Guardsmen and Reservists Financial Relief Act of 2004

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would repeal Sec. 224 of the USA Patriot Act. Section 224 provides that 16 different parts of the Patriot Act ``shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.'' The authorities subject to this sunset include some of the most important provisions of the Act. They are sections 201, wiretapping in terrorism cases; 202, wiretapping in computer fraud and abuse felony case; 203(b) sharing wiretap information; 203(d), sharing foreign intelligence information; 204, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pen register/trap and trace exceptions; 206, roving FISA wiretaps; 207, duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power; 209, seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants; 212, emergency disclosure of electronic surveillance; 214, FISA pen register/ trap and trace authority; 215, FISA access to tangible items; 217, interception of computer trespasser communications; 218, purpose for FISA orders; 220, nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence; 223, civil liability and discipline for privacy violations; and 225, provider immunity for FISA wiretap assistance.

Rather than praise the Patriot Act myself, I would like to quote others who have done so. First, I would note that the President has called on Congress to renew all parts of the Patriot Act that are scheduled to expire next year. As he has emphasized, ``to abandon the Patriot Act would deprive law enforcement and intelligence officers of needed tools in the war on terror, and demonstrate willful blindness to a continuing threat.''

FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a hearing before the Judiciary Committee yesterday, also voiced strong support for renewing the Patriot Act. As he noted, ``for over two and a half years, the PATRIOT Act has proved extraordinarily beneficial in the war on terrorism and has changed the way the FBI does business. Many of our counterterrorism successes, in fact, are the direct results of provisions included in the Act, a number of which are scheduled to `sunset' at the end of next year. I strongly believe it is vital to our national security to keep each of these provisions intact.''

Similarly, in an April 14 field hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Deputy Attorney General James Comey stated that the Patriot Act ``has made us immeasurably safer.'' He also responded to the allegation, occasionally made by some critics, that the Patriot Act was passed too quickly. He replied that ``the USA Patriot Act was not rushed, it actually came 10 years too late.''

The importance of the Patriot Act to American security also has drawn the attention of the 9/11 Commission. Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean has noted that the Commission has had ``witness after witness tell us that the Patriot Act has been very, very helpful, and if the Patriot Act, or portions of it, had been in place before 9/11, that would have been very helpful.''

This praise has not been limited to the Republicans who have participated in the Commission's proceedings. Former Attorney General Janet Reno, for example, testified before the Commission that ``everything that's been done in the Patriot Act has been helpful.''

Nor is President Bush alone among the major candidates for President this year in hailing the importance of the Patriot Act. Indeed, his principal rival for the office, Senator Kerry, recently claimed that he would go even further than the President. According to an April 25 story in the Los Angeles Times, Senator Kerry's spokesman insists that ``it is the challenger, not the president, who brings the most muscular view of the Patriot Act into the race.'' Senator Kerry's presidential campaign website even includes a ``Plan to Restore American Security,'' which lists as its number-one priority to ``improve intelligence capabilities.'' Senator Kerry states that he ``understands that intelligence information is the key to disrupting and dismantling terrorist organizations and that we need to improve our intelligence capabilities, both domestically and internationally, in order to win the war on global terrorism.''

One reform implemented by the Patriot Act that Attorney General Reno and others have particularly emphasized is its authorization for information sharing. Because this part of the Patriot Act is often praised but infrequently described in detail, I would like to quote the following accounts of pre-Patriot barriers to information sharing, and of the investigative successes that the removal of those barriers has made possible.

The FISA Court of Review decision upholding the Patriot Act's authorization for information sharing, In re: Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717,

F.I.S. Ct. Rev. 2002 , describes the origins of the pre-Patriot

barriers:

Apparently to avoid running afoul of the primary purpose

test used by some courts, the 1995 [Attorney General]

Procedures [(``Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI and

the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and

Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations'')] limited

contacts between the FBI and the Criminal Division in cases

where FISA surveillance or searches were being conducted by

the FBI for foreign intelligence (FI) or foreign

counterintelligence (FCI) purposes. The procedures state that

``the FBI and Criminal Division should ensure that advice

intended to preserve the option of a criminal prosecution

does not inadvertently result in either the fact or the

appearance of the Criminal Division's directing or

controlling the FI or FCI investigation toward law

enforcement objectives.'' Although these procedures provided

for significant information sharing and coordination between

criminal and FI or FCI investigations, based at least in part

on the ``directing or controlling'' language, they eventually

came to be narrowly interpreted within the Department of

Justice, and most particularly by OIPR, as requiring OIPR to

act as a ``wall'' to prevent the FBI intelligence officials

from communicating with the Criminal Division regarding

ongoing FI or FCI investigations. Thus, the focus became the

nature of the underlying investigation, rather than the

general purpose of the surveillance. Once prosecution of the

target was being considered, the procedures, as interpreted

by OIPR in light of the case law, prevented the Criminal

Division from providing any meaningful advice to the FBI.''

In re: Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 727-28 citations omitted.

FBI Director Mueller, in his testimony yesterday, provided a concrete account of the impact that these information-sharing barriers had on intelligence investigations:

Prior to September 11, an [FBI] Agent investigating the

intelligence side of a terrorism case was barred from

discussing the case with an Agent across the hall who was

working the criminal side of that same investigation. For

instance, if a court-ordered criminal wiretap turned up

intelligence information, the criminal investigator could not

share that information with the intelligence investigator--he

could not even suggest that the intelligence investigator

should seek a wiretap to collect the information for himself.

If the criminal investigator served a grand jury subpoena to

a suspect's bank, he could not divulge any information found

in those bank records to the intelligence investigator.

Instead, the intelligence investigator would have to issue a

National Security Letter in order to procure that same

information.

Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, in an October 21, 2003 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, described how these pre- Patriot information-sharing limits undercut one potentially vital terror investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the grand-jury testimony of Wadih el Hage, a key member of the Al Qaeda cell in Nairobi who, in September 1997, was apprehended while changing flights in New York City. Federal prosecutors subpoenaed el Hage from the airport to testify before a Federal grand jury in Manhattan. Mr. Fitzgerald described how el Hage:

[P]rovided some information of potential use to the

intelligence community--including potential leads as to the

location of his confederate Harun and the location of Harun's

files in Kenya. Unfortunately, as el Hage left the grand-jury

room, we knew that * * * [because of pre-Patriot

restrictions] we would not be permitted to share the grand-

jury information with the intelligence community. * * *

Fortunately, we found a way to address the problem that in

most other cases would not work. Upon request, el Hage

voluntarily agreed to be debriefed by an FBI agent outside

the grand-jury room * * *. El Hage then repeated the essence

of what he told the grand jury to the FBI agent, including

his purported leads to on the location of Harun and his

files. The FBI then lawfully shared the information with the

intelligence community. In essence, we solved the problem by

obtaining the consent of a since-convicted terrorist. We do

not want to have to rely on the consent of al Qaeda

terrorists to address the gaps in our national security.

Mr. Fitzgerald went on to describe how, in August 1998, the American Embassy in Nairobi was bombed by al Qaeda. Investigators quickly learned that el Hage's associate Harun was responsible. In this particular case, investigators had been able to work around information-sharing limits because of an al Qaeda terrorist's willingness to be interviewed by the FBI, and even with this information U.S. agents were not able to stop a terrorist attack. The pre-Patriot limits were not a decisive factor in blocking U.S. intelligence agents from preventing the Kenya bombing. But they could have been. As U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald concluded, ``we should not have to wait for people to die with no explanation [other] than that interpretations of the law blocked the sharing of specific information that probably [c]ould have saved [American lives].''

As Attorney General Reno noted in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission, ``these restrictions [on information sharing] have now been eliminated as part of the Patriot Act.'' Director Mueller, in his Judiciary Committee testimony yesterday, described the impact of this change:

The removal of the ``wall'' has allowed government

investigators to share information freely. Now, criminal

investigative information that contains foreign intelligence

or counterintelligence, including grand jury and wiretap

information, can be shared with intelligence officials. This

increased ability to share information has disrupted

terrorist operations in their early stages--such as the

successful dismantling of the ``Portland Seven'' terror

cell--and has led to numerous arrests, prosecutions, and

convictions in terrorism cases.

In essence, prior to September 11th, criminal and

intelligence investigators were attempting to put together a

complex jigsaw puzzle at separate tables. The Patriot Act has

fundamentally changed the way we do business. Today, those

investigators sit at the same table and work together on one

team. They share leads. They fuse information. Instead of

conducting parallel investigations, they are fully integrated

into one joint investigation.

These Patriot Act changes can directly be credited with some important recent successes in the war on terror. For example, in February 2003, Federal prosecutors arrested and indicted Sami Al-Arian and seven other suspected terrorists. The 50-count indictment indicated that Al-Arian was the financial director and the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group that has killed more than 100 people in and around Israel, including two Americans. Al-Arian wired money to groups in Israel that paid money to the families of terrorists who carried out suicide bombings. He also founded three organizations in Florida which, among other things, drafted final wills and testaments for suicide bombers.

Incredibly, through much of the 1990s, Al-Arian was secretly watched by two different sets of U.S. investigators. The FBI had been conducting a criminal probe of Al-Arian since 1995. Meanwhile, intelligence agents had monitored Al-Arian since the late 1980s. Because of pre-Patriot restrictions, the two sets of investigators were not able to share information and were not aware of the full extent of each other's investigations. It was only after the FISA Court of Review upheld Patriot

Act Sec. 203's information-sharing provisions in November 2002 that intelligence officials were able to show their files to prosecutors. Several months after this Patriot provision was upheld and made effective, prosecutors arrested and indicted Al-Arian and put an end to his activities.

Of course, the provisions of the Patriot Act subject to the Sec. 224 sunset include much more than just the three provisions that facilitate information sharing. Although I will not discuss all of those provisions in detail today--some of which have never been controversial--I would like to discuss one provision that has been a particular focus of attacks on the Patriot Act.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to seek an order for ``the production of tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information.'' FISA defines ``foreign intelligence'' as information relating to foreign espionage, foreign sabotage, or international terrorism, or information respecting a foreign power that relates to U.S. national security or foreign policy. Thus Sec. 215 cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes or even domestic terrorism. And in every case, a Sec. 215 order must be approved by a judge.

Alhough Sec. 215 is basically a form of subpoena authority, like that allowed for numerous other types of investigation indeed, it is more tightly restricted than other types of subpoenas because it must be pre-approved by a judge Sec. 215 has been heavily targeted by Patriot Act critics. Chief among their complaints is that Sec. 215 could be used to obtain records from bookstores or libraries. Some of these critics have even alleged that Sec. 215 would allow the FBI to investigate someone simply because of the books that he borrows from a library.

Section 215 could in fact be used to obtain library records, though neither Sec. 215 nor any other provision of the Patriot Act specifically mentions libraries or is directed at libraries. Nevertheless, Sec. 215 does authorize court orders to produce tangible records--which could include library records.

Where the critics are wrong is in suggesting that a Sec. 215 order could be obtained because of the books that someone reads or the websites that he visits. Sec. 215 allows no such thing. Instead, Sec. 215 allows an order to obtain ``tangible things'' as part of an investigation to ``obtain foreign intelligence information''-- information relating to foreign espionage or terrorism or relating to a foreign government or group and national security. By requiring a judge to approve such an order, Sec. 215 ensures that these orders will not be used for an improper purpose. And as an added protection against abuse, the Patriot Act also requires that the FBI ``fully inform'' the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on all use of Sec. 215 every six months. These checks and safeguards leave FBI agents little room for the types of witch hunts that Patriot Act critics conjure up.

Further, it bears mention that federal investigators already use an authority very similar to Sec. 215 the grand jury subpoena--to obtain bookstore records. As Deputy AG Comey recently emphasized in a letter that he submitted to the editor of the New York Times, ``orders for records under [Sec. 215] are more closely scrutinized and more difficult to obtain than ordinary grand jury supoenas, which can require production of the very same records, but without judicial approval.'' Similarly, in a September 11, 2003 editorial, ``Patriot (Act) Games,'' the Washington Post noted that investigative authority to review library records ``existed prior to the Patriot Act; the law extends it to national security investigations, which isn't unreasonable.''

Finally, I would emphasize that an intelligence or criminal investigation may have good and legitimate reasons for extending to library or bookstore records. For example, in a recent domestic terrorism case, Federal investigators sought to prove that a suspected bomber had built a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. The investigators used a grand-jury subpoena to show that the suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build such a detonator.

Moreover, we should not forget that terrorists and spies historically have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten U.S. national security. We know, for example, that some terrorists have used computers at public libraries to use the internet and communicate by email. It would be unwise to place libraries and bookstores beyond the scope of anti-terror investigations.

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who led the 1995 terrorism case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, recently elaborated on this point in a November 13, 2003 article in National Review Online, ``Patriot Act Under Siege'':

[H]ard experience--won in the course of a string of

terrorism trials since 1993--instructs us that it would be

folly to preclude the government a priori from access to any

broad categories of business record. Reading material, we now

know, can be highly relevant in terrorism cases. People who

build bombs tend to have books and pamphlets on bomb making.

Terrorist leaders often possess literature announcing the

animating principles of their organizations in a tone

tailored to potential recruits. This type of evidence is a

staple of virtually every terrorism investigation--both for

what it suggests on its face and for the forensic

significance of whose fingerprints may be on it. No one is

convicted for having it--jurors are Americans too, and they'd

not long stand for the odious notion that one should be

imprisoned for the mere act of thinking.

When a defendant pleads ``not guilty,'' however, he is

saying: ``I put the government to its proof on every element

of the crime, including that I acted with criminal purport.''

Prosecutors must establish beyond a reasonable doubt not only

that the terrorist engaged in acts but did so intending

execrable consequences. If an accused says the precursor

components he covertly amassed were for innocent use, is it

not relevant that he has just borrowed a book that covers

explosives manufacture? If he claims unfamiliarity with the

tenets of violent jihad, should a jury be barred from

learning that his paws have yellowed numerous publications on

the subject? Such evidence was standard fare throughout Janet

Reno's tenure as attorney general--and rightly so.

In his testimony yesterday, FBI Director Mueller also described the importance to antiterror investigations of some of the other Patriot Act authorities subject to expire under Sec. 224. For example, Director Mueller noted that:

The PATRIOT Act gave federal judges the authority to issue

search warrants that are valid outside the issuing judge's

district in terrorism investigations. In the past, a court

could only issue a search warrant for premises within the

same judicial district--yet our investigations of terrorist

networks often span multiple districts. The PATRIOT Act

streamlined this process, making it possible for judges in

districts where activities related to terrorism may have

occurred to issue search warrants applicable outside their

immediate districts.

In addition, the PATRIOT Act permits similar search

warrants for electronic evidence such as email. In the past,

for example, if an Agent in one district needed to obtain a

search warrant for a subject's email account, but the

Internet service provider (ISP) was located in another

district, he or she would have to contact an AUSA and Agent

in the second district, brief them on the details of the

investigation, and ask them to appear before a judge to

obtain a search warrant--simply because the ISP was

physically based in another district. Thanks to the PATRIOT

Act, this frustrating and time-consuming process can be

averted without reducing judicial oversight. Today, a judge

anywhere in the U.S. can issue a search warrant for a

subject's email, no matter where the ISP is based.

[Further], the PATRIOT Act updated the law to match current

technology, so that we no longer have to fight a 21st-century

battle with antiquated weapons. Terrorists exploit modern

technology such as the Internet and cell phones to conduct

and conceal their activities. The PATRIOT Act leveled the

playing field, allowing investigators to adapt to modern

techniques. For example, the PATRIOT Act clarified our

ability to use court-ordered pen registers and trap-and-trace

devices to track Internet communications. The Act also

enabled us to seek court-approved roving wiretaps, which

allow investigators to conduct electronic surveillance on a

particular suspect, not a particular telephone this allows

them to continuously monitor subjects without having to

return to the court.

All of the authorities described by Director Mueller obviously are critical to antiterrorism investigations--and all will expire next year unless Congress acts to repeal Sec. 224.

In responding to some of the accusations of Patriot Act critics, I do not mean to dismiss the importance of either civil liberties or of independent oversight of the federal government. I would simply emphasize that the Patriot Act is carefully crafted legislation that both guarantees protection for civil liberties and is subject to ample oversight. I would note, in this vein, that in a report filed in January

2004, Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine--an appointee of President Clinton described the results of his investigation of all recent civil-rights and civil-liberties complaints received by the Justice Department. The Inspector General found no incidents in which the Patriot Act was used to abuse civil rights or civil liberties.

The Patriot Act's provisions for independent oversight of the new authorities created by the Act were described in detail by Deputy AG Comey in his April 14, 2004 testimony before the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Comey noted:

First, the USA PATRIOT Act preserves the historic role of

courts by ensuring that the vital role of judicial oversight

is not diminished. For example, the provision for delayed

notice for search warrants requires judicial approval. In

addition, under the Act, investigators cannot obtain a FISA

pen register unless they apply for and receive permission

from federal court. The USA PATRIOT Act actually goes farther

to protect privacy than that Constitution requires, as the

Supreme Court has long held that law enforcement authorities

are not constitutionally required to obtain court approval

before installing a pen register. Furthermore, a court order

is required to compel production of business records, in

national security investigations.

Second, the USA PATRIOT Act respects important

congressional oversight by placing new reporting requirements

on the Department. Every six months, the Attorney General is

required to report to Congress the number of times section

215 has been utilized, as well as to inform Congress

concerning all electronic surveillance under the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under section 1001 of the USA

PATRIOT Act, Congress receives a semiannual report from the

Department's Inspector General detailing any abuses of civil

rights and civil liberties by employees or officials of the

Department of Justice. It is important to point out that in

the Inspector General's most recent report to Congress, he

reported that his office has received no complaints alleging

misconduct by Department employees related to the use of a

substantive provision of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Finally, the USA PATRIOT Act fosters public oversight of

the Department. In addition to the role of the Inspector

General to review complaints alleging abuses of civil

liberties and civil rights, the Act provides a cause of

action for individuals aggrieved by any willful violation of

Title III or certain sections of FISA. To date, no civil

actions have been filed under this provision.

The United States has had some important successes in the war on terror so far. Worldwide, more than half of al Qaeda's senior leadership has been captured or killed. More than 3,000 al Qaeda operatives have been incapacitated. Within the United States, 4 different terrorist cells have been broken up--cells located in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, and Portland. 284 individuals have been criminally charged to date, and 149 individuals have been convicted or pleaded guilty, including: shoe bomber Richard Reid, six members of the Buffalo terrorist cell, two members of the Detroit cell, Ohio truck driver Iyman Faris, and U.S.-born Taliban John Walker Lindh.

Patriot-aided criminal prosecutions also have contributed to U.S. intelligence efforts to learn more about terrorist organizations. Facing long prison terms, some apprehended terrorist have chosen to cooperate with the U.S. government. So far, the Justice Department has obtained plea agreements from 15 individuals who are now cooperating with terror investigations. One individual has given the U.S. information about weapons stored by terrorists in the United States. Another cooperating terrorist has given U.S. investigators information about locations in the U.S. that are being scouted or cased for potential attacks by al Qaeda.

The Patriot Act has played a major role in what U.S. antiterror investigations have accomplished so far. And it is clear that we will continue to need the authorities created by the Patriot Act into the foreseeable future. For these reasons, I am pleased to introduce today with my colleagues a bill to repeal Sec. 224 and make the Patriot Act permanent.

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

Mr. President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee for their courtesy this morning.

I will take a few moments to clear up some of the debate last evening. I would very much have liked to have had a vote on the Lindsey amendment, but I understand how those things happen. I hope we can move forward.

I will address three main issues we left hanging last night. No. 1 is the

proper classification of the wastesites in Hanford in Washington, the Idaho site, and also Savannah River in South Carolina. This program that has been put in place is a waste and incidental reprocessing commonly referred to as WIR in this debate.

First of all, I compliment Jesse Roberson with the Department of Energy. She was instrumental in getting Rocky Flats cleared up ahead of time. We are a little bit ahead of schedule. We are under budget. We have a huge savings in Rocky Flats because of a plan she put in place to accelerate cleanup, as much as $10 billion savings over time because of her plan she helped put in place, consulting with a lot of people in Rocky Flats. She had the capability of working with local elected officials, the employees, and with the congressional delegation to get things like that to happen.

Obviously, everyone--the employees, the local leaders from those communities around Rocky Flats--played a role, but she was the focal point that made all that come together. She is the one who has been working on this issue to enhance and speed up cleanup on these particular nuclear sites. They create some very special problems, very difficult problems. I commend her for being willing to think outside the box and for the tremendous leadership she has shown in that regard.

I will talk a little bit about the classification of waste, then about the fact that we did have hearings, then also about how we have reached out. The proper disposal plan is to leave things in place there at Hanford and Idaho, for example.

Here is the issue as I see it, regarding proper classification. We can get all tied up in terminology, but the point is, what happens to the level of radiation? All these wastes are based on the amount of nuclear radiation. The fact is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rating is as low-level waste. This is based on good, scientific evidence.

DOE is relying on three key points in classifying the residue as low- level waste. The first point is DOE has removed the vast bulk of the mobile radionuclides that were originally in the tanks; No. 2, that it has solidified and stabilized the remaining radionuclides by using a grout that chemically binds them so as to further limit their mobility; and No. 3, that the stabilized residues meet performance standards specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for disposal of low- level waste.

DOE performance assessment shows the residue will produce an annual dose of radioactivity below the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard and well below what a person gets from a standard X-ray machine when you go into the doctor's office and get an X-ray, and that the radioactive dose to an inadvertent intruder will be minimal. Therefore, the residues meet the NRC's low-level waste standards.

None of this relies on dilution of the residues but, rather, it relies on classifying the stabilized residues in accordance with the risks they present in a manner consistent with the NRC performance standards which the NRC has specifically identified as the key consideration in classifying this waste.

The Department of Energy has been very responsible in what they have been doing. I am very disappointed the court decision has upset this. Prior to the court decision, it has been my understanding, the State of Washington, the State of Idaho, and the State of North Carolina all agreed on a plan with the DOE for the waste and incidental reprocessing plan. The court case gets filed, they file a friend-of-the-court brief, and everything begins to fall apart.

Initially, the State of Washington, the State of Idaho, under RCRA, were working with the Department of Energy, and nationally under the Clean Water Act, the State of South Carolina was working with DOE. Now the State of South Carolina is ready to move forward. The other two States feel they cannot move forward on this issue. I think it is terrible we would tie up their plans because of problems we have in the other two States. We have to work out something that is fair. We do need to work out something that is fair to all the States.

The Senator from Washington wants to completely demolish these tanks and move them out. What she did not talk about is the risk of going down into those tanks and cleaning them out before you demolish them. As a worker, I am not sure I want to go down there. I think that is a safety hazard beyond comprehension. I do not think anybody is thinking about these aspects of it.

I think what the Department of Energy has come out with, with the grout, is going to immediately seal the leaking tanks so we are not going to have any more pollution. If things don't continue, they are going to continue to pour into the Columbia River in Washington. So I think they have come up with a commonsense solution.

We have had two public hearings in the committee. I have the transcript here. We had one public hearing on February, 25, 2004, and we had the other public hearing on March 23, 2004. We talked about the WIR issue and how to best resolve it.

I would also point out for my colleagues, there has been built at Hanford a low-level waste disposal area. So this is not new, leaving low-level waste in Hanford. I think we need to move forward in a very practical way.

I will have more to say about this when we get back into debate on the armed services bill and we have the Lindsey Graham amendment before us again. These are a few things I wanted to begin to address this morning.

Mr. President, I yield floor.

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

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask to speak as in morning business for the purpose of my remarks only and then return to regular business.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the remarkable record of leadership and achievement we have seen from this administration over the past 3 years in keeping America prosperous, safe, and secure. During this time our Nation and our President have confronted a series of crises and challenges that I believe are unmatched during any administration in recent history. Whether the challenge has been to our economic, social, or national security, President Bush has demonstrated courage, vision, and decisiveness in addressing these threats and challenges.

At the outset of his term in office the President faced a significant threat to our economic security requiring immediate action. On January 20, 2001, the day President Bush was sworn into office, our economy was several months into a recession, what I call the ``Clinton recession.'' Later, over the next few months, America faced extraordinary adversity from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This devastating event, combined with the unprecedented crises in corporate governance and accountability, demanded action on numerous levels. The President acted swiftly and decisively by securing from the Congress a series of tax cuts to stimulate business investment, preserve consumer confidence, and expand today's economic recovery into lasting prosperity for all Americans.

The President's actions averted disaster. We experienced one of the shortest and shallowest recessions of modern American history. By all accounts, the economy is on very solid footing now because of the President's actions.

For example, today we see 10 consecutive quarters of strong economic growth relative to gross domestic product. In fact, our economy averaged an annualized 5.5 percent growth over the last 3 quarters, the strongest three-quarter performance in 20 years. Manufacturing activity is rebounding. Since this time last year, the United States has led all major economies of the world with the highest manufacturing output expansion. This is in addition to our service economy, which also continues to outperform every other service economy around the globe. Recent corporate earnings reports are bullish, and investor confidence is rebounding, reflected by the 35 to 50 percent gains in major market indices since the fall of 2002. This includes a $4 trillion increase in the total market capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange. Inflation remains low by historical standards, at or below a very manageable 3 percent annual rate. Business investment is rising steadily, fueled largely by double-digit growth in equipment and software spending, and by growing inventory investment. Consumer spending growth is accelerating due to real gains in wages, salaries, and in disposable personal income, boosted largely by lower taxes. And, residential construction spending remains strong, and as of March 2004, both existing and new home sales accelerated to record levels. This translates into the highest national homeownership rate in our Nation's history, a record 69 percent.

Moreover, looking at the lagging indicator of job creation, recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics now confirm the recovery. The payroll survey shows over a million jobs created over the past 8 months.

More importantly, the household survey, which is not often cited in the public media, shows that over 2 million new jobs have been created since November 2001, when the ``Clinton'' recession was finally reversed. Just in the last 2 months, more than 600,000 new jobs have been created.

The President now faces new economic challenges, this time from many Members on the other side of the aisle who believe we need to undo President Bush's tax cuts. As we move closer to the November Presidential election, the political rhetoric from the other side is trying to convince us that the economy is much worse off than the facts demonstrate. Reversing the Bush tax cuts, as the Democrats propose, will only serve to reverse the economic growth we are now experiencing and that we project through the decade. We must all support the President in fending off increased ``tax-and-spend'' proposals.

This President has also recognized and acted decisively to turn back significant threats to our families and our values. I believe the previous administration neglected several major challenges to the security of our seniors, our families, and our children. President Bush, on the other hand, is moving aggressively and decisively to defeat these challenges and make our families more secure.

Our senior citizens are threatened by increasing health care costs and limited access to affordable medicines they need. The President developed and enacted historic Medicare modernization and prescription drug reforms. These initiatives enable seniors to get the medicines they need at discounted prices, and expand freedom for Americans to choose among healthcare providers and plans based on their individual needs. Further, the President's action makes sure low-income seniors receive additional financial assistance so they will not have to pay more to receive better benefits than they currently do under Medicare.

Our families, more specifically the parents, are under assault by activist courts around the country undermining the sanctity of marriage. Not only are these courts overstepping their constitutional authority, but also they are trampling fundamental values and institutions held dear by the vast majority of Americans. The President stepped forward and joined several of us from the Congress to put down this assault decisively. While I do not take the amending of the constitution lightly, the proposed Constitutional amendment is our only recourse in preserving marriage in the United States as the union of only a man and a woman.

Dumbed-down educational standards and sub-par learning institutions threaten the well-being and development of our children. The President brought forward another major reform with his No Child Left Behind initiative to instill higher, modern standards for performance in reading and math. The President has increased education spending nearly 25 percent over his predecessor--an $11 billion increase. This includes an increase of more than 30 percent for disadvantaged student programs, as well as tripling resources for effective reading programs for our youth.

Moreover, the President's leadership restores to local officials the power and resources to establish programs and practices that work in their respective communities.

Again, another example of extraordinary leadership backed by resources, compassion, and commitment. The President has been nothing but visionary and steadfast in protecting our families and our way of life.

Today, the President is leading our Nation through another major crisis in the fight against Muslim extremists seeking to destroy our people, our livelihoods, and our liberties at home and abroad. We are a Nation at war--a global war on terror. This is not a war we started, but a war we will finish.

Unlike his predecessor, President Bush has demonstrated to this Nation, indeed to the world, that he has the vision, the courage, and the fortitude to lead a global coalition to fight this enemy whenever and wherever is needed. The President will not shirk his duties to guarantee the safety and security of Americans or freedom-loving peoples around the globe.

The enemy in this war did not mysteriously appear for the first time on September 11, 2001. Rather, this enemy has been consistently attacking the United States for over two decades. Unfortunately, over this period of time, our country's response to this growing threat was entirely inadequate, inconsistent, and inexcusable. Let me describe for you the evolution of our enemy in this global war on terror.

In 1979, a band of Islamic fundamentalists, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, successfully overthrew the Shah's government of Iran as America stood by and watched. Nearly a year later, these fundamentalists stormed the U.S. Embassy and took the American staff hostage for 444 days. President Carter's response at the time: cancel Iranian travel visas and seek UN diplomatic assistance.

In 1982, Muslim extremists bombed our Embassy in Beirut. The U.S. did not respond against the extremists. Six months later, the extremists bombed the U.S. marines' barracks and 241 U.S. servicemen were killed and another 80 were seriously wounded. This time, the U.S. response came from the Democratic-controlled Congress in the form of a resolution to withdraw all troops from the area. Unfortunately, as the 1983 presidential election drew near, President Reagan acquiesced. There was, and remains, an important lesson to be learned here for all Members of this body: our enemy perceives vulnerability during U.S. presidential election years. During this time we must redouble our vigilance and resist the internal sniping for mere political expediency.

In 1985, Muslim extremists hijacked an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro. In a specific act of defiance toward the United States, the terrorists murdered 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, tossing his dead body and wheelchair overboard into the sea. The terrorists were offered a deal by ``our allies'' for safe passage by ending the hijacking. When the hijackers were traveling to their new destination, President Reagan launched our military fighters to intercept and redirect their airliner to Sicily, Italy. After a few years in prison, the Italians set them free. The Muslim extremists then took up sanctuary with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

In 1986, Muslim extremists affiliated with Libya's Colonel Qadhafi bombed a West Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen. Two American soldiers were killed. Ten days later, President Reagan authorized an air strike in Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, from bases in England. The mission was somewhat complicated by the French denying us use of their airspace during the mission.

In 1988, Muslim extremists, again sanctioned by the Libyan government, destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. No direct action was taken by either the U.S. or British governments.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded oil-rich Kuwait. President George Herbert Walker Bush moved U.S. forces quickly to block further Iraqi advances while mobilizing a large international coalition force that ultimately expelled a decimated Iraqi military from Kuwait. Most Democrats in Congress voted against this use of force. Now, many of the same are saying that we did not go far enough at that time.

One of our key allies during the 1991 Gulf War was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Following hostilities, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia forged closer military, economic, and political relations. One wealthy Saudi extremist took exception to this relationship and vowed to ``wage war against the American crusaders.'' This Saudi's name was Osama bin Laden.

From that point forward, we have been victimized by a string of direct attacks by bin Laden's al-Qaida network--both at home and abroad.

In 1993, al-Qaida exploded bombs in the garage of the World Trade Center towers, killing 5 Americans and injuring hundreds. President Clinton, at this time being advised by national security staff official Richard Clarke, did nothing in response.

Later in 1993, 18 American soldiers were killed in Somalia, and the body of one soldier was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu before a cheering band of Somalis and al-Qaida. President Clinton's immediate response was the withdrawal of all troops from Somalia. No action was taken against those responsible. ABC News reported Osama bin Laden saying that al-Qaida soldiers:

realized more than before that the American soldier was a

paper tiger and after a few blows ran in shame and disgrace.

In 1995, in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida killed 5 and injured 30 Americans in a homicide bomb attack. A few months later, homicide car-bombers attacked U.S. military facilities at the Khobar Towers, killing 19 and injuring nearly 500 Americans. The perpetrators of these cowardly attacks all escaped. The U.S. did not respond.

In 1998, al-Qaida bombed the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring over 5,400 in all. The U.S. did not respond.

In 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 and wounding another couple dozen of American sailors. The U.S. did not respond.

Over the course of these 7 years, al-Qaida carried out multiple attacks against the United States. As the current National Security Advisor recently testified, it was clear that ``the enemy was at war with the United States.'' However, President Clinton, and his top counter-terrorist advisor Richard Clarke, did not go to war with the enemy.

It is reasonable to conclude that our failed history to deal promptly and decisively with al-Qaida, at any point during this period, only served to embolden Bin Laden and his criminal band of extremists.

Perhaps our failure emboldened others in the same way. During the latter part of the 1990s, Saddam Hussein began a campaign of actions increasingly more defiant of U.S. and UN imposed sanctions.

In 1996, Saddam unleashed his forces on the Kurdish city of Erbil destroying U.S.-sponsored resistance organizations and executing U.S.- backed resistance fighters. In 1997, Hussein bullied UN inspectors, preventing them from performing their mission. He also threatened to shoot down American surveillance planes aiding the inspection program.

In 1998, President Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but he did not follow through after the United Nations urged restraint. Later that year, Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq all together. Over the next several years, Iraqi air defense units repeatedly shot at our military aircraft enforcing the UN sanctioned ``no fly'' zones.

On more than one occasion, President Clinton launched limited, and arguably ineffective, aircraft and cruise missile strikes in Iraq to no avail.

By the time President Bush took office in 2001, the determination and sophistication of our enemies were already well established. Unfortunately, our reputation of standing up to these criminal terror organizations and despots had decayed to a dangerous level.

President Bush immediately set forth new policy and strategies, scrapping the ``containment'' policy in favor of a more comprehensive and decisive course of action to eliminate the al-Qaida enemy completely. The horrendous events of 9/11, barely seven months into his administration, demanded urgent and unambiguous action from the President. Without hesitation, President Bush directed his cabinet to prepare a decisive response against the murderous al-Qaida organization, including terrorist affiliates, and those foreign governments that sponsor and shelter the terrorists.

As I said earlier, we didn't start this war--the global war on terror but we are going to finish it. Under President Bush's leadership over the past two-plus years, the United States has dealt a crippling blow to world terror organizations. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld summarized it best for us earlier this year when he reported that our armed forces have overthrown two terrorist regimes, rescued two nations, and liberated some 50 million people; captured

or killed close to two-thirds of known senior al-Qaida operatives; captured or killed 45 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq, including Iraq's deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein; hunted down thousands of terrorists and regime remnants in Afghanistan and Iraq; disrupted terrorist cells on most continents; and likely prevented a number of planned attacks. This is an astounding record of accomplishment for our commander-in- chief, his national security staff, and the phenomenal men and women of our military services.

I believe we are already seeing huge dividends from our actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have demonstrated to the Middle East region, and indeed to the world, that the U.S. is willing to go to war over weapons of mass destruction, even at the risk of significant loss of life. This action sent an extraordinarily powerful message to all-- there will be significant consequences of possessing, or attempting to acquire, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. This increased risk perception among potential adversaries, or threat of U.S. action, is now opening the door to diplomatic action to roll back illicit weapons and ballistic missile development programs.

This is evident in Libya, where Colonel Qadhafi is now voluntarily turning over his weapons and secrets to the United Kingdom and United States intelligence officers. It turns out that Egypt was a major supplier to Libya, so now Egypt is getting out of the ballistic missile trade as well. This is evident in Syria, which is now engaged with U.S. Defense and State Department officials in divesting its ballistic missile enhancement programs while secretly trying to relocate their ballistic missile inventory in neighboring countries. Further, this is evident in Iran, which has now ``come clean'' in reporting its military nuclear programs and is opening up to more stringent inspections.

We are seeing encouraging results with the decline of trans-national terrorism as well. Recently, the U.S. State Department released its annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, prepared by the Office of the Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism. The findings and conclusions are promising and further evidence that President Bush's vision and decisiveness are bringing about positive change.

For example, in 2001, during the President's first year in office, there were 346 terrorist attacks world-wide. In 2003, that number was down to 190--a 45% reduction in just two years. In 2001, there were 219 anti-U.S. attacks worldwide. In 2003, there were 82--a 62% reduction in just two years.

I believe these dramatic results are a direct result of George Bush's decision to declare war--not declare a police action or declare a negotiating strategy--but a global war against terrorists and those who harbor them. U.S.-led efforts are successfully attacking terrorists' training facilities, hideouts, weapons centers, financial institutions, and travel and logistics routes. Of course, this is in addition to our recent destruction of the two largest terrorist-sponsoring regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels. The war continues. We must capture or destroy Osama bin Laden and his comrades-in-hiding. We must defeat the terror and criminal elements that continue to kill indiscriminately in Iraq. We must finish the reconstruction of the political and municipal infrastructure for both the Afghani and Iraqi people. We are on the verge of seeing new democracies take root, offering the promise of lasting peace and stability for this region that has grown accustomed to tyranny after decades of oppression and terror.

Equally important, we must continue the offensive against other Muslim extremist organizations around the globe, denying these potential killers the opportunity to plan, prepare, or execute further acts of terror. President Bush is the visionary, the proven leader, and the commander-in-chief who will see this through and keep America safe and secure.

The facts are in. The results are conclusive. We are winning the war against terror with persistence and will. We are keeping America prosperous with pro-growth tax and business policies. We are enriching our families with commonsense social and educational reforms. I believe most Americans recognize this record of extraordinary accomplishment. And I believe that Americans are extremely proud of the leadership, courage, commitment, and results of President George W. Bush.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me request 10 minutes in morning business. If I see the Senator from Virginia desiring the floor, I certainly will not continue.

Madam President, this week the Congress and the White House have spent a fair amount of time talking about the subject of gasoline prices. Gas prices are now averaging over $2 a gallon across the country. It is a serious problem for American families, for American businesses, and for industries such as the airlines. I will talk a bit about that.

Elbows and wrists and hands are nearly out of joint from every side of the political spectrum pointing fingers during the last week about who is responsible for this or that or the other thing, who is responsible for high oil prices. That is counterproductive.

However, we cannot, all of us, decide that this is not happening on our watch. It is. We cannot decide that it is not of consequence. It certainly is of great consequence to our country, to our economy, and to American families.

I pulled up behind an old Chevrolet one day at a 40A stop in North Dakota some while ago. This 15- or 20-year-old Chevrolet had a bumper sticker on the back bumper, half of which was sort of tilted downward from previous beatings. The bumper sticker said ``I fought the gas war and gas won.''

I thought to myself, that is a prophetic bumper sticker. It is hard to fight a gas war and win when we have all of these events conspired against us. We have OPEC countries that control a substantial amount of product which have formed a cartel and they decide what they are pumping and what they will send to the oil pipelines around the world.

In addition to that, the oil companies themselves have gotten bigger and bigger and bigger, behemoth companies that control substantial amounts of product.

Then we have the consumer at the end of the line. They take the gas hose out of the socket at the gas station, they put it in the gas tank and start pumping, and there is not a thing they can do except pay the price, whatever the price is.

Why is this important, especially for rural States? I come from a rural State in this country. In rural States, we drive a lot more. We use a lot more fuel. I come from a State that is 10 times the size of Massachusetts in landmass. North Dakota is 10 Massachusetts in landmass. Yet we have 642,000 people spread out in that big old landmass. It is not much of anything to drive 50 miles or 100 miles or 200 miles to do a piece of business or to see relatives. Do that on the east coast, and they want to pack a tent in case they have trouble driving 50 miles.

But in our State we drive a lot, and we have a farming industry that uses a lot of fuel. So in the State of North Dakota, for example, per capita, we use twice as much gasoline as they would in New York per capita. That means

the burden of these increased gas prices is double in a rural State such as ours what it is on other drivers in some of the more populous States where they use less and drive less.

I am not saying all Americans are not having problems pulling up to the gas pump and paying $2 a gallon, but I am saying this especially hurts rural States whose consumers per person pay a much higher amount of the gas tax because they use more gasoline.

So what do we do about all this? Well, we can do as we have done for the last week or two, and keep pointing back and forth, or we can decide to take some action. A couple obvious things we ought to do are: One, we are putting nearly 150,000 barrels of oil a day underground in Louisiana in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is 96-percent full. I support what is called SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We ought to have that in case of an international problem, a national emergency. That is why we are putting that oil away. But in times of tight supplies, when the price of gasoline has gone to $2 a gallon, it makes no sense to take 150,000 barrels off the supply and put it underground in Louisiana.

Step one, I think the President ought to immediately--right now, today--stop that. That will add to supply, take some of the pressure off increasing prices. That ought to happen now--right now.

Second, there is a meeting this week in Amsterdam. The Secretary of Energy is going to Amsterdam. We need to jawbone--really jawbone--the OPEC countries and say to them: You need to increase production during this intermittent period. During this summer period, you need to increase production, get more oil into that pipeline.

The Saudis have called for that. But I must say, the Saudis have also been part of the problem in the past. When you have the amount of oil that is controlled by a few countries, which control a substantial amount of the oil in this world, and they make decisions about supply, it can have a profound impact on this country.

We ought to have, immediately, the President jawboning these OPEC countries. The Secretary of Energy ought to apply diplomatic pressure to these countries to say we need additional oil in that pipeline now.

Let me also say this. This is about the tenth wake-up call we have had on this issue of being held hostage to the OPEC countries. We get much of our oil to fuel the American economy from very troubled parts of the world. God forbid some morning we wake up and terrorists have severed the oil pipelines that send a substantial amount of oil to our country and our economy becomes flat on its back.

We need to understand this cannot work. Sixty percent of the oil we need to run this country's economy comes from off our shores, and much of it from very troubled parts of the world.

We need a project--I don't care; I call it an ``Apollo'' project, some call it a ``Manhattan'' project--we need a project that says: In the coming years we need to find a way to stop running gasoline through American carburetors. We have been driving cars for 100 years, and 100 years ago, you pulled up to a gas pump and put gasoline in your car the same way you do with a 2004 Ford or a 2002 Chevy. Nothing has changed. New cars are fueled the same way old cars were fueled. Nothing has changed in a century.

Everything about us has changed except we are still dependent, we still have this addiction to oil that comes from the OPEC countries. Why? Because we need to run it through a carburetor someplace in order to make our car go.

Well, look, hydrogen fuel cells are in our future. Do you know what you put out the tailpipe of a hydrogen fuel-cell car? Water vapor. You don't pollute the air. You put water vapor out the tailpipe. You have twice the effective power going to the wheels with hydrogen fuel cells. Why aren't we doing it? Because this country has not ratcheted up the energy and the decision to say, on a ``Manhattan'' project basis or an ``Apollo'' project basis: We are going to do this.

This ought to be equivalent to saying we are going to send a person to the moon. But somehow we are not there. So we need to take short- term steps and longer term steps, but we need to understand this is urgent, this is an emergency.

There are few things as important to this country as an energy policy that works, one that incentivizes production, one that provides for conservation, one that provides for renewable forms of energy, greater efficiency of all the things we use in our daily lives.

While I do not want to point the finger here today, I do want to say that which I have heard all week is a little disturbing. The White House spokesman comes out every day and says: Well, the problem is down there. They did not pass an energy bill. Well, everyone knows why we did not pass an energy bill. It failed by 2 votes in the Senate. We did not pass an energy bill because of a pernicious provision put in that bill, put in by the majority leader of the House, which he knew would derail that bill in the Senate, providing a retroactive waiver of liability for MTBE.

That provision was put in in a manner that he knew would cause the Energy bill to fail in the Senate. So that yoke of responsibility ought to lay where it is appropriate, in my judgment.

Partisanship

Madam President, I have been talking about gasoline and gasoline prices. We have a lot of challenges in our lives at the moment. We have a war in Iraq. We have a continuing war in Afghanistan. We have a range of both domestic and international issues that require our attention.

I was distressed yesterday to read in a newspaper a little piece that kind of describes the dilemma we have. We have this problem, and the problem is an incessant amount of partisanship around here. We have people who come to this town and say: We are going to bring people together. I see no evidence of it. The suggestion is the only way we can do business is to have one party do it, and exclude the other party.

We made some progress this week. It is interesting, the highway bill is a very important piece of legislation for our country. It should have been done last year. It was not. It is going to be done this year, I hope. Only yesterday we appointed conferees.

I want to show you what bothered me yesterday about all of that. Quoting the article, it says:

. . . conservative leaders said the White House and the

Senate leadership committed a tactical error by compromising

with Daschle, which they say has undermined what had been

their strategy on judges. . . .

The spokesperson, Connie Mackey, is the vice president of government affairs at the Family Research Council.

``We don't see the point,'' said Mackey, who declined to

discuss the specifics of the meeting. ``The strategy all

along has been to show the obstructionist tactics of the

Democrats. [Now] we've lost that tactic.''

What are we going to do? Our goal has been to be able to call somebody obstructionist, but all of a sudden we have this cooperation going on, and we have lost this ability. What are we going to do?

This describes the rancid partisanship that exists around here, and I hope it will stop.

My colleague, Senator Warner from Virginia--I don't know that I have ever heard anyone ever call him partisan. He and my colleague from Michigan, who bring this bill to the floor of the Senate to manage, are models of what we ought to do in this Congress, in this Senate.

The Senate is almost evenly divided. So is the House. This President won by a whisker in 2000. So we have a divided Government, almost right down the middle. And those who suggest that what we ought to do, in terms of the way we run things around here, is to have the majority party decide what happens, and then say to the minority party, you do not count, you are excluded, get lost--which is what happened all of last year, by the way, in these conferences; we appoint conferees, and then we are told the Democrats are not welcome to participate in the conferences, despite the fact they were a conferee--the fact is, we need to do better than that. This country deserves the best of what all of us have to offer, the best of what both parties can offer, instead of the worst of what each will offer.

There is a lot to be gained, it seems to me, by bipartisanship, by working together, by deciding that good ideas are not the exclusive property of whatever party is in the majority at the moment. There is a lot to be gained by that. My hope is what happened yesterday is the first step of a long trail of

bipartisanship and the first step in developing consensus on issues, in which we all understand we are serving the same interests.

We want what is best for our country. But there are some--there are some--who have no interest in trying to find ways to work together. They want open, partisan warfare.

I brought to the floor last week a couple of charts that showed the origin of that, charts an organization put together that said: Oh, by the way, here is the way you do this. If you have an opponent, here is what you should say about your opponent because we have tested these words. This organization, called GOPAC, said: Use words like ``liar,'' ``sick,'' ``pathetic,'' ``traitor,'' ``treason,'' ``antichild,'' ``antifamily,'' ``antiflag,'' when you describe your opponent. Be sure and use those words because we have tested them, and they work. That was the kind of rancid partisan ignorance that represented the foundation of what has been built for too long.

My hope is that perhaps we can reject all of that. Understanding that when a country is at war, when a country has energy problems, when a country has fiscal policy problems, that it makes good sense to get the best of what Republicans have to offer and the best of what Democrats have to offer and form a consensus to govern and achieve the goals that all of us aspire to. That is what the American people expect. I don't think aggressive debate at all hinders or hurts this country. In fact, I think it strengthens us. But aggressive partisanship, having as a goal not just winning but making sure the other side is destined to lose, that does hurt this country.

My hope is that yesterday, as we created a conference for a highway bill which is very important--it is important in the context of jobs and progress for the economy--I hope that was the first step in moving towards this consensus. Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, so many others want to play a constructive role in good public policy. That has always been our goal. I believe this country deserves better than we have seen in recent months, especially in the last several years. I hope what happened yesterday might put us on that road.

I will come back at another time and talk about the specific bill we are considering, the Defense authorization bill. It is very important. We tried this week, Senator Lott and myself, to alter some of the base- closing provisions so that we could force a responsible result in what we are going to do with overseas bases first and then make a judgment about domestic bases. We came up two votes short on that. But while we were two votes short, there were four votes missing that we expect would have voted for us. So I think there is a majority in the Senate who actually support that position.

There are some provisions in this bill that we must have an aggressive and full debate on. They have to do with the authorization of the spending of money to begin producing a new category of nuclear weapons, low-yield, bunker-buster, earth-penetrator nuclear weapons. A series of discussions need to be held, aggressive discussions around that subject. Should we begin developing new nuclear weapons with the understanding that they are just like other weapons and perfectly usable tactically? I don't believe that is the case, but some in this Chamber do believe that we just ought to have nuclear weapons available so we can drop one of them on a cave someplace, and if Osama bin Laden is holed up in the cave, we can deal with him with a nuclear weapon.

Our goal as a nuclear power needs to be to try to make certain that never again is a nuclear weapon used in anger, and our job as a leader is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries that don't now have them and try to find a way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that exist. Some 30,000 nuclear weapons now exist. The absence of one of them, the stealing of one nuclear weapon or the access to one nuclear weapon by a terrorist would make 9/11 seem small by comparison in terms of what a nuclear weapon could do in the hands of a terrorist.

This is a provision about which I speak more. It is an important provision, one I would like to see removed in support of an amendment to be offered by one of my colleagues.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation to expand access to college. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Collins, Kennedy, and Murray.

In a year in which we are slated to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, we have had only a few hearings on the reauthorization in the HELP Committee. In these hearings and the discussions ongoing in the other body, there has been scant mention of our insufficient investment in need-based financial aid. Instead, the discussions have been dominated by proposals that will hurt, rather than help, the neediest students.

This is troubling, particularly as more and more students are being priced out of college, which shortchanges their future and that of our nation. Economic security is a necessity not just for the wealthy, but for every American. And the key to economic security is education.

An individual's climb up the economic ladder is directly related to the amount of education he or she receives. Given the strong correlation among educational attainment, employment, and wages, the cost of not going to college is just too high.

Almost a third of the growth in employment over the next decade is expected to occur in occupations that require at least a bachelor's degree. College graduates, on average, earn 60 percent more than high school graduates, while an individual with a professional degree earns almost four times what a high school graduate earns.

And yet, too many college students are under-prepared, underfinanced, and overworked. Those who make it through are saddled by nearly insurmountable loan debt. But many more cannot afford the cost of college at all.

Even though there have been gains due to the Higher Education Act, the current approach to student aid isn't alleviating the gaps between our lowest and highest income students nor is it addressing the gaps between the aid low-income students receive and the actual cost of attendance.

7 times as many students from high-income families 48 percent graduate from college by age 24 as students from low-income families 7 percent. Low-income, college-qualified high school graduates have an annual ``unmet need'' of nearly $4,000 in college expenses. Without drastic increases in need-based aid, over the next decade, according to a report by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 4.4 million low- and moderate-income college qualified high school graduates will not be able to pursue a four year degree full time and 2 million will not go to college at all.

A combination of factors has arisen to create this unfortunate situation, chief among them a decline in the purchasing power of the Pell Grant and sharp increases in the cost of college.

My predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, established what is now known as the Pell Grant in order to ensure higher education wasn't an ``unachievable dream.'' Almost one quarter of undergraduate students from colleges and universities nationwide receive a Pell Grant. It is the single largest source of grant aid for higher education funded by the Federal government.

Unfortunately, the Pell Grant's purchasing power has plummeted due to the slow growth in funding and the rapid rise of college prices. In the late 70s, the maximum grant covered 77 percent of costs at a public four-year institution. Today, the maximum Pell Grant of $4,050 covers only 41 percent.

On top of that, an estimated 60 percent of student aid is now in the form of loans and 40 percent in grants, a reversal of the distribution 20 years ago. Indeed, the average graduate has a student loan debt of $17,000. Pell Grant recipients, who represent the lowest income sectors of students, graduate with an average of $20,000 in student loan debt.

Over the last ten years, public and private 4-year college costs, tuition and fees, rose 47 percent and 42 percent, respectively, after adjusting for inflation, which is a more rapid growth rate than consumer prices. Over the last three years, since President Bush entered office, tuition has increased by 28 percent on average, even after inflation. Students have felt the bite as states have drastically cut funding for public colleges.

There is a further convergence of economic and demographic factors. In 2008, the largest number of students in our history will graduate from high school. A high percentage of these students will be from low- income, minority families, who will need student aid. At the same time, our Nation will need replacement workers as aging, college-educated baby boomers begin to retire in increasing numbers.

This crisis calls out for action. It should be a national imperative to ensure an educated citizenry and a world class workforce. Our Nation cannot afford to lose out on the countless returns from a robust education investment.

The legislation we introduce today, the ACCESS, Accessing College through Comprehensive Early outreach, State partnerships, and Simplification, Act, seeks to set our Nation back on the course that Senator Pell sought when he authored the grants later named after him in 1972.

The ACCESS Act revitalizes the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program, which was established over thirty years ago to encourage States to play a role in helping low-income students go to college. Without this important, although extremely modest, Federal incentive, many States would never have established need-based grant programs and many States would not continue to maintain such programs.

Recognizing that LEAP can do even more to address the barriers to college access and persistence, the ACCESS Act forges a new Federal incentive for states--via higher levels of Federal match--to spur greater investments by states, colleges, businesses, and philanthropies in need-based grants for low-income students. At a time when public higher education is bearing the brunt of the fiscal crises confronting our States, we need to do more to encourage States to help low-income students attend college.

We want States to focus their energies on enhancing coordination and cohesion among Federal, State, and local programs and efforts of colleges, philanthropies, and businesses, with the goal of generating new investments in need-based aid sufficient to provide low-income students with an access and persistence grant to fill the gap in aid they face. All too often successful middle school students give up the dream of college because they think there is no way they can ever afford college. The ACCESS Act also requires States to notify low- income students beginning in middle school of their potential eligibility for student financial aid and encourages increased participation in early intervention, mentoring, and outreach programs.

The legislation is modeled after initiatives like the Rhode Island Children's Crusade in my home state and Indiana's 21st Century Scholars Program. A Lumina Foundation evaluation found that 21st Century Scholars--low-income students who receive an early notification of assistance, early intervention and support, and scholarships equivalent to the cost of in-state college tuition--were nearly 5 times more likely than non-participants to enroll in college. Indeed, successful college access programs are those that offer early intervention and mentoring services coupled with early information about estimated financial aid awards and adequate grant funding to make the dream of higher education a reality. Students participating in such programs are more financially and academically prepared, and thus more likely to enroll in college and persist to degree completion.

Our legislation also simplifies the financial aid process for low- income students. It allows more students to qualify for an Automatic- Zero Expected Family Contribution, aligning its eligibility with the standards for other Federal means-tested programs, like free school lunch, SSI, and Food Stamps. Students and families should not have to prove over and over again that they are low-income, and asking students to fill out lengthy forms when they already meet the eligibility level for Pell Grants is a burden we should ease.

In a similar vein, the legislation establishes a short, paper FAFSA- EZ application form for students qualifying for the auto-zero along with a tailored web-based system and a free telefile system for students without Internet access.

The ACCESS Act also expands college access for low-income students, in part by prohibiting a qualified education benefit, like education savings plans, from being considered as a student asset and by reducing the work penalty. The current income protection allowance levels are unrealistically low, creating a disincentive for students who work in order to pay college costs. I look forward to receiving further information on this and other problems addressed in the legislation when the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance completes work on the congressionally mandated financial aid simplification study later this year.

We must act on this legislation and others to make sure that every student who works hard and plays by the rules gets the opportunity to live the American Dream.

I was pleased to work with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, and a host of other higher education organizations and charitable foundations, including Scholarship America, on this legislation. I am also pleased that this legislation has the support of a range of higher education and student groups, including the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Council for Opportunity in Education, National Association for College Admission Counseling, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the United Negro College Fund, and the United States Student Association.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

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

Are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, as we approach Memorial Day, it touches us all as an important moment. This is the first Memorial Day for hundreds of American families who have recently lost loved ones in the Middle East. For others, it is the first such day for families of veterans of World War II and other conflicts who have passed away during the last year.

My father-in-law Bob Casserly passed away a few weeks ago. He was one of four brothers. They all signed up, served in World War II, four boys. Bob was the youngest. They all made it home. He is the first of that family and that generation to pass away. How deeply significant and necessary it is for us to pause here and honor their precious gift of sacrifice for the lives we get to enjoy and they don't.

One of the poet's wrote that ``God gave us memory that we might have roses in December.'' We remember the brave and strong young lives that were lost to give strength and courage to our own lives.

As all of my colleagues do, I travel back and forth by air from this city to my home State. I see the same sight on both ends of my trip. Arlington National Cemetery spreads out across many acres on the Potomac River near the airport. In the Twin Cities, Fort Snelling Cemetery sits near the bank of the Minnesota River. You can see it as you fly into the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.

They are both beautiful places, but they carry a staggering message. We have paid an enormous price for liberty around the world. Each cross or monument is a person and a family and a home town. And there are thousands upon thousands of them.

I have never been there, but I am told that there is a pilgrim graveyard near Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts, where the remains of the first colonists lie. Somewhere in that cemetery there is a small sign which reads, ``That which our forefathers at such a great price secured, let us not idly slip away.''

That is the message of this Memorial Day to me. Freedom is precious and constantly endangered. The world is such that, as Edmund Burke said, ``the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''

What is mind-boggling is the constant supply of good men and women willing to step forward to do something.

Addicted as most of us are to security and convenience, it is astonishing that regular folks in great numbers step forward to enter into a hostile environment and risk their lives. For fame? No. For riches? No. For vengeance? No. They do it for their country and what America stands for.

As has been said many times, America will remain the ``land of the free'' only so long as it is the ``home of the brave.''

A hundred and forty one years ago this November, Abraham Lincoln dedicated the cemetery at Gettysburg, PA. A large number of soldiers from the Minnesota First Volunteer Infantry Division, who had played a decisive role in the battle, were buried there.

Lincoln spoke the heart of the whole country, and speaks our heart today, when he concluded:

It is for us, the living, to be dedicated here to the

unfinished business which they who fought here have thus so

nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be dedicated to the

great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead

we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave

the last full measure of devotion: that we here highly

resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that

this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom;

and that government

of the people, by the people and for the people shall not

perish from the earth.

We in Minnesota especially grieve with the families who have lost young men in the conflict in Iraq. They join a long, brave column of patriots who laid down their lives. We can never repay the debt we owe them. But we dare not forget them, or fail to recognize their extraordinary service.

Chief Warrant Officer Patrick Dorff of Elk River, on the banks of the Mississippi. He died in Iraq on January 25, 2003. He was 32 years old. He died trying to rescue a fellow soldier from a patrol boat that had capsized in the Tigris River.

He left behind a wife, a daughter, his parents and siblings in Elk River.

From an early age, he always wanted to fly. He brought his passion to his military service. He called himself a ``sky cop'' over Iraq. Who knows how many lives he saved by providing air support.

He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.

SSG Brian Hellerman was from Freeport, MN, home of Charlie's Cafe. He was 35 when he died on August 6, 2003, in Baghdad. He lost his own dad as a teenager and joined the military to honor his memory. He left behind a wife and two kids, who have also lost their dad. He wrote in an e-mail, ``I am still in because I want to provide freedom for those I love and care about.'' He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.

PFC Edward Herrgott, age 20, was from Shakopee, MN on the Minnesota River. He died the day before Independence Day last year. He was killed by a sniper as he guarded the Iraqi National Museum from looters. He joined the military to prepare for a career in law enforcement. He was dedicated to a keeping others safe, even if it meant putting himself in danger. He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.

SSG Dale Panchot, 26, was from Northome, in Minnesota's north woods. He died on November 17, 2003 north of Baghdad in a grenade attack. He wanted to be a soldier as far back as his parents could remember. He idolized his World War II veteran grandfather, and joined the Minnesota National Guard in high school. At his funeral, the whole town came together to honor his faithful service. He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.

LCpl Levi Angell, age 20, was from Cloquet of Minnesota's Northland near Duluth. He was killed on April 8, 2004, in a rocket-propelled grenade attack. He joined the Marines after graduating from high school. He completed a tour in Kuwait and then volunteered to be redeployed to the region. He leaves behind his parents and eight brothers and sisters. He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.

Cpl Tyler Fey, aged 22, was from Eden Prairie in the Southwest area of the Twin Cities. He died on April 4, 2004, in Anbar Province, west of Baghdad. He was a combat engineer and a proud soldier who served 2 tours in Iraq. He was remembered as a kind and loveable person by his friends at Holy Angels High School in Richfield, MN. He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.

PFC Moises Langhorst, 19, of Moose Lake, died April 5 in Iraq. Moy, as he was called, aspired to a military career from a young age, wearing camo clothing and even driving a truck with a camouflage pattern. A few weeks before he died, he wrote to his church, ``Between my good training and my faith in God, I have noting to worry about.'' He joined the Marines right out of high school with his buddy Matthew Milczark of Kettle River, just down the road. He was a great man. Now he is a great American hero.

PFC Milczark, 18, died in Kuwait on March 8, six weeks before his friend. He was the Moose Lake Homecoming King 2 years ago this month. His grandfather and three uncles have also served in the U.S. military. He was a great man. Now he is a great American hero.

SP James Holmes, of East Grand Forks, died in Germany on May 8 from injuries he sustained in Iraq. He had suffered shrapnel wounds after an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle while he was on patrol in Baghdad. Holmes was 28. He grew up in Arizona. He had been living in East Grand Forks, MN, and worked for Valley Petroleum across the border in Grand Forks, ND. His best friend, Howard McDonald recalled, ``He felt he had a bigger part to play and answered the call to duty without hesitation. He was doing exactly what he wanted to do, and he died with honor.'' He was a great man. Now he is a great American hero.

Those are 9 young men. Nine families. Nine home towns. How incredibly sad it is that the promise of their lives was snuffed out. But we take comfort in the knowledge that they were doing what they wanted to do, many of them from an early age.

``Greater love has no man than this,'' the Scriptures tell us, ``than to lay down his life for his friends.'' Though we never knew them, they laid down their lives for us. They laid down their lives for a free Iraq and generations who will live free because of their sacrifice.

As we remember them and pray for them, together we hope for a new birth of freedom and a time of peace in the Middle East. Thank God for the memory of these and all our veterans. Thank God we live in a Nation of great American heroes such as these.

I yield the floor.