the words of a veteran of our current conflict in Iraq. SPC Eric Eliason of Englewood, CO, served as an infantryman in the Army for 3 years, including 1 year overseas as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He said: We volunteered to go to war to protect the freedoms in this country, not watch them be taken away. . . . I consider myself an independent-minded conservative, and believe that creating unnecessary amendments to the U.S. Constitution is a betrayal of conservative principles. Another veteran, Brady Bustany of West Hollywood, CA, who served in the Air Force during the gulf war, put it very simply. He said, My military service was not about protecting the flag; it was about protecting the freedoms behind it. The flag amendment curtails free speech and expression in a way that should frighten us all. A veteran of the Korean war, Jack Heyman of Fort Myers Beach, FL, whose great grandfather fought in the Civil War, whose father served in World War I, and whose son served in Vietnam, explained his opposition to the amendment this way: I know of no American veteran who put his or her life on the line to protect the sanctity of the flag. That was not why we fulfilled our patriotic duty. We did so and still do to protect our country and our way of life and to ensure that our children enjoy the same freedoms for which we fought. The leader of Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights is Professor Gary May of the University of Southern Indiana. Professor May, whose father, father-in-law, grandfather, and brother also served our country in the Armed Forces, lost both legs in the Vietnam War on April 12, 1968, over 38 years ago. He opposes this amendment, and because of what he has sacrificed for his country, he speaks more eloquently than I could ever hope to about the danger of this amendment. Professor May testified at the last Senate hearing held on the flag amendment, which, by the way, was held more than 2 years ago, on March 10, 2004. Professor May said: Freedom is what makes the United States of America strong and great, and freedom, including the right to dissent, is what has kept our democracy going for more than 200 years. And it is freedom that will continue to keep it strong for my children and the children of all the people like my father, late father in law, grandfather, brother, me, and others like us who served honorably and proudly for freedom. The pride and honor we feel is not in the flag per see It is in the principles for which it stands and the people who have defended them. My pride and admiration is in our country, its people and its fundamental principles. I am grateful for the many heroes of our country--and especially those in my family. All the sacrifices of those who went before me would be for naught, if an amendment were added to the Constitution that cut back on our First Amendment rights for the first time in the history of our great Nation. Professor May also provided in his statement excerpts from letters he has received from other veterans who oppose the amendment. One veteran, James Lubbock of St. Louis, MO, who served in World War II and has two sons who served in the Vietnam war, said: Let's not alter the Bill of Rights to save the flag. We should respect the flag, but we should all cherish the Bill of Rights much, much more. These kinds of expressions move me deeply. The service of our troops shows the awesome power of the American ideal. The willingness of our young people to serve this country, to risk their lives, and endure unimaginable hardships on our behalf is not to be taken lightly. I believe that this remarkable spirit is inspired and nurtured by the principles on which this country was founded, by our devotion to the Constitution and the rule of law. We should not trifle with those principles. Too much is at stake. We know that now more than ever. Despite the expected close vote, it is clear that this is a political exercise in an election year. We will spend several days of precious floor time, as the legislative session winds down, debating a measure that would undermine the Constitution while affecting only a handful of miscreants each year. As we do so, humanitarian catastrophes continue to unfold around the world, posing a direct threat to international peace and stability and affecting the lives of millions upon millions of people. I sincerely hope we will remember what this debate today is really about--not whether flag burning is a good idea, not whether we love and respect our flag, not whether patriotism is worth encouraging and celebrating, but whether the threat to our country from those who burn the flag is so great--is so great--that we must sacrifice the power and the majesty of the first amendment to the Constitution in order to prosecute them. In 1999--it just so happens the Presiding Officer is the son of this man--the late Senator John Chafee, one of this country's great war heroes at Guadalcanal and in the Korean war, testified before the Judiciary Committee against this amendment. He said: [W]e cannot mandate respect and pride in the flag. In fact . . . taking steps to require citizens to respect the flag, sullies its significance and symbolism. Senator Chafee's words still echo in my mind. They should serve as a caution to all of us who have the responsibility to vote on this amendment. What kind of symbol of freedom and liberty will our flag be if it has to be protected from misguided protesters by a constitutional amendment? In concluding, Mr. President, I pay tribute to you and your father. I will vote to defend our Constitution against this ill-advised effort to amend it. I urge my colleagues to vote for liberty and freedom and for the first amendment by voting no on this constitutional amendment. I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand the desire of my colleagues to defend the flag, and I share their outrage at the despicable conduct that some families of fallen servicemembers have had to endure as they bid farewell to their loved ones. But I cannot support the substitute amendment offered by the senior Senator from Illinois. The Supreme Court has twice held that criminalizing flag desecration violates the first amendment. Flag burning is unacceptable, but outlawing certain forms of flag destruction based on the message that the misguided person is trying to convey raises obvious first amendment problems. The vast majority of flag desecration incidents can be prosecuted under criminal trespass, destruction of private property, and other State and local criminal statutes. We do not need a Federal statute to handle the handful of other incidents that occur each year, and we certainly should not amend the Constitution to make such a statute possible.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michelle Murphy, an intern in my Judiciary Committee office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S.J. Res. 12.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first and foremost, I want to thank the members of the U.S. Armed Forces for their service to our country. These servicemen and women are performing admirably under difficult circumstances all over the world. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, along with their families, are making great sacrifices in service to our country. I am pleased to support a Defense Department authorization bill that will help these people who are serving the country with such courage. I supported a number of good provisions in the Senate bill, such as the rejection of the President's proposal to increase TRICARE enrollment fees and co-payments, increased funding for training programs for our nation's authorized Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil- Support Teams, and increased funding for nonproliferation programs. Another aspect of the bill that I strongly support is the increased funding for force protection equipment. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites over the years that they or their deployed loved ones were fighting for their country in Iraq without the equipment they needed. This situation is unconscionable, and my colleagues and I have worked hard to address it. The additional $950.5 million for force protection equipment, including $559.8 million for additional up- armored humvees and $100 million for counter-IED vehicles, in this bill above what was requested in the President's proposed budget further ensures that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their duties on the ground. I am pleased that the Senate approved the Military Family Support Act amendment that I offered with Senator Jeffords. This amendment is designed to assist military families struggling with the long-term absence of a family member. Under this legislation, the Office of Personnel Management is directed to administer a pilot program authorizing Federal employees, who have been designated ``caregivers'' by a member of the Armed Forces, to use their earned leave time in a more flexible manner while a family member is deployed overseas. This amendment also encourages the Department of Labor to solicit private businesses to voluntarily offer more accommodating leave time to caregivers affected by these deployments. This bill also authorizes funding for a provision I authored in last years' Department of Defense authorization bill establishing the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, CLRC, pilot project. It became very clear after the attacks of September 11, 2001 that the U.S. Government has a dearth of critical language skills. The 9/11 Commission report documented the disastrous consequences of this deficiency which, unfortunately, we still have not made enough progress in addressing over 4 years after the 9/11 tragedy. I am pleased that this bill included the CLRC pilot project. I am also pleased that I was able to pass a Buy American Act reporting requirement for the Department of Defense. This reporting requirement is similar to the reporting requirement that I have worked to enact for the past 3 years through the appropriations process and requires the Department of Defense to report annually the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. Additionally, the amendment requires the Department of Defense to make this report publicly available to the maximum extent possible. I will continue to work to ensure a similar permanent reporting requirement is extended to all Federal agencies. I also authored successful amendments to the bill that require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy for establishing stability and fighting terrorism in Somalia and to study of the feasibility of establishing an United States regional combatant command for Africa. In addition, the bill includes an important amendment I offered to strengthen the Special Inspector General for Iraq. Unfortunately, I was not able to get other amendments of mine adopted. I filed a straightforward amendment that would have made life a little easier for our servicemembers and their families when they are called up to duty or transferred. When this happens now, servicemembers often face cellular phone early termination fees or the prospect of paying the monthly bill for a cell phone they cannot use until the end of their contract--up to 2 years. My amendment would have treated these cellular phone contracts the same way that we already treat residential and automobile leases-- give the servicemember the right to terminate the contract without being charged an additional fee. Despite the support of the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Military Officers Association of America, I was not able to get this amendment adopted. While I was disappointed in this result, I will continue to fight to make sure that servicemembers are not financially punished for volunteering to protect this country. I was also disappointed that another amendment of mine was not accepted that would have extended the Department of Defense's ability to purchase fruits and vegetables from local farms. My amendment would have helped both servicemembers and schools served by the Department of Defense programs and local farms and communities benefit from the programs. I also introduced amendments to the authorization bill that mirrored a bill I introduced last year; the Veterans Enhanced Transition Services Act, VETS Act. This bill includes provisions that would help ensure that all military personnel have access to the same transition services as they prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military. The VETS Act is supported by a wide range of groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and veterans and their families, and I was pleased to honor this support by introducing the amendments to the Defense authorization bill. We should ensure that our troops receive the benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them, and while these amendments were unfortunately not included in the final version of the bill, I will continue to work to see that these provisions become law. I will also continue to fight for the redeployment of our forces in Iraq so that our country can refocus on fighting the terrorist networks that attacked us on 9/11. I offered an amendment with Senator Kerry that would have required U.S. forces in Iraq to redeploy by July 1, 2007. While the amendment failed, I was pleased to be joined by 12 of my colleagues in addressing the fact that the President's policies in Iraq are damaging our country's national security. I am glad that more and more of my colleagues are recognizing what the American people already know--that we need a plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq. Mr. President, I must note with disappointment that this bill continues the wasteful trend of spending billions of dollars on Cold War era weapons systems while at the same time not fully funding the needs of the military personnel fighting our current wars. I also think the Senate missed some opportunities when it rejected amendments that could have made the bill better. However, on balance, this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families and that is why I supported it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask to be informed when I have consumed up to 7 minutes. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, for working together with me so well on this very important amendment. We understand that we are not going to get a majority. We know we are not going to get anywhere near a majority. The Senator and I know we represent the view of a majority of the American people, which has clearly been demonstrated in every indication, whether it be conversation, polling, or town meetings that I hold in Wisconsin. The people of this country know that we have to finish this Iraq mission, that it cannot be open-ended. To me, the most touching moment of the debate came when the senior Senator from Massachusetts quoted his own brother, Robert Kennedy, who for many of us was a central figure who inspired us to go into politics. I hope he doesn't mind my repeating Robert Kennedy's words in 1968: Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. That is what the Iraq situation represents. Let's be clear. Every one of us, as the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out last night, voted for the Afghanistan invasion. We did not think that was a mistake. I ask my colleagues on the other side, if they believe we believe in cut- and-run, why aren't we trying to cut-and-run from Afghanistan? Why is no Senator saying: Let's get the troops out of Afghanistan, as difficult as it is? Because that was not a mistake, because that was essential, because we had to go after the Taliban and al-Qaida. It was not a mistake. What is a mistake, though, is to continue indefinitely the Iraq invasion and Iraq situation with some 138,000 troops, without any realization or recognition that it is sapping our strength, it is sapping our credibility around the world, and it is sapping the resources of our military. It is sapping the recruitment ability of our military. In other words, it is weakening America. At the same time, as I mentioned on the floor yesterday, the situation appears to be slipping in places where we know al-Qaida was operating--such as Somalia or Mogadishu, now taken over by a radical Islamic government. We are trying to work with Indonesia's Government, but the fact is, in the area between the Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia, there is an ungoverned area where groups sympathetic to al- Qaida are operating. This is a threat of the exact kind that 9/11 represents, and we know they have successfully pulled off attacks in Indonesia. Perhaps most compelling to me is the fact that we are losing ground in Afghanistan because we have stopped paying attention to the No. 1 priority in the fight against terrorism. Let me quote from the Washington Post article from June 20, entitled ``In Tribal Pakistan a Tide of Militancy.'' It says: In north Waziristan, barbers are ordered not to shave off beards, and thieves have been swiftly beheaded. In Swat, television sets and VCRs have been burned in public. In Dir, religious groups openly recruit teenagers to fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In the Khyber area, armed squads have burst into rooming houses, forcing people to pledge to obey Islamic law. . . . A tide of Islamic militancy is spreading across and beyond the semiautonomous tribal areas of northwest Pakistan, that hug the Afghan border. . . . Observers say the army's aggressive efforts since 2004 have backfired, alienating the populace with heavy- handed tactics and undermining the traditional authority of tribal elders and officials. How did we lose focus on those who attacked us on 9/11? Does it make sense to continue to pour virtually all our resources into an Iraq war that is not working? It is time to tell the Iraqis that we have done what we can do militarily, that we will continue to help them in many ways, and we will continue to have special operations forces capacity in that region to take on situations, such as the al-Zarqawi situation. But the notion of continuing to put all of these resources just into Iraq on the absurd notion that that is the key to the fight against al- Qaida is one of the worst mistakes in American foreign policy history. This is an enormous disservice to the American people, and it is especially a disservice to the families of those who have died, those who have been injured, and those who continue to serve. We owe it to those families to not be standing here when No. 3,000 soldier has died. It doesn't have to happen. It doesn't have to be. What is happening now is a horrible situation, not the imagined problems that the other side continually suggests will occur if we have a reasonable program to bring this to a conclusion within the coming year. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have been a legislator for almost 25 years now. I must say, this is one of the toughest moments of my career, to see the Senate not recognize that we were falsely led into a war, that we falsely led the American people into believing this had something to do with 9/11, and that many of the things that have happened simply didn't have to happen. That is water over the dam. What has happened after the mistake was made is that mistake after mistake has been compounded. Every day this myth that somehow Iraq is the central focus of the war on terrorism is being used as an excuse to send more and more Americans into harm's way, which is not necessary. Iraq is not the be all and end all of our national security. Iraq is not the situation that led to 9/11. The American people know it. It is time for this body to catch up and have a reasonable plan to finish the Iraq mission so we can focus on those who attacked us on 9/11. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I oppose cutting off debate on this important bill prematurely. I have two amendments that have not been considered by the Senate--one to help service members called to active duty, the other to cancel this year's automatic pay raise for Members of Congress--that will be shut out if we invoke cloture. We should be doing all that we can to help members of our armed services who are serving so courageously. And, with the Nation's deficits and the tab for the Iraq war at alarming levels, we should not be accepting another backdoor payraise. At a minimum, the Senate should consider and vote on those worthy amendments before completing work on the Defense authorization bill. Cloture Motion

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers should be a source of great concern in this body and this Nation. The plurality opinion, while it did not win the support of a majority of the court, is completely at odds with the text and purpose of the Clean Water Act, would put much of the Nation's waters in jeopardy, and as many have noted, will likely lead to increased litigation. To prevent further legal wrangling about what Congress meant when it passed what has come to be one of the country's fundamental public health and environmental statutes, Congress must pass the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act. This legislation, S. 912, which I most recently introduced in April 2005, reestablishes protection for all waters historically covered by the Clean Water Act. It also makes clear that Congress's primary concern in 1972 was to protect the Nation's waters from pollution, rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and it reinforces that original intent. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues--the 85 who are not cosponsors of the bill--will now join me, in light of this week's Supreme Court ruling, to clarify that all of the Nation's waters are important for the health and vitality of our country by supporting passage of the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am one of the main cosponsors of the amendment. I request to be the next Democratic speaker for 30 minutes after Senator Kerry.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I speak today in support of efforts to increase the Federal minimum wage and urge my colleagues to vote in support of Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over the next 2 years. This much-needed increase would benefit over 7 million Americans directly and approximately 8 million Americans indirectly. The Federal minimum wage has not been increased in almost 9 years and action by Congress is long overdue. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that after adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955. As the costs of housing, health care, energy, and education continue to skyrocket, we must raise the minimum wage to provide millions of hard-working Americans the respect and dignity their work demands. I think it is unconscionable that in the almost 9 years that we have not raised the minimum wage, Congress has voted to increase its own pay by $31,600. Most recently, last November we allowed the $3,100 pay raise to go through for Members of Congress. People will find it hard to understand why Members of Congress received substantial pay raises at a time when the real value of the minimum wage has eroded by 20 percent since 1997. As my colleagues know, I have long fought against automatic congressional pay increases and will continue to do so. I have introduced legislation that would put an end to automatic cost-of- living adjustments for congressional pay. We have Americans who are working full time, 52 weeks a year and they cannot afford health care, housing, and child care. They don't have the power to automatically raise their pay--they are dependent on Congress to raise the Federal minimum wage. But instead of working to raise the minimum wage, we in Congress have worked to protect our automatic pay raises. Over 20 States and the District of Columbia have responded to congressional inaction and have passed or are in the process of passing State minimum wage increases above the Federal level. I am proud to report that my State of Wisconsin is one of these States that have passed a minimum wage increase. Last June, Wisconsin raised its minimum wage to $5.70 an hour and earlier this month, raised its minimum wage again to $6.50 an hour. The State Department of Workforce Development estimates that this modest two-step increase will benefit an estimated 200,000 low wage workers in Wisconsin. While this increase is a step in the right direction, it is still not enough to even ensure that minimum wage employees can pay for affordable housing in Wisconsin. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Wisconsin is $647 a month and calculates that a full-time minimum wage employee needs to work 77 hours a week, 52 weeks a year to afford a two-bedroom apartment. Mr. President, 77 hours a week is almost the equivalent of two full-time minimum wage workers and the number of hours of work required to cover the costs of an apartment are even higher in States with higher housing costs. It is a disgrace that in many cases, minimum wage workers cannot afford adequate housing or are forced to pay a huge share of their income to cover housing costs. Housing costs are not the only necessity of life that minimum wage workers have to provide for themselves and their families. They also have to purchase groceries, provide health care, pay for higher education, pay for increasingly expensive gas and electric costs, and provide child care for their children. Some Americans may think that the majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers in the first job; that perception is incorrect. The Economic Policy Institute notes that over 70 percent of minimum wage workers are adults and in Wisconsin, over 80 percent of minimum wage workers are adults. Moreover, of these adult minimum wage workers, over 30 percent are the sole breadwinners of their families. More and more of these working Americans find themselves mired in poverty or living on the cusp of poverty. Currently, there are 37 million Americans living in poverty, including 13 million children. Among full-time, year-round workers, poverty has increased by 50 percent in the late 1970s. Minimum wage workers who work full time earn $10,700 a year, which is almost $6,000 below the Federal poverty guidelines for a family of three. No American should work full-time, year-round and still live in poverty. This modest increase in the Federal minimum wage will not eliminate poverty, but it will provide hard-working Americans with a much-needed increase in their wages. This increase would provide more money for workers to purchase prescription drugs, to pay utilities and rent, to provide child care for their children, and to invest in higher education opportunities. This increase is needed because the majority of the poor people in our country are working and are holding down low-paying jobs with stagnant wages that do not allow them to finally break free from poverty. Opponents of this amendment argue that it hurts the economy and job growth. In the 4 years after the last minimum wage increase, nearly 12 million new jobs were created. In the last 4 years, only 4.7 million jobs have been created and the real value minimum wage continues to erode. A 1998 Economic Policy Institute study did not find significant job loss associated with the 1997 minimum wage increase. Additionally, the Center on Wisconsin Strategy examined job growth after the June 2005 increase in Wisconsin's minimum wage and found that Wisconsin had an average growth of 30,000 more jobs, not a job loss. History shows that minimum wage increases have not had a negative impact on unemployment. I was proud to vote for the 1996-1997 increase bringing the minimum wage to its current level of $5.15 an hour and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment by Senator Kennedy to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. When the minimum wage was established in 1938, its purpose was to ensure that American workers were fairly compensated for a day's work. But today, the minimum wage isn't living up to that promise. Far more work needs to be done to support hard-working American families, and Congress can start by increasing the minimum wage.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I am going to abbreviate my remarks so he and I can hopefully split this time and yield it back. It is regrettable that we are not able to present this amendment in the manner we normally would expect, which is the two lead sponsors would each offer their thoughts without that type of limitation. Nonetheless, this amendment is something that I think represents not only the views of the Senator from Massachusetts and myself but the views of the majority of the American people which they have come to in a very painful way after this war has proceeded in the way it has. In fact, I find it jarring that we spend so much time on the floor of the Senate and throughout the Congress talking almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq, as if the attack had come from Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11. And yet here we are discussing day after day, week after week every tiny aspect of the situation in Iraq. Of course, it is a terribly important situation, but I submit--and I think the Senator from Massachusetts agrees with me--that the overriding issue is what is in the best interest of the national security of the United States of America, what is in the best interest of protecting the American people when they are at home and when they are abroad. All of us in this Chamber, every single one of us, supported the appropriate action to invade Afghanistan. It was a necessary war, a war that had to be fought in order to go after the Taliban and al-Qaida. None of us stood back and said, as the Senator from Texas wants to say, that somehow some of us who don't believe in war will never support a war and the rest support wars. That is absurd. We understand when it is absolutely essential, and it was essential in the case of Afghanistan. I voted against the Iraq war because it appeared obvious to me that was not the wise next strategic move in the fight against al-Qaida, those who attacked us. It was pretty clear to me, but it was even clear apparently to this administration when, on their own State Department Web site, where President Bush had his name, they listed the 45 countries where they believed al-Qaida was operating. This came out in November of 2001. It included, obviously, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Ireland, the United States. Guess what country wasn't even on their list. Iraq. And this has been confirmed publicly by the recognition now, despite the gross misrepresentations that al-Zarqawi was not even in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein when we invaded Iraq. It is pretty obvious on the face of this that this was not the place to go if we wanted to deal with al-Qaida. They were not there then, but because of the errors we have made, we created a beachhead for them to do far more in Iraq than they ever could in the past. I understand former Secretary of State James Baker, Secretary of State under the first George Bush, said he used to go around the country and people would ask him every day: Why didn't you go on into Iraq at the time of the first gulf war? He says with a smile: I don't get asked that question anymore because it didn't make sense. It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now. One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because what we are going to do is have all the terrorists come into Iraq, and we are going to get them all, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach- motel theory, the idea that all these terrorists all over the world are simply focused on Iraq and by staying we are going to get them. This is what I would like to call an Iraq centrist policy, a policy that somehow believes Iraq is the be all and end all of our foreign policy when, of course, it is nothing of the kind. The fact is, those against al-Qaida is a much broader fight. I have seen estimates of somewhere between 60 to 80 countries where al-Qaida is operating. Yet our focus, our troops, and our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation. This is just plain tragic 5 years after 9/11. One might say we are fighting the terrorists in other countries, too; we are doing whatever we can. But we are not. We have taken our eye off the ball. We are not dealing with the al-Qaida threat in other countries because we are so focused on Iraq. One good example is Somalia. Remember Somalia? This is a place where we know there were al-Qaida operatives and affiliated groups. It is one of those failed states where it is almost an invitation to terrorist organizations to come in and organize and be away from any kind of control. Because we haven't been paying attention to Somalia, because we don't have a policy in Somalia, guess what just happened. A radical Islamist group has taken over Mogadishu and now threatens to take over the rest of the country. I can't say for sure what they will do, but there are indications they may be very much like the type of Taliban government or organization that fostered al-Qaida in Afghanistan. So we have taken our eye off the ball. In fact, I asked Ambassador Crumpton last week in a public hearing: How many people do we have in the Government devoted to Somalia full time? Mr. President, do you know what his answer was? One person. One person in a country that is clearly a threat in terms of al-Qaida. It is not just there. What about Indonesia? Indonesia is the largest Islamic country in the entire world. It is the fourth largest country in the world. I heard Senators debating who had been to Iraq the most. One said he had been there 12 times. One said he had been there 11 times. Guess how many Senators have even been to Indonesia once in the last 2\1/2\ years. Just two of us, Senator Bond and myself, to a country that is being terrorized by a group called JI, Jemaah Islamiah, that is clearly affiliated with al-Qaida. We are not paying attention to Indonesia. We are not putting our political and other resources there. We are only focused on Iraq where al-Qaida wasn't even operating as of the time of the invasion. If that isn't enough, what about Afghanistan? I think we can all agree that Afghanistan is a place where we ought to win, where we shouldn't deplete our resources--well, we shouldn't, in the words of my colleagues on the other side, cut and run. But we are now feeling the consequences of what some have called the Iraq tax in Afghanistan, and that is the resurgence of Taliban fighters. The recent death of more U.S. and Afghan soldiers there and the continued presence of terrorist networks in the region show how shortsighted this administration was by taking its eye off the ball. We have not finished the job in Afghanistan, and we are now at risk of backsliding into instability. This is where the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon was planned. This is where it was done. And because of this overemphasis and obsession with only staying in Iraq, we are allowing the Taliban and perhaps al-Qaida to get back in. Let me give an example of what some said about this. A recent expert indicated with regard to the Afghanistan situation: It is now 5 years since George W. Bush declared victory in Afghanistan and said that the terrorists were smashed. Since the Bonn meeting in late 2001, a smorgasbord of international military and development forces has been increasing in size. How is it then that Afghanistan is near collapse once again? To put it briefly, what has gone wrong has been the invasion of Iraq. What has gone wrong is the invasion of Iraq, Washington's refusal to take State-building in Afghanistan seriously, and instead waging a fruitless war in Iraq. That view is shared by many others. I assure you I could give you many other examples. But the point is, despite the fact that we all know who attacked us on 9/11, we are not focused on them. It is the most absurd situation I have ever seen in my 25 years as a legislator. Everybody knows we went into Iraq on a mistaken basis. Everybody knows that al-Qaida is the one who attacked us. Yet somehow our colleagues on the other side are trying to pretend they are one and the same thing, when everybody knows it is nothing of the kind. So we have to change course. We have to refocus our energies on those who attacked us. I have heard a number of statements on the floor today, and I have been out here on and off since noon listening to the debate. I heard the Senator from Kentucky make the assertion that if we don't, they will soon be back here--meaning in the United States--if we don't stop them in Iraq. Well, the fact is, they are being effective in attacking us and our colleagues and our allies in many other places: In Indonesia, in London, in Madrid, in Turkey, in Morocco. It is not as if there haven't been any attacks. It is not as if this al-Qaida organization isn't functioning. I mean, under their argument, apparently we should invade all those other countries on false pretenses as a way to somehow root out the terrorists. But we know that approach doesn't work. If we continue to be stuck in Iraq, we are facilitating al-Qaida's future. We are facilitating their recruitment. We are facilitating the growth of their operations in places such as the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. We are facilitating al-Qaida if we continue to make this mistake in Iraq over and over again. That is what I care the most about. One of my colleagues, the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison said: If we were to withdraw the troops or redeploy the troops in the coming year, we would be giving the enemy the playbook. Well, my point is, we need a new playbook. The playbook has nothing to do with 9/11. The playbook has nothing to do with al-Qaida. We need a new playbook that has something to do with what really threatens the American people. That is what the Kerry-Feingold amendment is all about. It is not about just taking off. What it is about is refocusing. Of course, we have been faced all day with all of the horrible things that might happen if we bring the troops out of Iraq, and that is a fair debate. What happens if the other side is wrong? What happens if a reasonable redeployment over the next year would work, and the Iraqi Government would be able to handle it? Think about the ``what if'' there. We had a moment of silence on the floor, I believe on October 31, for the two thousandth American troop killed in the Iraq war. I believe last week we had a moment of silence for No. 2,500. What if they are wrong? What if we can get out of there now in a reasonable way and refocus on the fight against terrorism so we don't have to stand here and have that moment for No. 3,000, for No. 3,500, for No. 10,000. That is the direction we are heading, and the American people know it. Do we think it makes sense for our national security to have some 135,000 American troops on the ground in harm's way without any clear idea of how that is going to change the situation in Iraq? Mr. President, it was bad strategy to go into Iraq in the first place, and it is a bad strategy to stay there because we are there and we don't want to admit that it was a bad idea in the first place. Some will say: Well, what you are saying then is those who have died have died in vain in Iraq. I disagree. I think anytime an American gives his or her life pursuant to a decision of our democracy, it is impossible for that person to die in vain. That is how our system works. I voted against this war. I didn't think it was a good idea. But we voted on it. That is how it works. As long as those troops fight in that spirit in support of a democratic decision, they do not die in vain, and we honor them for their sacrifice. If the policy is wrong, if we made a mistake, we owe it to their families, we owe it to those who are injured, we owe it to those who are still there and who will still go and who will die in the future to correct that mistake, to change course. We owe it to them to do what makes the most sense. What makes the most sense? We have, in my view, two choices--not this absurd notion that somebody wants all the troops to leave tomorrow. Choice No. 1 is a completely open-ended commitment, with no guarantee that this will end anytime in the near future or a commitment to finish the mission by a reasonable date and redeploy the troops where they can be better used to help us in the fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. Mr. President, I heard the junior Senator from Virginia say: We don't need to embolden our enemy. It is his view that the idea of having a reasonable timetable to bring the troops out emboldens the enemy. Well, I will tell you what emboldens the enemy: Thinking they have us in a trap and we don't know how to get out. That emboldens and exhilarates them. They wanted us in Iraq. They are glad we are in Iraq. And they are using it as a way to fuel the hatred that generated 9/11. That is the bottom line. To me, this is about national security. To me, this is about those who attacked us on 9/11. This administration and this Congress made a mistake by thinking that Iraq was the logical next step in this fight. It is time to reverse course. It is time to redeploy. It is time to focus on the real security of the American people. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield back the time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, in offering the Military Family Support Act as an amendment to S. 2766, the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill. This amendment would bring a small measure of relief to the families of our men and women in uniform as they seek to maintain a sense of normalcy here at home while their loved ones are deployed in service to our country. Our ongoing large-scale deployments in Iraq continue to demand so much from our men and women in uniform and their families. Passing this amendment is the least we can do. As part of the predeployment process, military personnel with dependent children or other dependent family members, such as elderly parents who require care, designate a caregiver for their dependents. This person will act in the deployed personnel's place to provide care for these family members during the period of deployment. The caregiver could be a spouse, parent, sibling, or other responsible adult who is capable of caring for, and willing to care for, the dependents in question. The Jeffords-Feingold amendment would create two programs to provide additional leave options for persons who have been designated as caregivers. The first program would require the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to create a program under which Federal employees who are designated as caregivers could use accrued annual or sick leave, leave bank benefits, and other leave available to them under title 5 for purposes directly relating to or resulting from their designation as a caregiver. This amendment would also encourage the Secretary of Labor to establish a voluntary program under which private sector companies would create similar programs for their employees and to solicit participation from private sector companies. I commend the many employers around the country for their understanding and support when an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty, and I hope that companies in Wisconsin and around the country will participate in this voluntary program. In addition, our amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with an evaluation of both the OPM program and the voluntary Department of Labor program. It is my hope that this evaluation will demonstrate the utility of such a leave program for designated caregivers and that these pilot programs could then be expanded to the designated caregivers of additional deployed military personnel. This amendment builds on a measure that I introduced last year, S. 798, the Military Families Leave Act. That bill would provide a similar benefit to military families by allowing eligible employees whose spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, benefits for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment. These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved one's deployment, such as child care. I also introduced this bill during the 108th Congress. Let me be clear, that the Jeffords-Feingold amendment does not amend the FMLA in any way. In fact, FMLA benefits are specifically exempted from the types of leave that can be used by designated caregivers for purposes directly related to or resulting from their caregiver responsibilities. While I believe that the FMLA could serve as the basis for providing additional leave opportunities for designated caregivers, opposition in some quarters to the original FMLA makes this a difficult proposition. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this landmark law, and I believe that the FMLA continues to provide much needed assistance to millions of workers around the country as they seek to care for their own serious health condition or that of a family member or as they welcome the birth or adoption of a child. I will continue to support this law and efforts to ensure that the vital benefits that it provides are not eroded. The Military Family Support Act is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States, NGAUS, the National Military Family Association, NMFA, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, EANGUS, the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. I thank the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for his work on this important measure, and I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for agreeing to accept this amendment

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, given the continuing instability in Somalia, the growing tensions between the Transitional Federal Government and the Islamic Courts Union, ICU, and the worsening humanitarian conditions throughout the country, it is more essential than ever that the U.S. Government and the international community engage fully in efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict that has plagued Somalia for more than 15 years. Most immediately, it is essential that the ICU recognize the legitimacy of the TFG and that it engage in good-faith efforts to support the TFG's role and authority as Somalia's legitimate Government. The ICU must take immediate actions to begin assisting the TFG to extend its authority to Mogadishu, and it must do so in a transparent and expeditious manner. The international community must also play a productive--and more aggressive--role. The United Nations must address this issue immediately and must make the necessary decisions and actions to allow for every option and tool for establishing stability in Somalia to be pursued. It is clear that both regional and international efforts must be strengthened and coordinated more effectively, and we must heed the calls of international humanitarian organizations on the ground for additional humanitarian assistance to increasingly vulnerable populations there. Somalia's neighbors must be cautious and patient as conditions within Somalia continue to change. Somalia's neighbors must play a supportive role to the efforts of the TFG, the United Nations, and the African Union to secure peace. Hasty, aggressive, or meddling actions could undermine or further complicate efforts to find a political solution to the stand-off between the TFG and Islamic Courts Union. All international actions relating to Somalia must be coordinated, and activities that may undermine current efforts there must not be tolerated. Finally, the U.S. Government must take instability in Somalia seriously. Just last week, Ambassador Hank Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said that the State Department has only one full-time Foreign Service officer, based in Nairobi, working on Somalia-related issues. The administration has failed to create a strategy for Somalia and is only now, after years and years of instability and chaos throughout the country, engaging in international efforts to address some of the problems Somalia faces. The administration must create one sound policy framework to support stabilizing and rebuilding Somalia within which all U.S. Government activities can be coordinated. It must also appoint a senior-level coordinator to manage the multifaceted challenges that conditions in Somalia pose to both the United. States and the international community. Past efforts have been insufficient. It is past time to take the deteriorating conditions within Somalia seriously, and we must do so immediately. Recent developments in Somalia threaten to destabilize the entire region and plunge Somalia further in to despair. We can help prevent this if we act now.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, Dr. James Cameron, sadly, passed away on June 11, and with his passing, the Nation has lost one the 20th century's greatest civil rights pioneers. James Cameron was born in 1914 in La Crosse, WI, but it was during the time that he lived in Marion, IN, that he would have a terrifying experience that would forever change the course of his life. On August 7, 1930, when he was just 16, he was wrongly accused of and arrested for the murder of a White man and the rape of a White woman. While in jail, a mob broke in and dragged him, and the other two charged with the crime, out into the street. A rope was placed around Cameron's neck, but he was spared when a man in the crowd proclaimed Cameron's innocence. While Cameron survived the beating and attempted lynching, the other two men were lynched and killed. Cameron was convicted as an accessory to involuntary manslaughter-- for which he was later pardoned--but no one was ever accused, charged, or arrested for the lynching and murder of the other two men. After surviving this horrific experience, Dr. Cameron dedicated his life to raising awareness of racial injustice in America. In the 1940s, he organized several chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, in Indiana. As the Indiana State director of civil liberties from 1942 to 1950, Dr. Cameron worked to end segregation. The strong presence of the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana at the time made his job that much more difficult and dangerous. Dr. Cameron faced threats of violence, including threats to his life. After he moved to Milwaukee, he continued his civil rights work by protesting against segregated housing and police brutality. During the 1960s, he took part in marches in Washington, DC, with civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Coretta Scott King. Furthering his commitment to civil rights education, Dr. Cameron mortgaged his home in 1982 to publish 5,000 copies of his memoir, ``A Time of Terror.'' The book provides a moving account of his near-death experience in 1930. After visiting Israel's Holocaust Museum, Dr. Cameron was inspired to construct a similar museum in Wisconsin, dedicated to the history and struggles of African Americans. His dream became a reality in 1988 when he opened the Black Holocaust Museum, which has made an important contribution to Milwaukee and an invaluable contribution to our understanding of American history. It was particularly fitting that Dr. Cameron was able to watch in person as the U.S. Senate finally passed a resolution apologizing to victims of lynching. His monumental efforts were central to that important and long-overdue moment. Dr. Cameron dedicated his life to ending racial injustice. Now his strength and resilience must inspire all of us as we carry on that critically important work. James Cameron's incredible story of survival is a part of history. But Dr. Cameron was more than just a part of history--he helped to shape history, with his determined commitment to promoting civil rights. With everything James Cameron did, he served the cause of justice. He led a courageous, remarkable life, and he will be greatly missed.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 4192.