Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and often develop into full-blown disorders.

An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural

health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers must be encouraged. Through such training, rural health care providers can build a strong educational foundation from the behavioral, biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural communities.

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act would implement the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors. The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential psychological and financial savings are enormous.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School Clinics Act. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to provide access to quality health care for all Americans by offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.

Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care.

This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the medically underserved.

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

Mr. President, almost twelve years ago, I stood before you to introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''

That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.

Seven years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate and credible legal claim. Thereafter, by settlement stipulation, the United States has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of $1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after seven years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the court concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of Hearing Officer).

The bill I introduce today is to authorize the appropriation of those funds that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim. If enacted, this bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that has for far too long been denied.

For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian Pottawatomi.

The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, llinois, and Wisconsin. From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain annuities to the Pottawatomi.

In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal the policy of removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede the remainder of their traditional lands--some five million acres in and around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics-- including threats of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the ``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.

In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and unilaterally switched the land to five million acres in Iowa. The Treaty Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice would be done.''

Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''

While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis-- particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas against their will and without their consent.

Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most of those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously resisted forced removal. To avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes on their backs.

By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 172) the Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be retained for their use in the United States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949.) Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin Band.

In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas, the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario-- petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of annuities as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress ordered the Secretary to determine ``the[] [Wisconsin Bands] proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant Indians have not shared, [and] the amount of such monies retained in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the clamant Indians as directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''

In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of Interior directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339 and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to satisfy most of money owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.

Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing international matters of the period, including the intervention of World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for redress of their claim.

In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA) granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28 (Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 (1950). The claim of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional limits of the ICCA.

Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and equitable'' resolution to this claim.

The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150 years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long delayed is not now denied.

Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most- representative tribal organization here in the United States, the Assembly of First Nations (which includes all recognized tribal entities in Canada), and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups that remain in the United States today.

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

Mr. President, many of you know of my continued support and advocacy on the importance of addressing the plight of Filipino World War II veterans. As an American, I believe the treatment of Filipino World War II veterans is bleak and shameful. The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it was ceded by Spain, following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, which provided a 10- year

time frame for the independence of the Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United States retained certain powers over the Philippines including the right to call military forces organized by the newly-formed Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The Commonwealth Army of the Philippines was called to serve with the United States Armed Forces in the Far East during World War II under President Roosevelt's July 26, 1941 military order. The Filipinos who served were entitled to full veterans' benefits by reason of their active service with our armed forces. Hundreds were wounded in battle and many hundreds more died in battle. Shortly after Japan's surrender, the Congress enacted the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending Filipino troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at various overseas locations. These troops were authorized to receive pay and allowances for services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities had ceased, wartime service of these troops continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946.

Despite all of their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, the Congress passed the Rescission Act of 1946, now codified as Section 107 of Title 38 of the United States Code. The 1946 Act deemed that the service performed by these Filipino veterans would not be recognized as ``active service'' for the purpose of any U.S. law conferring ``rights, privileges, or benefits.'' Accordingly, Section 107 denied Filipino veterans access to health care, particularly for non-service-connected disabilities, and pension benefits. Section 107 also limited service- connected disability and death compensation for Filipino veterans to 50 percent of what their American counterparts receive.

On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, which duplicated the language that had eliminated Filipino veterans' benefits under the First Rescission Act. Thus, Filipino veterans who fought in the service of the United States during World War II have been precluded from receiving most of the veterans' benefits that had been available to them before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status.

The Filipino Veterans Equity Act, which I introduce today, would restore the benefits due to these veterans by granting full recognition of service for the sacrifices they made during World War II. These benefits include veterans health care, service-connected disability compensation, non-service connected disability compensation, dependent indemnity compensation, death pension, and full burial benefits.

Throughout the years, I have sponsored several measures to rectify the lack of appreciation America has shown to these gallant men and women who stood in harm's way with our American soldiers and fought the common enemy during World War II. It is time that we as a Nation recognize our long-standing history and friendship with the Philippines. Of the 120,000 that served in the Commonwealth Army during World War II, there are approximately 60,000 Filipino veterans currently residing in the United States and the Philippines. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Filipino veteran population is expected to decrease to approximately 20,000 or roughly one-third of the current population by 2010.

Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored; let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Let us instead work to replay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by providing them the veterans, benefits they deserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent gradually over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as well as food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. These industries are being economically harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.

Small businesses rely heavily on the business meal to conduct business, even more so than larger corporations. In releasing its study in May 2004, entitled he Impact of Tax Expenditure Policies on Incorporated Small Business, the Small Business Administration, SBA, Office of Advocacy, found that small incorporated businesses benefit more than their larger counterparts from the meal and entertainment tax deduction. According to the study, small firms that take advantage of the business-meal deduction reduce their effective tax rate by 0.75 percent on average, while larger firms only receive a 0.11 percent reduction in the effective tax rate. More importantly, the study strongly suggests that full reinstatement of the business meal and entertainment deduction should be a major policy priority for small businesses.

Small companies often use restaurants as onference space to conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best and sometimes only marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small business bottom line. In addition, the effects on the overall economy would be significant.

Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association (NRA), State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 to 80 percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would increase business meal sales by $8 billion and create a $26 billion increase to the overall economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA State by State chart and the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Medicaid Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2007.'' This legislation would change Federal law to expand fee-for-service Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their managed care panels.

Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions. Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse. They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While there are many titles given to these advanced practice nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law has not kept up with the multiple specialties and titles of these advanced practitioners, nor has it recognized the critical role physician assistants play in the delivery of primary care.

I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations--the extremely rural, frontier, or urban areas. This legislation ensures they are recognized and reimbursed for providing the necessary health care services patients need, and it gives those patients the choice of selecting advanced practice nurses and physician assistants as their primary care providers.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues; Senators Akaka, Kennedy, Conrad and Dorgan, I introduce ``The Wakefield Act,'' also known as the ``Emergency Medical Services for Children Act of 2007.'' Since Senator Hatch and I worked toward authorization of EMSC in 1984, this program has become the impetus for improving children's emergency services Nationwide. From specialized training for emergency care providers to ensuring ambulances and emergency departments have state-of-the-art pediatric sized equipment, EMSC has served as the vehicle for improving survival of our smallest and most vulnerable citizens when accidents or medical emergencies threatened their lives.

It remains no secret that children present unique anatomic, physiologic, emotional and developmental challenges to our primarily adult-oriented emergency medical system. As has been said many times before, children are not little adults. Evaluation and treatment must take into account their special needs, or we risk letting them fall through the gap between adult and pediatric care. The EMSC has bridged that gap while fostering collaborative relationships among emergency medical technicians, paramedics, nurses, emergency physicians, surgeons, and pediatricians.

The Institute of Medicine's recently released study on Emergency Care for

Children, indicated that our Nation is not as well prepared as once we thought. Only 6 percent of all emergency departments have the essential pediatric supplies and equipment necessary to manage pediatric emergencies. Many of the providers of emergency care have received fragmented and little training in the skills necessary to resuscitate this specialized population. Even our disaster preparedness plans have not fully addressed the unique needs posed by children injured in such events.

EMSC remains the only federal program dedicated to examining the best ways to deliver various forms of care to children in emergency settings. Re-authorization of EMSC will ensure that children's needs will be given the due attention they deserve and that coordination and expansion of services for victims of life-threatening illnesses and injuries will be available throughout the United States.

I look forward to re-authorization of this important legislation and the continued advances in our emergency healthcare delivery system.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services.

Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the Nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem.

It is a sad irony that federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on Federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care.

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

Mr. President, the legislation I have introduced will extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our teaching hospitals require similar support.

A New York Times article on June 21, 2002, described the financial problems which nonprofit hospitals are facing to modernize their facilities and meet the growing demand for charitable medical care. The problems have grown more urgent since that article appeared.

On November 22, 2006, the Wall Street Journal noted the rising numbers of uninsured patients who fill hospital emergency rooms without paying their bills. In 2005, 46.6 million Americans had no health insurance. Compounding the growing demand for charitable care, new safety and infection-prevention standards require hospitals to undertake massive improvements.

As a result, the article stated, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. These private hospitals, the reporter pointed out, typically have no mandate for community service. In contrast, nonprofit hospitals must fulfill a community service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain skilled staffing. Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times noted the resulting closures of nonprofit hospitals due to this financial strain.

The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. As the Times article said, nonprofit hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma is especially costly.

Despite their financial problem the nation's nonprofit hospitals strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 2006 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine had surveyed hospitals' qualify of care in four areas of treatment. It found that nonprofit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. It also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in treatment and diagnosis. It said that investment in technology and staffing leads to better care. And it recommended that alternative payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these improvements.

The success and financial constraints of nonprofit teaching hospitals is evident in the work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 146-year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit hospital in Hawaii. It serves as the primary clinical teaching facility for the University of Hawaii's medical residency programs in medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, and psychiatry. It conducts educational and training programs for nurses and allied health personnel. It operates the only trauma unit as well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs for Native Hawaiians, and a small hospital on a rural, economically depressed island. Its medical reference library is the largest in the State. Not the least, it annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income from its endowment.

In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.

If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. Nonprofit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs as universities, school, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule should be extended to teaching hospitals.

My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted than current law for schools, universities, and pension trusts. Under safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a support organization for a teaching hospital can not buy and develop land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the organization endowment. The staff's revenue estimate show that the provision with its general application will help a number a teaching hospitals.

The U.S. Senate several times has acted favorably on this proposal. The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836 the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the provision in H.R. 7 the CARE Act of 2002 and in S. 476 the CARE Act of 2003 which the Senate passed. In the last Congress S. 6 the Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.

As the Senate Finance Committee's recent hearings show, substantial health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is time for the Congress to assist the nation's teaching hospitals in their charitable, educational service.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their state practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the TRICARE Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act. This legislation would: 1. establish a new social work training program, 2. ensure that social work students are eligible for support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 3. provide social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of Excellence programs, 4. permit schools offering degrees in social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and 5. ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to people of this nation, few federal programs exist to provide opportunities for social work training in health and mental health care.

Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers possess continues to be available to the citizens of this nation. This bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I believe it is time to provide them with the recognition they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our Nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great Nation that we are today.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our nation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program.

First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized.

Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every State of the Nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. For over four decades I have been a committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing patterns

be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer complications.

A study published in the Journal of The American Medical Association found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing. While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there is no standardized public reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed practice (vocational) nurse, and other personnel to provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.

This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient registered nurse staffing. Given the demands that the healthcare industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the decisions by which care is provided are made by the clinical experts, the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill supports our nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect. The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, the elderly, and others.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost- effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social Work can provide in facilitating their work.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.

Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems.

The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the Nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues.

Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health professionals who have participated in these specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with the underserved.

While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to initiate effective treatment.

Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing these problems.

Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide a Federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding health care professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, social work, and veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 150 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care practitioners.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the Federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.

I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest.

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

Mr. President, Today I introduce the United States Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act. This legislation, twice passed by the Senate yet unsuccessful in the House, would formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute, USMCI, and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be in a better position to unite military research efforts with other cancer research centers.

Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.

The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, D.C., area, and its components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.

The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, intends to expand research activities to military medical centers across the nation. Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, including Asian, Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic subpopulations.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act of 2004. This legislation would authorize a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, of 100 percent for the payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

This bill was originally a provision within the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, which the Senate passed by an overwhelming majority of 76 to 21, but was dropped from the final Medicare Prescription Drug Conference Report.

This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, of 100 percent for payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.

Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured and medically underserved Native Hawaiians and other United States citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community health centers, with their multi-disciplinary approach, offer cost effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable populations.

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

Mr. President, last year we made significant improvements to the Nation's transportation security system by enacting the SAFE Port Act, which strengthened the security of our Nation's ports and maritime vessels. Yet, during the conference on this important bill, the Congress failed to seize the opportunity to enact comprehensive transportation security legislation that would have provided real homeland security for our entire transportation system. The Senate- passed version of the SAFE Port Act contained essential provisions that would have strengthened security in all of the surface modes of transportation, including passenger and freight rail, public transit, trucking, intercity bus and pipelines. But jurisdictional infighting and a lack of political will kept the leadership of the House of Representatives from agreeing to, or even attempting to consider, these provisions in conference.

Given the urgent need for surface transportation security improvements, Cochairman Stevens and I are introducing the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007, or STARS Act, to once again offer the Congress an opportunity to enact a comprehensive transportation security bill. We have all seen the possible consequences of an attack on critical surface transportation systems in Madrid and London. We have all heard about possible threats and foiled plots aimed at our rail tunnels and stations here at home. The time has come for us to address these vulnerabilities and risks in a comprehensive and coordinated way that ensures that in the rush to protect one mode of transportation we don't shift vulnerability towards other, less secure, transportation modes.

The STARS Act combines the rail, truck, bus, pipeline and hazardous materials security provisions that were included in the Senate-passed SAFE Port Act into a stand-alone bill, which the Commerce Committee will soon consider. These provisions were endorsed unanimously by the Senate during consideration of the SAFE Port Act, and the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to instruct its conferees to include these provisions in the Conference Report--advice the House leadership declined to accept. Additionally, the rail security portion of this package has already passed the Senate twice in prior Congresses and has been endorsed by railroads and rail labor alike. This kind of support demonstrates both the necessity of these improvements and the distinct possibility that we can finally enact these provisions into law this Congress.

The legislation that we introduce today reflects the Commerce Committee's substantial expertise over the issues of transportation security. The time has come to advance these improvements, and protect the vital surface transportation assets that grant us the quality of life and economic health that we all cherish. Our legislation presents an opportunity to make immediate progress on transportation security, and it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting consideration and passage of this measure as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, today the first bill I am introducing in the 110th Congress is the Kids Come First Act, legislation that would ensure every child in America has health care coverage. The Kids Come First Act was also the first bill I introduced in the 109th Congress and I feel just as strongly today as I did at the beginning of the last Congress that insuring all children must be a top agenda item. In the two years since I last introduced this bill, the problem of uninsured children in this nation has actually worsened.

The 110th Congress faces many challenges, from the war in Iraq to lobbying reform. But perhaps no issue bears more directly on the lives of more Americans than health care reform. Today 47 million Americans are uninsured, including 11 million under age 21. Health care has become a slow-motion Katrina that is ruining lives and bankrupting families all over the country. We cannot stand by as the ranks of the uninsured rise and American families find themselves in peril.

A recent Census Bureau report revealed that for the first time in almost a decade the number of uninsured children increased. In 2005 there were 361,000 children under the age of 18 added to the uninsured rolls. And the number of Americans without health care continues to rise.

The Kids Come First Act calls for a Federal-State partnership to mandate health coverage to every child in America. The proposal makes the states an offer they can't refuse. The federal government will pay for the most expensive part: enrolling all low-income children in Medicaid, automatically. The states will pay to expand coverage to higher income children. In the end, states across the country will save more than $6 billion a year, and every child will have health care.

It is totally unacceptable that, in the greatest country in the world, millions of children are not getting the health care they need. The Kids Come First Act expands coverage for children up to age of 21. Through expanding the programs that work, such as Medicaid and SCHIP, we can cover all eleven million children uninsured children.

Insuring children improves their health and helps families cover the spiraling costs of insuring them. Covering all kids will reduce avoidable hospitalizations by 22 percent and replace expensive critical care with inexpensive preventative care. Also, when children get the medical attention they need, they pay much better attention in the classroom and studies show their performance improves.

To pay for the expansion of health insurance for children, the Kids Come First Act includes a provision that provides the Secretary of Treasury with the authority to raise the highest income tax rate of 35 percent to a rate not higher than 39.6 percent in order to offset the costs. Prior to the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act Reconciliation Act of 2001, the top marginal rate was 39.6 percent. Less than one percent of taxpayers pay the top rate and for 2007, this rate only affects individual with income above $349,700.

The health care of our children is a priority that we must address and it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner. I will continue to work to find ways to offset the cost of my proposal. The wealthiest of all Americans do not need a tax cut when 11 million children do not even have health insurance. President Bush has called for this rate cut to be made permanent, but I believe it would be a better use of our resources to invest in our future by improving health care for children.

Since I first introduced the Kids Come First Act in the 109th Congress, more than 500,000 people have shown their support for the bill by becoming Citizen Cosponsors and another 20,000 Americans called into our ``Give Voices to Our Values'' hotline to share their personal stories. In addition, a coalition of 24 non-profit organizations representing 20 million people from across the country have endorsed Kids Come First, including the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, March of Dimes, the Small Business Service Bureau, AFL-CIO, SEIU, and AFSCME.

It is clear that providing health care coverage for our uninsured children is a priority for our nation's workers, businesses, and health care community. They know, as I do, that further delay only results in graver health problems for America's children. Their future, and ours, depends on us doing better. I urge my colleagues to support and help enacting the Kids Come First Act of 2007 during this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Kids Come First Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Export Products Not Jobs Act.'' Our tax code is extremely complicated. In 1994, the IRS estimated that a family that itemized their deductions and had some interest and capital gains would spend 11\1/2\ hours preparing their Federal income tax return. A decade later in 2004, this estimate increased to 19 hours and 45 minutes. It is time for Congress to pass bipartisan tax legislation in the style of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which greatly simplified the tax code. And our tax reform should be based upon the following three principles: fairness, simplicity, and opportunity for economic growth.

Citizens and businesses struggle to comply with rules governing taxation of business income, capital gains, income phase-outs, extenders, the myriad savings vehicles, recordkeeping for itemized deductions, the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the earned income tax credit (EITC), and taxation of foreign business income. I believe that our international tax system needs to be simplified and reformed to encourage businesses to remain in the United States. And today, I am introducing legislation that I hope will be fully considered as we continue our discussions on tax reform.

Presently, the complexities of our international tax system actually encourage U.S. corporations to invest overseas. Current tax laws allow companies to defer paying U.S. taxes on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries, which provides a substantial tax break for companies that move investment and jobs overseas. Today, under U.S. tax law, a company that is trying to decide where to locate production or services--either in the United States or in a foreign low-tax haven--is actually given a substantial tax incentive not only to move jobs overseas, but to reinvest profits permanently, as opposed to bringing the profits back to re-invest in the United States.

Recent press articles have revealed examples of companies taking advantage of this perverse incentive in our tax code. For instance, some companies have taken advantage of this initiative by opening subsidiaries to serve markets throughout Europe. Much of the profit earned by these subsidiaries will stay in the European countries and the companies therefore avoid paying U.S. taxes. Other companies have announced the expansion of jobs in India. This reflects a continued pattern among some U.S. multinational companies of shifting software development and call centers to India, and this trend is starting to expand include the shifting critical functions like design and research and development to India as well. Some companies are even outsourcing the preparation of U.S. tax returns.

The Export Products Not Jobs Act would put an to end to these practices by eliminating tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and by using the savings to create jobs in the United States by repealing the top corporate rate. This legislation ends tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs by: 1. eliminating the ability of companies to defer, paying U.S. taxes on foreign income; 2. closing abusive corporate tax loopholes; and 3. repealing the top corporate rate. It removes the incentive to shift jobs overseas by eliminating deferral so that companies pay taxes on their international income as they earn it, rather than being allowed to defer taxes.

Last Congress, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Revenue held a hearing on international tax laws. Stephen Shay, a former Reagan Treasury official, testified that our tax rules ``provide incentives to locate business activity outside the United States.'' Furthermore, he suggested that taxation of U.S. shareholders under an expansion of Subpart F would be a ``substantial improvement'' over our current system. The Export Products Not Jobs Act does just that.

Our current tax system punishes U.S. companies that choose to create and maintain jobs in the United States. These companies pay higher taxes and suffer a competitive disadvantage with a company that chooses to move jobs to a foreign tax haven. There is no reason why our tax code should provide an incentive that encourages investment and job creation overseas. Under my legislation, companies would be taxed the same whether they invest abroad or at home; they will be taxed on their foreign subsidiary profits just like they are taxed on their domestic profits.

This legislation reflects the most sweeping simplification of international taxes in over 40 years. Our economy has changed in the last 40 years and our tax laws need to be updated to keep pace. Our current global economy was not even envisioned when existing law was written.

My Export Products Not Jobs Act will in no way hinder our global competitiveness. Companies will be able to continue to defer income they earn when they locate production in a foreign country that serves that foreign country's markets. For example, if a U.S. company wants to open a hotel in Bermuda or a car factory in India to sell cars, foreign income can still be deferred. But if a company wants to open a call center in India to answer calls from outside India or relocate abroad to sell cars back to the United States or Canada, the company must pay taxes just like call centers and auto manufacturers located in the United States.

Currently, American companies allocate their revenue not in search of the highest return, but in search of lower taxes. Eliminating deferral will improve the efficiency of the economy by making taxes neutral so that they do not encourage companies to overinvest abroad solely for tax reasons.

The Congressional Research Service stated in a 2003 report that, ``[a]ccording to traditional economic theory, deferral thus reduces economic welfare by encouraging firms to undertake overseas investments that are less productive--before taxes are considered--than alternative investments in the United States.'' Additionally, a 2000 Department of Treasury study on deferral stated, ``[a]mong all of the options considered, ending deferral would also be likely to have the most positive long-term effect on economic efficiency and welfare because it would do the most to eliminate tax considerations from decisions regarding the location of investment.''

The ``Export Products Not Jobs Act'' would modify the rules for determining residency for publicly-traded companies by basing a corporation's residence on the location of its primary place of management and control. This will prevent companies from locating in tax havens, but basically maintaining their operations in the United States. This provision should not hinder foreign investment in the United States. Existing companies that are incorporated in foreign countries with a comprehensive tax treaty with the United States will not be affected by this provision.

Massachusetts is an example of a state that benefits from foreign investment. Two foreign companies have recently expanded investment in Massachusetts. Our tax system should not discourage foreign investment, but it should not encourage companies to locate in tax havens.

The revenue raised from the repeal of deferral and closing corporate loopholes would be used to repeal the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent. The tax differential between U.S. corporate rates and foreign corporate rates has grown over the last two decades and the repeal of the top corporate rate is a start in narrowing this gap.

The Export Products Not Jobs Act would promote equity among U.S. taxpayers by ensuring that corporations could not eliminate or substantially reduce taxation of foreign income by separately incorporating their foreign operations. This legislation will eliminate the tax incentives to encourage U.S. companies to invest abroad and reward those companies that have chosen to invest in the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and I ask unanimous consent that summary of the Export Products Not Jobs Act, as well as the text of the legislation, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007. This legislation creates a new tax credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American families.

An October 2006 College Board report found that this year tuition and other costs at public and private universities rose faster than inflation. And, according to the report, tuition and fees at public universities rose more in the past five years than at any other time in the past 30 years, increasing by 35 percent to $5,836 this academic year. Over the same time period, tuition and fees at private universities increased 22 percent to $22,218.

Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around the country, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not be able to pay for their children's college. These parents know that earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the greatest opportunities possible.

In 1997, we implemented two new tax credits to make college affordable--the HOPE Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. These tax credits were important and have put college in reach for families, but I believe we can do more. In December, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on tax incentives for higher education in which we learned that the existing tax credits are not reaching enough students, particularly lower-income students who are most severely impacted by rising tuitions.

The HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits are not refundable, and therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too low. In order to receive the full benefit of the Lifetime Learning credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This is nearly double the average annual public four-year college tuition and four times the average annual tuition of a community college. Over 80 percent of college students attend schools with tuition and fees under $10,000.

In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost of four years of college. Currently the HOPE Credit applies only to the first two years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007 (COTC) helps students and parents afford all four years of college. It also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the suggestions made by experts, including those at this

week's Finance Committee hearing. My legislation creates a new credit that replaces the existing HOPE credit and Lifetime Learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more generous.

The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half- time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit to the next $3,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $2,500 each year per student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next $3,000 of expenses.

Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit and the Lifetime Learning credit apply to the COTC; the COTC will be phased out ratably for taxpayers with income between $45,000 and $55,000 ($90,000 and $110,000 for married taxpayers). These amounts are indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses.

The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007 simplifies the existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax credit for college education a reality this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the record. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Minority

Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007. At the beginning of a new Congress it is important to set priorities for the nation because every new Congress brings with it the hope for a brighter future. One of the ways that this new Senate will lead is by creating opportunities for more Americans to pursue the American dream. As incoming Chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I hope to help in that effort by fostering the development of entrepreneurship in minority communities. It's vital that current and future entrepreneurs from minority communities are given the opportunity to build their own piece of the American dream. I believe that this legislation the Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007 will help in that effort.

I want to take a moment and tell you why it's so important to expand the numbers of entrepreneurs in the minority community. As a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have received firsthand testimony and countless reports documenting the positive economic impact that occurs when we foster entrepreneurship in under-served communities. There are signs of significant economic returns when minority businesses are created and are able to grow in size and capacity. Between 1987 and 1997, revenue from minority owned firms rose by 22.5 percent, an increase equivalent to an annual growth rate of 10 percent. Employment opportunities within minority owned firms increased by 23 percent during that same period. There is a clear correlation between the growth of minority owned firms and the economic viability of the minority community.

Although these economic numbers tell a significant part of the story they don't tell the whole story of what these firms mean to the minority communities they serve and represent. Many of these business leaders are first generation immigrants; many are first generation business owners and many represent, for those in their communities, what hard work, determination and patience can do.

We must encourage those kinds of values in our minority communities and, quite frankly, in our nation as a whole. For generations, millions have come to our shores in search of a better life. Millions of others were brought here by force and for years were not given a voice in how their lives would turn out. But, how ever we got here, we all have become branches of this great tree we call America. This tree is still nourished by roots planted by our forefathers more than 200 years ago. Those men and women planted the roots of hard work, innovation, faith and risk taking.

When you think about it, those words are the perfect description of an entrepreneur. It is the spirit of entrepreneurship that has made our nation great. And that is why it is absolutely imperative that we continue to support and develop that spirit in our minority communities. To that end, this legislation provides several tools to help minority entrepreneurs as they develop and grow their businesses.

First, this legislation will create an Office of Minority Small Business Development at the Small Business Administration. One of its primary functions will be to increase the number of small business loans that minority businesses receive. Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and women have been receiving far fewer small business loans than they reasonably should.

To ensure that this trend is reversed and minorities begin to get a greater share of loan dollars, venture capital investments, counseling, and contracting opportunities, this bill will give the new office the authority to monitor the outcomes for SBA's Capital Access, Entrepreneurial Development, and Government Contracting programs. It also requires the head of the Office to work with SBA's partners, trade associations and business groups to identify more effective ways to market to minority business owners, and to work with the head of SBA's Field Operations to ensure that district offices have staff and resources to market to minorities.

Second, this legislation will create the Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program. This program will offer a competitive grant to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions to create an entrepreneurship curriculum at these institutions and to open Small Business Development Centers on those campus' to serve local businesses.

The goal of this program is to target students in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option. Traditionally, minority-owned businesses are disproportionately represented in the service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to undergraduate students will help expand business ownership beyond the service sectors to higher yielding technical and financial sectors.

Third, this legislation will create the Minority Access to Information Distance Learning Pilot Program. This program will offer competitive grants to well established national minority non-profit and business organizations to create distance learning programs for small business owners who are interested in doing business with the federal government.

The goal of this program is to provide low cost training to the many small business owners who cannot afford to pay a consultant thousands of dollars for advice or training on how to prepare themselves to contract with the Federal Government. There are thousands of small businesses in this country that are excellent and efficient. They are primed to provide the goods and services that this nation needs to stay competitive. This program will help prepare them to do just that.

Finally, this legislation will extend the Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business Program which expired in 2003. This program provides a price evaluation adjustment for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses as a way of increasing their competitiveness when bidding against larger firms. This is one more tool to increase opportunities for our minority small business owners.

I have outlined several ways that we can create a more positive environment for our minority small business community. These are reasonable steps that we ought to take without delay. Moreover, these are important steps that will help bolster a movement that is already underway. According to U.S. Census data, Hispanics are opening businesses 3 times faster than the national average. Also, business development and entrepreneurship have played a significant role in the expansion of the black middle class in this country for over a century. These business owners are embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that our forefathers carried with them as they established this nation.

With this legislation and in my role as incoming Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I hope to play a part in helping to extend that spirit to the next generation of entrepreneurs. Not only is this vital for our minority communities, but it is vital for America. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the Minority Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit Act which would provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit to help with the cost of providing employees with health insurance. Recent studies show that certain groups of individuals are less likely to have employer-provided health insurance. The 2006 Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey shows that since 2000 the number of firms offering health benefits has declined from 69 percent to 61 percent in 2006. This decline in coverage is more prevalent in small businesses. Only 48 percent of the firms with less than 10 employees offer health insurance whereas, 90 percent of the firms with 50 or more employees offer health benefits. Approximately 32 million Americans work for firms with fewer than 50 employees.

The April 2006 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey concluded that 41 percent of working-age Americans with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 were uninsured for at least part of the past year. This reflects a dramatic increase in this income range, up from 28 percent in 2001. The survey found that of the 48 million American adults who were uninsured in the past year, 67 percent were in families where at least one person worked full time.

My legislation provides a refundable tax credit to small businesses designed to help provide coverage to those who are currently uninsured. Small businesses with less than 50 employees would be eligible to receive a tax credit to help with the cost of health care premiums for employees making more than $5,000 and less than $50,000 a year. To be eligible for the credit, the employer has to pay at least 50 percent of the health care insurance premium. The credit for businesses with fewer than 10 employees will be capped at 50 percent of the cost of the premium, and the credit amount decreases for larger businesses.

Last year, Leonard Burman, Codirector of the Tax Policy Center, testified before the Senate Finance Committee and suggested a refundable tax credit as an incremental option to help defray higher administrative costs faced by small employers in purchasing health care. This credit will help small businesses afford health care premiums. It is a refundable credit, so that it will help new businesses that do not yet have taxable income be able to offer health care and provide struggling businesses with assistance so that they can offer health care.

This tax credit will cut the cost of health insurance by up to 50 percent for small business owners. It will enable small businesses to provide health insurance for their low- and moderate-income employees. Until we can agree on a comprehensive proposal that will help reduce the cost of health care premiums for small businesses, this legislation provides an appropriate option for increasing health insurance coverage for small businesses and their employees.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which addresses the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) for 2007. Last Congress, a choice was made to extend lower capital gains and dividends rates that do not expire until the end of 2008 rather than address the AMT for 2007. My preference was to address the AMT for 2007 and I believe we still must take action to prevent taxpayers never intended to pay the AMT from being penalized this year.

I opposed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 because it contained the wrong priorities for America leaving behind working families and substantially adding to the deficit. This law extended the lower rates on capital gains and dividends for 2009 and 2010, but only addressed the individual AMT for 2006.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, those earning $200,000 or more will receive 84 percent of the benefit of the capital gains tax cut and 63 percent of the benefit of the dividends tax cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 42.8 percent of taxpayers with income between $50,000 and $100,000 will be impacted by the AMT if the AMT is not fixed for 2007 a number that increases to 66 percent by 2010. The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation of Act of 2005 extends a tax cut that does not expire to the end of 2008 with a price tag of $50 billion, but fails to protect the hard working families that will be impacted by the AMT. These families were never intended to be impacted by the AMT, a tax originally designed to prevent a small number of high-income taxpayers from avoiding taxation.

Today, I am introducing legislation that will address the AMT for 2007 and repeal the lower tax rates on capital dividends for 2009 and 2010. To calculate the AMT, individuals add back certain ``preference items'' to their regular tax liability. These include personal exemptions, the standard deduction, and the itemized deduction for state and local taxes. From this amount, taxpayers subtract the AMT exemption amount, commonly referred to as the ``patch'' which reverted to lower levels at the end of 2005. The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 increased and extended the patch for 2006. The patch was increased in order to hold the same number of taxpayers harmless from the AMT in 2006 as in 2005.

The problem with the AMT is that while the regular tax system is indexed for inflation, the AMT exemption amounts and tax brackets remain constant. This has the perverse consequence of punishing taxpayers for the mere fact their incomes rose due to inflation.

In 2001 Congress opted to provide more tax cuts to those with incomes of over $1 million rather than fix a looming tax problem for the middle class. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 did include a small adjustment to the AMT, but it was not enough. And we knew then that the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT would continue to rise steadily because the combination of tax cuts and a minor adjustment to the AMT would cause the AMT to explode. We are rapidly approaching this explosion and without immediate action America's middle class will be harmed.

My legislation extends and expands the AMT exemption amount for 2007 to prevent additional taxpayers from being impacted by the AMT. Without increasing and extending the AMT exemption for 2007, an additional 19.5 million taxpayers will be impacted by the AMT in 2007. Large families, with incomes as low as $49,438, will be hurt by the AMT. My legislation will allow nonrefundable personal credits such as the higher education tax credits and the dependent care credit against the AMT for 2007. This legislation is offset by repealing the lower rates on capital gains and dividends.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the extension of the capital gains and dividends benefits is necessary to provide investor certainty. But I believe that the certainty of working families worried about paying the AMT should come first.

About a third of long-term capital gains are reported by taxpayers who are impacted by the AMT and due to the interaction of the AMT, they do not fully benefit from the lower rates. Simply put, taxpayers forced to carry the AMT burden will not benefit from the lower capital gains and dividends rate.

The AMT is a looming problem that is impacting hard-working families and for each year that we fail to address the AMT, it gets worse and more expensive. At a minimum we must address the AMT for 2007. My legislation is not a long-term cure to the AMT crisis, but it will provide certainty for 2007 to hard working families who will be impacted by the AMT just because of where they live and the number of children they have, and it will addresses the AMT in a revenue neutral manner for 2007 as well.

We all agree that the AMT should not be impacting families with incomes below $100,000. My bill fixes the AMT for 2007 in a timely and fiscally responsible manner and gives Congress time to work in a bipartisan manner to find a fiscally responsible permanent solution to the AMT.

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

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Restore a Rational Tax Rate on Petroleum Act of 2007. This legislation repeals the manufacturing deduction for big oil and gas companies that was enacted by Congress in 2004. I introduced this legislation in the 109th Congress and Congressman McDermott introduced companion legislation in the House.

The domestic manufacturing deduction was designed to replace export- related tax benefits that were successfully challenged by the European Union. Producers of oil and gas did not benefit from this tax break. Initial legislation proposed to address the repeal of the export- related tax benefits and to replace them with a new domestic manufacturing deduction. That legislation only provided the deduction to industries that benefited from the export-related tax benefits. However, the final product extended the deduction to include the oil and gas industry as well.

My bill repeals the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas companies because these industries suffered no detriment from the repeal of export-related tax benefits. At a time when oil companies are reporting mind-boggling record profits, there is no reason to reward them with a tax deduction.

Like me, many Members of Congress support a windfall profits tax on big oil and gas companies. Providing this deduction to oil and gas companies actually functions as a reverse windfall profits tax. This deduction lowers the tax rates on the windfall profits that they are currently enjoying. And without Congressional action this benefit will increase: upon enactment, the domestic manufacturing deduction was three percent, but it increased to six percent in 2007 and it is scheduled to increase to nine percent in 2010.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We owe it to the American people to eliminate tax benefits to the oil industry at a time of record profits, record gas prices, and record deficits.

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

Mr. President, 16 months after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, small business owners in New Orleans and across Louisiana are still struggling to keep their doors open and their employees working. In those 16 months, I have worked with Senators Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter to produce a comprehensive package to reform the SBA's Disaster Assistance program. The SBA's failed response in a time of unmatched need demonstrated to everyone that this program is broken and needs fixing.

Immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit, I introduced an amendment with Senator Landrieu to the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill to address the needs of Gulf Region small business and homeowners. The amendment was adapted with input from Chair Snowe, and a subsequent bipartisan amendment passed the Senate with a vote of 96-0. Although the entire Senate supported the amendment, it was stripped out of the bill in conference.

On September 30, 2005, I again worked with Chair Snowe and Senators Landrieu and Vitter to introduce a bipartisan proposal, the Small Business Hurricane Relief and Reconstruction Act of 2006 S. 1807. This proposal was opposed by the administration. In June, I introduced the Small Business Disaster Loan Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, S. 3487 which once again attempted to comprehensively address the shortcomings of the SBA's Disaster Assistance program. Again, the administration opposed this effort. In August, the Small Business Committee unanimously reported S. 3778, the Small Business Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2006, which again put forward a bipartisan, comprehensive fix for this program. Finally, in December, just prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress, yet another attempt was made at reaching a bipartisan consensus with the introduction of S. 4097, the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2006. The administration maintained its opposition to the fixes proposed in this bill.

Now, on the first day of this new Congress, I am introducing the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007. Once again, this bill enjoys bipartisan support by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Small Business Committee, as well as by the Democratic and Republican Senators of Louisiana, whose constituents continue to wait for their Government to respond appropriately. I am introducing this bill on the first day of the 110th Congress because as the incoming chair of the Small Business Committee, improving the Disaster Assistance program at the SBA is among my top priorities.

This bill includes directives for the SBA to create a private disaster loan program, to allow for lenders to issue disaster loans. To ensure that these loans are borrower-friendly, we provide authorization for appropriations so that the agency can subsidize the interest rates. In addition, the administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with private contractors in order to expedite loan application processing for direct disaster loans.

The bill also includes language directing SBA to create an expedited disaster assistance loan program to provide businesses with short-term loans so that they may keep their doors open until they receive alternative forms of assistance. The days immediately following a disaster are crucial for business owners--statistics show that once they close their doors, they likely will not open them again. These short-term loans should help prevent those doors from closing.

A presidential declaration of Catastrophic National Disaster will allow the administrator to offer economic injury disaster loans to adversely affected business owners beyond the geographic reach of the disaster area. In the event of a large-scale disaster, businesses located far from the physical reach of the disaster can be affected by the magnitude of a localized destruction. We saw this when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 affected businesses from coast to coast, and we saw it again with the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Should another catastrophic disaster strike, the President should have the authority to provide businesses across the country with access to the same low-interest economic injury loans available to businesses within the declared disaster area.

Non-profit entities working to provide services to victims should be rewarded and given access to the capital they require to continue their services. To this end, the administrator is authorized to make disaster loans to non-profit entities, including religious organizations.

Construction and rebuilding contracts being awarded are likely to be larger than the current $2 million threshold currently applied to the SBA Surety Bond Program, which helps small construction firms gain access to contracts. This bill increases the guarantee against loss for small business contracts up to $5 million and allows the administrator to increase that level to $10 million, if deemed necessary.

The bill also provides for Small Business Development Centers to offer business counseling in disaster areas, and to travel beyond traditional geographic boundaries to provide services during declared disasters. To encourage Small Business Development Centers located in disaster areas to keep their doors open, the maximum grant amount of $100,000 is waived.

So that Congress may remain better aware of the status of the administration's disaster loan program, this bill directs the administration to report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives regularly on the fiscal status of the disaster loan program as well as the need for supplemental funding. The adiministration is also directed to report on the number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses, minority-owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and local businesses during a disaster declaration.

Finally, gas prices continue to fluctuate, and fuel-dependent small businesses are struggling with the cost of energy. This bill provides relief to small business owners during times of above average energy price increases, authorizing energy disaster loans through the Small Business Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture to companies that are dependent on fuel.

In the 16 months since Katrina struck, I have visited New Orleans three times. I have met with the lifeblood of that city--its small business owners--the shopowners on Bourbon Street and on Magazine Street who make that city unique. The people of New Orleans are resilient, and they remain hopeful; they are keeping their

businesses open despite tourism that has been slow to return and despite a government response that was painfully slow to arrive. Sixteen months is too long a time to wait to reform and improve a program that could have breathed relief into this city's economy during a time of desperation. As this new Congress begins, I call on my colleagues to support this legislation, a bipartisan labor of more than a year's worth of negotiations. The tools offered within this bill will go a long way toward heading off another Katrina-like response to any future catastrophic disaster.

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

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I had the distinct pleasure of visiting Carrollton, AL, in Pickens County, where they have a museum to maintain the history of a large German prisoner of war camp in the United States. The Senator mentioned that certain legal rights were accorded 50 or so prisoners. But those were prisoners tried in Nuremberg after the war--after the war--for war crimes.

Now, is the Senator aware of any instance in either the German camps or other prisoners who may have been held in the United States during wartime being provided habeas rights?

Madam President, I wish to thank Senator Kyl for his hard work on these important issues. He is a superb lawyer who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, and he has been a member of the Intelligence Committee. He understands these issues and, thanklessly, he devotes hours of his time to try to research and study Supreme Court cases to try to make sure we do the right thing here.

The most important thing for us to remember is this, and Senator Kyl just said it, that the refrain we are hearing about restoring habeas rights to prisoners of war, even unlawful combatant detainees, is not so. We have not done that, and it is a matter that is quite clear.

The origin of the great writ--the writ of habeas corpus--can be traced back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century. It is truly a great writ. It is truly a powerful tool for any person who is being detained to demand that someone, somewhere come forward and tell the world why they are being detained. That is what totalitarian and Communist governments do all the time. These kinds of dictators and Communists and Nazis go out and grab people and put them in jail and never charge them, never announce where they are, even. So that is not what we want to do here. However, never in the history of the writ's existence has an English or American court granted habeas to enemy combatants held during a time of war. As early as 1793, the American courts--1793-- recognized that foreign prisoners held by the military during armed conflict have no inherent right to judicial review of their detention. They have no inherent right to that. You do have an inherent right by writ of habeas corpus if you qualify and meet the criteria.

So that year, in 1793, a district court in Pennsylvania said:

Courts will not grant a habeas corpus in the case of a

prisoner of war because such a decision on this question is

in another place being a part of the rights of sovereignty.

In other words, national power.

The Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed that position in 1950 in a case called Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, the Supreme Court made expressly clear that U.S. constitutional protections do not apply to aliens who are detained outside the borders. It was the first case to deal with a habeas petition of enemy combatants detained outside the borders of the United States since the statute was originally enacted as part or the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is now codified as 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.

In that case, German nationals living in China during World War II, having never lived in the United States, were accused of violating the laws of war. They were tried by a U.S. military tribunal in China, convicted, and sent to Landsberg Prison in Germany, then an occupied sector of Germany, to serve their sentences. Some of the convicts, including Eisentrager, questioned the legality of their trials and filed for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, right here in DC, stating that the military's actions violated their rights as guaranteed by several portions of the U.S. Constitution, including article III of the fifth amendment. In denying habeas to these German nationals, the court expressly rejected the argument that enemy combatants detained overseas have a constitutional right to petition U.S. courts for habeas relief, noting that:

Nothing in the text of our constitution extends such a

right.

It rejected the view that the U.S. Constitution applies to enemy war prisoners held abroad. The court claimed:

No decision of this court supports such a view. None of the

learned commentators on our Constitution has ever hinted at

it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it.

Where do we keep coming up with this idea that habeas is applicable to prisoners of war? I am baffled. The Court explained emphatically that such a constitutional entitlement would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy.

Habeas proceedings would diminish the prestige of our

commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals.

It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of

a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is

ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his

own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from

the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

That is a pretty clear statement. How could it be otherwise? Congress authorizes a state of hostilities. We fund it. The President, as the Commander in Chief, the military commanders execute it, and now we have it in our heads somehow that the persons

our commanders are charged with reducing to submission have a right to sue us.

The Court further held--this is in 1950--that the fifth amendment is inapplicable to aliens abroad and, in reasoning fully applicable to the suspension clause, explained ``extraterritorial application of organic law'' to aliens would be inconceivable.

Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson, who was referred to by Senator Dodd and Senator Kyl--a great Justice on the Court--stated:

The Constitution does not confer a right of personal

security or an immunity from military trial and punishment

upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a

government at war with the United States.

That is pretty plain language, wouldn't you say? I think that is the plain language of the Constitution. It does not give them immunity from military trial.

Even if, as opponents mistakenly argue, this amendment restores a statutory right to habeas, the Supreme Court has also held that Congress may freely repeal habeas jurisdiction if it affords an adequate and effective substitute or remedy. Essentially, if legislation strips habeas, according to the Supreme Court, the substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a person's detention, does not constitute a suspension of the right of habeas corpus. In other words, if they provide some fair procedure for even prisoners of war that we decide is consistent with our military efforts and consistent with our sense of fairness, that does not confer and give a guaranteed right to a habeas corpus review.

The Military Commission Act of 2006 was drafted with these important Supreme Court precedents in mind. After careful negotiation among our Members and careful analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Congress went above and beyond what was required by the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions to ensure detainees, even terrorists, at Guantanamo Bay, had an adequate and effective substitute method to test the legality of their detention.

So we did that. We did not fail to respond. We did that. The MCA provides alien enemy combatants far more legal process than has ever been afforded by any country in the history of armed conflict.

I am not aware of a single country in the history of armed conflict that has provided more rights than our procedures that we have established under the Military Act that we passed and the President signed into law last October.

The Combatant Status Review Tribunal for detainees is more robust than those to which lawful combatants, honorable soldiers in organized militaries of a foreign nation, are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions.

Let me repeat that and drive home the importance of that concept. The Geneva Conventions were decided upon by a group of nations that came together and thought that during the course of military conflicts, too many things happened that are not justified and are not necessary and are damaging to people in ways that could not be justified. We wrote the conventions, the nations did, to try to ameliorate some of the problems in warfare. We said that if you have a lawful combatant, as part of the Geneva Conventions, a person who has signed up for his or her country, fighting for the country, who wears a uniform, who carries his weapons openly and does not act in a surreptitious manner, does not act in a terroristic manner but fight battles according to the laws of war--if captured, must be treated and afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

That is a good standard of review and protection. Congress passed a law to provide for the people at Guantanamo, who are not lawful combatants but are unlawful enemy combatants and who have not historically been considered to have been covered by the Geneva Convention. We afforded them privileges that are not required even under the Geneva Conventions on how you handle detainees.

Let's talk about our present conflict, the war on terrorism. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has made this point. If you think about it, it is worthy of our consideration. John Ashcroft is a great believer in American liberty, the rights of liberty, a key characteristic of the American people. But he points out we ought not to think about restraints that occur as some sort of a balancing test between liberty and control and domination. He says, when you engage in an action that is designed to protect us, the test should be not a balancing test, but the test should be: Does it improve liberty? In other words, if you go to the airport and have to go through one of those checking stations as I did today, the question is: Do you feel more free to fly, having had that inspection occur? Is your liberty to travel, is your liberty to fly safely and securely in an aircraft in America, enhanced because you take a couple of minutes to go through that line? Or not?

If it is, then that is a protection of liberty. We are indeed in a different world than we used to be, when threats fundamentally came from foreign nations. Now, even a few people with dedicated, malicious intent, with modern weapons of mass destruction and death can have tremendous impact on us. So what we are trying to do is execute lawful actions that improve our liberty, not deny liberty but to enhance liberty for all peace-loving and law-abiding American citizens.

I want to talk about Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. As part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress conferred on the Federal courts jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus. Though the language has gone through minor changes since 1789, current law, now codified at 28 U.S.C. section 2241, is essentially the same grant of habeas corpus as originally enacted. The statutory language has never referred specifically to enemy combatants because such a grant was understood not to apply to those individuals detained during a time of war. Congress understood that detention of enemy combatants during time of war is strictly a military decision, since we do not allow enemy combatants to continue their war against us through the judiciary, through litigation.

Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that habeas corpus does not extend to alien enemy combatants detained outside the United States, some argue that Justice O'Connor's plurality decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld changed this precedent. In that decision, Justice O'Connor said:

All agree that, absent suspension, habeas corpus remains

available to every individual within the United States.

Proponents of this amendment that we are debating cite this statement by Justice O'Connor as proof that habeas relief is available to all those detained within the United States, regardless of whether they are an alien enemy combatant. Let me note that during World War II, there were 425,000 enemy combatants held within the United States, none of who were allowed relief through habeas petitions. Furthermore, reliance on that statement by Justice O'Connor is wrong, since the question in Hamdi was whether the executive had the authority to detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant and whether that citizen detainee had habeas rights. Focusing on that narrow issue, the plurality referred specifically to the rights, in their opinion, the plurality opinion, of citizens, eight times in the opinion; and in the holding of the case-- and the holding of the case is limited to the circumstances of the cases itself--Hamdi was, after all, a U.S. citizen.

Regardless, some advocates maintain that Justice O'Connor's otherwise inconsequential statement, too tenuous to constitute dicta, reversed years of settled precedent and for the first time granted habeas rights to illegal enemy combatants detained overseas. That proposition flies in the face of the commonsense interpretive rule that one does not hide elephants in mouseholes. Had the Hamdi Court intended to extend habeas rights to all individuals in the United States, not just citizens, including suspected foreign terrorists detained outside U.S. territory, it most assuredly would have articulated such a consequential ruling with more clarity. But Hamdi did not present that question and the Court did not resolve it. Moreover, as the Court aptly noted, quoting Eisentrager:

Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have

been so significant an innovation in the practice of

government that, if intended or apprehended, it could

scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment.

Accordingly, had such a consequential holding been made in Eisentrager, it would have been met with prolific commentary from the legal community, from other Justices. It would have been an event, but that event did not occur--because it had no such meaning, of course, as evidenced by the lack of contemporary discussion. No decision subsequent to Eisentrager has reversed its holding that alien enemy combatants have no right to habeas protections guaranteed to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, its holding remains governing law. Moreover, the issue now, if it ever could have been considered ambiguous, has been definitively resolved by the same judge who earlier granted Salim Ahmed Hamdan's habeas petition. Judge James Robertson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an opinion on December 13 in which he relied, in large part, on Eisentrager to justify his ruling that enemy alien combatants have no constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Judge Robertson, appointed to the bench by President Clinton, dismissed Hamdan's petition for habeas relief on the grounds that the MCA effectively denied his court's jurisdiction to hear the case; recognizing that Congress had removed Hamdan's statutory right to petition the D.C. Circuit Court for habeas relief.

Judge Robertson also held:

Hamdan's connection to the United States lacked the

geographical and volitional predicates necessary to claim a

Constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Well, then, the Rasul case came along. Proponents of this amendment argue that they seek only to restore the right to habeas corpus as found by the Supreme Court in the 2004 case of Rasul v. Bush. Rasul took great pains to emphasize that its extension of habeas to Guantanamo Bay was based not on the Constitution, which clearly is a historic right we talked about on habeas, but it was based on some statute passed by Congress.

Some Justices may have wanted to make Rasul a constitutional holding, but there clearly was no majority for such a position. Supreme Court cases such as Eisentrager are still the governing law on the constitutional reach of habeas and the Congress's ability to limit its statutory application.

These precedents hold that aliens who are either held abroad or held here but who have no substantial connection to this country are not entitled to invoke the U.S. Constitution.

Rasul was an unprecedented decision which effectively and truthfully seemed to fly in the face of all previous Supreme Court and English case law. Several Justices in this case engaged in what I would submit to my colleagues is activism.

The Court extended the reach of the Federal habeas statute to Guantanamo Bay detainees. To my knowledge, this decision was the first time in recorded history that any court of any nation at war held that those whom its military had determined to be enemies had a right of access to its domestic courts and could sue the Commander in Chief to challenge their detention.

The Court based its analysis on the phrase, ``within their respective jurisdictions,'' as used in the Federal habeas statute and various decisions construing that particular provision.

Moreover, the Court expressly distinguished between the statutory and suspension clause holdings of Eisentrager and limited its analysis to only the statutory grant of habeas. The Court determined that the measure of the Guantanamo lease agreement between the United States and Cuba allows for the jurisdiction of habeas claims since the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction over the land on which the naval base is situated, although it does not have ``ultimate authority.''

Furthermore, the majority, I think and others think, mischaracterized the congressional statute as meaning that the writ of habeas corpus could be issued if ``the custodian can be reached by service of process'' and not the detainee.

As Justice Scalia accurately pointed out in his dissent, the majority:

springs a trap on the executive, subjecting Guantanamo Bay to

the oversight of the Federal courts even though it has never

before been thought to be within their jurisdictions and thus

making it a foolish place to have housed alien wartime

detainees.''

Furthermore, the decision opens a veritable Pandora's Box since it ``permits an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to bring a section 2241 petition against the Secretary of Defense.''

This case was a clear-cut example of, I believe, Supreme Court overreach. They seemed determined to do something about this. They wanted to do something about it. Apparently, they did not like it. So in straining to grant U.S. courts jurisdiction over terrorists held outside the United States, the Supreme Court determined, for the first time in history, that a simple lease agreement brought Guantanamo Bay within the jurisdiction of the court.

Read broadly, the majority opinion could be used to bring U.S. military bases and detention facilities across the world within the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. Fortunately, in that opinion, Justice Kennedy did limit the application of the holding to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Congress, however, addressed the issue because, remember, this was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of a statute Congress passed and which Congress changed, not on the Constitution ratified by the American people.

So less than a year ago, Congress addressed the issue when it passed the Military Commissions Act, which precluded detainees from challenging their detention through habeas petitions.

Now, if the Court relied on the statute as we wrote it before, we can change that statute, and we did. In doing so, Congress adhered to Supreme Court precedent and created an effective and adequate substitute in the form of a Combatant Status Review Tribunals and allowing detainees an opportunity to challenge the determinations made by the tribunals, even in the district court in the District of Columbia.

So it set up a Combatant Status Review Tribunal so they can bring and make their argument, and if they do not like the military's determination on that, they can get to a Federal court. That is not habeas, but it is a pretty good procedure, more than ever has been given before to prisoners of war. So it seems we finally worked this thing out.

On February 20 of this year, the DC Circuit Court dismissed all pending habeas cases from the Guantanamo Bay detainees for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, on April 2 of this year, the Supreme Court denied a certiorari petition from the petitioners in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, refusing to review their claims that the Military Commissions Act--that last year we passed--does not deprive courts of jurisdiction to hear their habeas corpus claims and that it would be unconstitutional to do so, for Congress to pass it. They rejected that.

The Court did not find it was unconstitutional, what Congress passed, and, in fact, found that Congress did what Congress intended to do, creating a substitute appellate process so prisoners could have a review of their detention but not give them the full panoply of habeas corpus rights provided to American citizens.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed itself on June 29 of this year and agreed to review both the Boumediene and Al Odah cases. This review could very well address the constitutionality of the habeas bars in the Military Commissions Act, and, much like this amendment, further undermine the executive's constitutional authority to detain enemy combatants in a time of war.

I hope the Supreme Court will not do that, but they have agreed to hear that case and give it one more final review. Certainly, as of this date, the case authority is clear, that the Constitution does not provide habeas protection to noncitizen enemy combatants on foreign territory not part of the United States.

I say that because people have come in on several points along the way and accused President Bush or the Attorney General or others of taking improper positions.

In most instances, the courts have ruled in favor of the executive in these cases, on a few cases they found those procedures not to be statutory or pass muster. But what I will say to you is, in these cases, in almost each instance

they have reversed previous law. So the executive branch and our military was operating under what they had every right to consider to be the settled law of the land.

So the Court comes in and changes that law. I do not believe our military should be condemned or criticized for taking action they felt, and had every right to believe, was legitimate when they took it.

Now, it is important to remember that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are the most dangerous people who we have captured on the battlefield pursuant to executive war-making power. They have been determined to be ``alien enemy combatants'' and the courts have absolutely no role to play, in my view, in trying to second-guess the wartime decisions made by the executive branch, especially where Congress has given their stamp of approval to the process. It is not the Supreme Court's role to micromanage this war by making decisions that fall outside the scope of congressional authority.

The decisions made by the Supreme Court have long-lasting effect and are not easily undone. If we are unhappy with present foreign policy, Congress can cut off funds for the war or people can vote the President out of office. I would note President Bush was reelected on a promise to continue to pursue with vigor the war against terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and are supposed to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, not to legislate from the bench or to set foreign policy. This setting of foreign policy and conducting military operations are powers squarely within the purview of the executive branch not nine individuals with lifetime appointments sitting on a Court with black robes.

It is not within the court's jurisdiction to decide on war-making decisions but simply the constitutional power. It is important to note the Justices lack the knowledge, in many cases, to address the matter, or have any experience to make these decisions. Have any of them ever served on the frontlines during war, or if they have, have they ever served in a war on terrorism or been a JAG officer or been a company commander, someone who captured enemy prisoners?

A Court's opinion or personal views about this are not a matter that is impressive to me. We expect them to rule and to find Congress's statutes--we expect them to enforce the Constitution. But just to flip- flop around and try to decide that they do not like the way something is done at Guantanamo, and to issue an opinion, would be troubling to me. Hopefully, we will not get to that.

It has to be clear, as I have shown, that if we apprehend enemy combatants in the theater of war, it is within the executive branch's power to detain them until the hostilities are over. This is a separation of powers issue, and the courts should recognize that. Congress has already addressed what should be done with those detained at Guantanamo Bay. Last October, we granted those detainees unprecedented rights that have never before been provided to prisoners detained during war.

Under the current system that we have provided them, detainees have essentially five layers of protection when challenging detention or determinations made by the Government. All of this is already covered by current law. It was never the intent of Congress, however, to endow the statutory guarantee of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants held during a time of war.

So if we proceed with the amendment that is before us, we are not restoring the right of habeas corpus; we are effectively overturning 800 years of legal authority and precedent in this area. To quote the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I submit that 800 years of American and English court history certainly constitutes ``super duper'' precedent.

Allowing terrorists to challenge their detention through habeas petitions filed in the DC Circuit courts would undermine military decisions made by the Executive and essentially put wartime decisions regarding the detention of those apprehended while engaged in hostilities toward this country in the hands of judges who are not qualified to make the decisions. They are not empowered to make the decisions. This is exactly why the Founders vested the Executive with this type of decisionmaking authority--decisiveness and ability to act quickly--and to undermine this power would be to trample on the Constitution we are sworn to defend.

Voting in favor of this amendment would be undermining the Executive authority in times of war by making it virtually impossible for the military to detain dangerous terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida and with the Taliban during the war on terror and allowing Federal judges to force the release of detainees whom the military have determined to be extremely dangerous. It is just that simple.

I am disappointed the Senate is proceeding forward with this amendment. I do not believe it is the right thing. It would result in an unprecedented grant of constitutional protection to those suspected of being terrorists.

This further indicates to me that our Congress is not in full comprehension of the seriousness of the war we are engaged in and the determination of those who are determined to kill us. It shows this body is, frankly, often unable to execute a military operation. We cannot get 535 people to execute a military operation and decide who ought to be detained and who ought not to.

The military could go out and conduct a raid, and a firefight could break out, and eight people be killed and eight people captured. Thirty seconds before, they could have killed all 16. Now, if we detain them, we have to bring soldiers from the war field, present evidence of some kind, gather evidence to try to justify the detention. We all know quite a large number of those who have been released from Guantanamo have reappeared and been captured again on the battlefield trying to kill us. That is a fact. We are not making that up.

I wish these people in Guantanamo were the kind of people who would not go back to the battle. I wish they were all wrongly held so we could let them go home. But what if their determination is to continue to attack American soldiers, and it is your son out there, your daughter out there on the battlefield, and somebody says in the U.S. Congress, ``We don't think you have enough evidence to hold them''? What do we know about what happened?

We have given that power to the executive branch to conduct the war. That is who is supposed to be making those decisions. That is who is required to preserve and protect the security of the American people. I do not think that makes sense. It is not a little matter. It will set a precedent for future times. We are eroding the ability of the leadership of this country to execute and carry out a military operation, which by its very nature involves death and destruction of an enemy.

So I have to say to my colleagues, we need to think this issue through. This may be a political deal now that we can use to beat up President Bush, but let me say to my colleagues, you had your victory in the last election, if not in 2004. We will have a new President soon. We need to get away from this personal and political perspective. We need to be thinking about the long-term history of the United States. We need to be thinking about other wars we may be involved in in the future. We need to be asking ourselves: Are we creating a circumstance in which a devious, skillful, malicious enemy can utilize our very laws to destroy us, place at risk our own soldiers, place at risk American citizens, place at risk our people serving in military bases around the world?

Let's be careful about that. We have provided them, by statute last year, a procedure to contest their detention. Large numbers of those who have been detained have already been released, and quite a number of those have been recaptured on the battlefield attempting to destroy America and what we stand for, attacking our own sons and daughters.

I urge my colleagues to be careful. To say we need to restore the right of habeas corpus is not correct. We have never provided habeas corpus to enemies of the United States, for heaven's sake. I share again the overall concept that we are in a difficult new world. The Constitution provides for reasonable searches and seizures and such things as that.

Our country is threatened, and our people's liberties are threatened. Liberty is important. Freedom is important. We in Congress do not need to be curtailing significantly liberty in America. We certainly do not need to be eroding constitutional protections that are provided to American citizens. We are not doing that. The Supreme Court has never held the Constitution provides protection in this fashion to enemy combatants. So we are not eroding the Constitution.

What we have come up with is a realistic process that will, in the end, provide more liberty, more freedom to American citizens than if we were subjected to a system by which we are releasing terrorists again and again who are out to kill and destroy us. That is all I would say on the fundamental question of liberty and freedom and law.

Let's get our thinking straight. Let's look at this issue carefully. Let's be sure we know that no country has ever provided such protections to enemy combatants. The fact that 50 out of 400,000 German prisoners who were tried after the war in Nuremberg had certain legal provisions and rights provided them in no way whatsoever should be construed to say we provided habeas rights to other prisoners during the course of a war. They were not provided to the 400,000 German prisoners held in the United States, that is for sure.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I understand some effort is being made to pursue the amendment offered by Senator Specter, which is very troubling to me because if it were to pass, it would reverse the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that we passed last September on final passage, 65 to 34. Passage of this amendment would result in a veto of the Defense authorization bill by the President of the United States.

The first amendment we have up that is being pushed to a vote against the pleas of people on this side would result in a veto of the Defense authorization bill. The second amendment may well raise the same issue, I understand. Not only that, we have very controversial amendments that are being made filed to this bill and that have been offered for a vote on this bill which are very controversial and are not related to the defense of America--for example, the hate crimes amendment. People have differing views on that. They have offered an amendment on hate crimes on this bill. There is also the amendment on the DREAM Act, which is an immigration amendment that would provide citizenship to people who come here in our education system at a certain age, and even though they are illegally in the country, they would be provided in-state tuition and student loans subsidized by the Federal Government. That is a very controversial matter too. So that is all going to be put on this piece of legislation, apparently.

It raises questions in my mind whether there is any serious desire on the part of the Democratic leadership to see the Defense authorization bill passed. The bill came out of the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, and it didn't have the reversal of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the grant of habeas corpus to illegal enemy combatants, noncitizens on foreign soil. It didn't have that or hate crimes or the DREAM Act.

I just say to my colleagues that we need to do the right thing for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardsmen who are serving our Nation now. They are in the field this very moment. They are out walking the streets somewhere in Iraq--160,000 of them--executing this very complex and very important and, so far, effective counterinsurgency strategy that was devised by General Petraeus. They are living with Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi police and doing the things they were asked to do. This bill has a pay raise for them and wounded warrior language that provides additional care for those who are wounded while serving our country. We owe them every single benefit we have to give them. We have military construction to make sure we are able to carry through on the BRAC process. It has acquisition reform. We need to do a better job with the money we spend in acquiring new weapons systems and aircraft and ships and all the things that go with it.

I just say to my colleagues, let's remember now that everything is not required to be placed on this bill. If we pass this amendment to provide habeas corpus protection to illegal enemy combatants, not citizens, not on American soil, not required by the Constitution of the United States, according to decided case authority of Federal courts, that is going to result in a Presidential veto even if it passes. Hopefully, we won't pass that. Why do we want to do that? We need to be spending our time thinking about how we can help those whom we have sent into harm's way to execute a policy that has been decided upon by the Congress of the United States. That is what we need to be doing-- not creating more and more lawsuits, not engaging in more and more political flapdoodle and emotional arguments about restoring habeas corpus, when we have never provided habeas to prisoners of war in the history of the Republic, nor has any other advanced nation provided those kinds of rights.

I urge my colleagues to push back from this brink. Let's don't take action that could result in the failure of a defense authorization bill. It would be the first time we have failed to pass a defense authorization bill since 1961, 46 years ago. Let's don't break that record while we have soldiers in harm's way serving our national interests, attempting to execute the policies and assignments we have given to them. Let's don't do that. Let's don't pass a bill that is going to come back like a ball off of the wall because it will be vetoed by the President. What good is that? Why are we obsessed with this? It wasn't passed in the Armed Services Committee, and it doesn't need to be pushed now.

I urge my colleagues to become fully aware of the dangerous territory which we are entering. We are entering a circumstance in which, if we continue to pursue issues unrelated to the core responsibilities of the Congress to deal with the war we are confronting, we will have failed in our responsibilities and actually fail to pass this important legislation.

In addition, we need to finish up with the Defense bill and go on to the Defense appropriations bill. The fiscal year ends September 30. We need to pass the Defense authorization bill so that we can get to the Defense appropriations bill by next week. That needs to move. We do not need to still be arguing over the DREAM Act, arguing over hate crimes, arguing over providing habeas corpus rights to illegal enemy combatants held somewhere around the world by the American military, a privilege that has never been provided by any nation to people it captures on the battlefield. That is not the right way for us to go. This Congress, if it is a responsible Congress, should move forward this week on the authorization bill and do the appropriations bill next week.

What are the core issues? We have some core issues we ought to debate about the defense of America and our military. Let's stay on those issues, not on extraneous issues.

There is no doubt that we have heard the report of GEN Jimmy Jones's commission, the Government Accountability Office report the week before last, and then last week we heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. We need to have time to discuss seriously--and this side has certainly agreed to that and it is contemplated that we will have a generous time to discuss our commitment in Iraq, what it is, what our goals are, how we can achieve those goals, what the troop levels should be, how they are going to be drawn down, are they being drawn down fast enough, and what other issues are relevant. Those are legitimate issues on which we should spend time.

I am very concerned these other issues will be distracting us from those issues, that we will be utilizing time that ought to be on the core issues of

defense of this country, and I hope those leaders, particularly our Democratic leadership, are not going to put us in a position where we will not meet our responsibilities.

For the past 46 years, we have passed a Defense authorization bill. At the rate we are headed, even if we pass it, it is going to be vetoed because of amendments wholly unrelated to the Defense of this country. We need to pass a Defense appropriations bill, and we need to get on that quickly because the fiscal year is ending. For my colleagues' information, we are going to have to do something to continue to fund defense because if we do not pass a Defense authorization bill, the fact is that no money can be spent in the whole Department of Defense unless we are being attacked. It is very troubling, and it could have tremendous disruptive impacts throughout the entirety of our defense establishment.

Under the Antideficiency Act, if Congress does not appropriate money, the executive branch cannot spend it. It cannot spend what has not been appropriated. That is the Constitution, and that is what the Antideficiency Act says. The budget and last year's appropriations end September 30. We need to pass a new bill so we can go forward into next year.

We have a pretty good bill that came out of committee. There will be some disagreement here, there, and on a few other matters. We will bring those up, and good people will disagree. I certainly understand that point. We need to be working on those issues, not being distracted on matters unrelated to the core of defending America in this time of terrorism.

I share those thoughts and hopefully our colleagues in the leadership can continue to work and some way we can avoid the end toward which it appears we are heading.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Snowe, Biden, and Lieberman in introducing the Rail Security Act of 2007. This legislation is nearly identical to the rail security measures approved by the Senate during both the 108th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has yet to act

on rail security legislation. I remain hopeful that rail security will be made a top priority for the 110th Congress.

We have taken important steps and expended considerable resources to secure the homeland since 9/11. I think all would agree that air travel is safer than it was five years ago. And, we have worked to address port security in a comprehensive manner. However, we need to do more to better secure other transportation modes, a fact well documented by the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, only relatively modest resources have been dedicated to rail security in recent years. As a result, our Nation's transit system, Amtrak, and the freight railroads remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

The Rail Security Act would authorize a total of almost $1.2 billion dollars for rail security. More than half of this funding would be authorized to complete tunnel safety and security improvements at New York's Penn Station, which is used by over 500,000 transit, commuter, and intercity passengers each workday. The legislation would also establish a grant program to encourage security enhancements by the freight railroads, Amtrak, shippers of hazardous materials, and local governments with responsibility for passenger stations. It would help to address identified security weaknesses in a manner that also seeks to protect the taxpayers' interests.

As we continue fight the War on Terror, we need to do all we can to address our vulnerabilities. We have witnessed the tragic attacks on rail systems in other countries, including the cities of London, Mumbai and Madrid, and the devastating consequences of those attacks. It is essential that we move expeditiously to protect all the modes of transportation from potential attack, and this legislation will help to do just that.

As I mentioned earlier, the Senate has consistently supported legislation to promote rail security. Most recently, rail security provisions were adopted last Fall as part of the port security legislation. But again, the House failed to allow these important security provisions to move ahead, and the provisions were stripped from the conference agreement. As a result, our rail network continues to remain vulnerable to terrorist attack. That is unacceptable in my judgement.

I urge the Senate to move quickly to again pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2007. This legislation is virtually identical to a measure approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005. I remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on this important legislation. Simply put, this legislation would better protect professional boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers.

For almost a decade, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of professional boxing and for very good reason. With rare exception, professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. But further action is needed.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) spent more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest State and tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal and State officials.

Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.

Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national self-regulating organization though preferable to Federal government oversight is not a realistic option.

This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission, USBC or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, integrity, and professionalism of professional boxing in the United States.

The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.

Mr. President, it is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of Federal boxing law.

Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides an effective approach to curbing these problems. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Indian Tribes Methamphetamine Reduction Grants Act of 2007. This bill is identical to S. 4113, a bipartisan measure that was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on December 8, 2006, the last day of the 109th Congress. The legislation would allow Indian tribes to be eligible for funding through the Department of Justice to eradicate the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale and manufacture in Native American communities. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Baucus, Grassley, Reid, Feinstein, and Feingold in introducing this important legislation.

The impacts of methamphetamine use on communities across the Nation are well known and cannot be overstated. Methamphetamine is the leading drug-related law enforcement problem in the country. Unfortunately, the meth crisis is affecting Indian Country most severely. Very serious concerns have been raised by the U.S. Department of Justice, States, and other non-tribal law enforcement agencies over the rapidly growing levels of methamphetamine production and trafficking on reservations with large geographic areas or tribes adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border. But because of the sovereign status of the tribes, criminals are generally not subject to state jurisdiction in many cases. As a result, local law enforcement often has no jurisdiction in Indian country, and tribal law enforcement agencies bear the brunt of most law enforcement functions.

The problem of meth in Indian country, which the National Congress of American Indians identified last year as its top priority, is ubiquitous, and has strained already overburdened law enforcement, health, social welfare, housing, and child protective and placement services on Indian reservations. Last year a former tribal judge on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and other drugs. The day before, the Navajo Nation police arrested an 81 year old grandmother, her daughter, and her granddaughter, for selling meth. One tribe in Arizona had over 60 babies born with meth in their systems. In 2005, the National Indian Housing Council expanded its training for dealing with meth in tribal housing: the average cost of decontaminating a single residence that has been used a meth lab is $10,000.

During the 109th Congress, as the Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I held hearings on this serious matter. Committee witnesses testified that the methamphetamine epidemic in Indian country has contributed to a rise in child abuse and neglect cases, among other social ills, and some tribes reported dramatic increases in suicide rates among young people linked to methamphetamine use. Following our hearings, I was pleased to work with Senators Dorgan, Sessions, Bingaman and others in improving upon our legislation to assist Indian Country in fighting this terrible drug crisis.

To avoid any potential misinterpretation of the intent of this legislation, this bill includes language developed and agreed to during the last Congress that is designed to clarify the intent of the bill. This clarifying language, provided in section 2(a)(4) of the bill, is intended to make it clear that by authorizing the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance to award grant funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe to ``investigate, arrest and prosecute individuals'' involved in illegal methamphetamine activities, the legislation does not somehow authorize a grantee state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise has no jurisdiction to pursue. And similarly, this provision also clarifies that an award or denial of a grant by the Bureau of Justice Assistance does not somehow allow a state, territory or Indian tribe to pursue law enforcement activities that it otherwise lacks jurisdiction to pursue. For example, a law enforcement agency in one state, territory or Indian reservation is not somehow enabled by this section, or by an award made pursuant to this section, to prosecute a methamphetamine crime arising in some other jurisdiction unless that agency already has such jurisdiction.

The legislation further clarifies that authority under the bill to award grants would have no effect beyond simply authorizing, awarding or denying a grant of funds to a state, territory or Indian tribe. So, for example, if a state, territory or Indian tribe is awarded or denied a grant of funds under this section, that award or denial has no relevance to or effect on the eligibility of the state, territory or Indian tribe to participate in any other program or activity unrelated to the award or denial of grants as permitted under this legislation. The award or denial of a grant under this subsection, in other words, is relevant only to the award or denial of the grant under this subsection, and nothing else.

The measure I am introducing today takes but a small step on the long journey toward our fight against methamphetamine. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am please to be joined by my colleague, Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a Wild and Scenic River. A companion measure is being introduced today by Congressman Renzi and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation.

Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.

Fossil Creek was named in the 1800's when early explorers described the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 1900's, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service (APS), one of the state's largest eclectic utility providers serving more than a million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to its pre-settlement conditions.

APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable opportunity to reintroduce at least six Threatened and Endangered native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently living in the creek.

There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found

eligible for Wild and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the Forest Service and will not affect private property owners.

Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic designation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Wyden and Sununu in introducing the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007. This bill would ensure that consumers never have to pay a toll when they access the Information Highway. Whether consumers log onto the Internet using cable modem, DSL, dial-up or wireless services, under this bill, they will not be taxed by any State or local governments for their Internet usage.

Keeping Internet access affordable to all Americans is a worthy policy goal. The Internet has become a fixture and core component of modem American life that has created and continues to generate social and economic opportunities throughout the United States.

In 1998, Congress put in place a temporary ban on any State or local taxes on Internet access. Additionally, Congress placed a moratorium on multiple or discriminatory State and local taxes on e-commerce transactions to ensure the growth of online commerce. This moratorium was extended in 2004, but is set to expire November 1, 2007. Our legislation, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007, would make the moratorium permanent.

Today, the U.S. ranks 12th in the world in per capita Internet access, lagging behind competitors South Korea, the United Kingdom and Canada. This is absolutely unacceptable for a country that leads the world in technical innovation, economic development, and international competitiveness. We certainly cannot afford to make Internet access more difficult to obtain if we want to become more internationally competitive.

There is little doubt that the development and growth of the Internet was aided by the tax moratorium. In 1998, the year the moratorium was first enacted, 36 percent of U.S. adults reported using the Internet. In 2006, that number grew to 73 percent, an all time high according to an April 2006 Pew Internet & American Life Project Report. However, the report also found that Americans in the lowest income households are considerably less likely to be online. Just 55 percent of adults living in households with less than $30,000 annual income go online, versus 73 percent of those whose income is between $30,000-$50,000. This ``digital divide'' needs to be closed immediately. Continuing Congress's policy of reducing the cost of Internet access, by preventing the service from being taxed, is one step we can take now to close the ``digital divide.''

As use of the Internet has grown, so has e-commerce. According to the most recent comScore Networks report, Americans spent over $100 billion on Internet purchases during 2006, a major milestone for retailers and the World Wide Web. This legislation would ensure that online transactions are not taxed by cities or States at a rate higher than other sales transactions. Again, the goal of this legislation is to make the Internet affordable to all

Americans and foster the growth of the Internet.

With respect to the question of whether it is wise to make Internet access tax free, Congress has a long history of giving tax incentives to commercial activities that we believe help our society. The Internet is a technology that is a source of and vehicle for significant economic benefits. The proponents of this legislation strongly believe the Internet clearly merits the tax incentives provided by this bill.

I recognize that there are some who wish to continue to make the Internet tax moratorium temporary. Their premise is that the Internet will continue to evolve and thus Internet access may develop into a service the States and localities would wish to tax. I believe that this moratorium should be permanent to continue encouraging those very Internet-related innovations. By making the moratorium permanent, businesses that invest in and provide Internet access will be able to operate in a predictable tax environment. This will result in continued investment in this very important social, political and economic medium.

Congress now has the opportunity to extend permanently the Internet tax moratorium and assure consumers that taxes will not inhibit the offering of affordable Internet access. By supporting this legislation, we can continue to promote Internet usage by Americans as well as encourage innovation relating to this technology. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this pro-consumer, pro-innovation, and pro-technology bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator DeMint

in introducing the Cell Phone Tax Moratorium Act of 2007. This bill would put a stop to new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services for a period of 3 years.

The average general sales tax in the U.S. today is around six percent, but the average State and local taxes and fees on cell phone service comes in at about 17 percent. Consumers are left paying a hefty portion of their monthly cell phone bill to the Government for what many believe is their most important communications device.

The National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors' Association have issued policy positions calling for states to eliminate excessive and discriminatory taxes on communications services. State and local governments have been working with the telecommunications industry to find a solution to these excessive taxes, but no agreement has been reached. During the three year moratorium, it is my hope that State and local governments--in cooperation with industry--will work to eliminate discriminatory taxes and fees on wireless services.

Excessive taxes dampen innovation, and are regressive, hitting the most vulnerable customers the hardest. Although more then 72 percent of all Americans own a cell phone, 26 percent said they could not live without it because it is their only communications source, according to a recent Pew Internet and Life Project report. Cell phone only owners are often those who find it difficult to afford a wired and a wireless phone. Additionally, according to the same report, 74 percent of the Americans say they have used their cell phone in an emergency and gained valuable assistance.

Some State and local governments cannot move beyond the idea that wireless services are some kind of luxury item that can be taxed at a higher rate. These services may have been a luxury item many years ago, but due to deregulation wireless services are more affordable than ever and even necessary for personal or business reasons. This is why it is perplexing that some states burden cell phone subscribers with taxes and fees that can be as high as 24 percent of a consumer's total bill.

Tax rates as high as this are generally associated with cigarettes and alcohol and known as ``sin taxes'' designed to reduce consumption. I cannot imagine it is the intention of states and localities to reduce consumption of wireless services.

Mindful of the revenue requirements of States and localities, this bill does not eliminate existing discriminatory taxes. Nor does the bill prohibit states and localities from imposing new taxes on wireless services that are not discriminatory. The bill simply puts a stop to the creation of new discriminatory taxes on cell phone services.

Last year I introduced similar legislative language during a mark-up in the Senate Commerce Committee. The amendment passed with a vote 21- 1. I am hopeful that this bill will once again be supported by the Commerce Committee and that it will be approved by the full Senate. I ask my colleagues to join me in ending the discriminatory sales taxes on this very popular communications service.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feingold, Collins, and Lieberman in introducing a bill to provide greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government, and to ensure greater accountability among public officials.

The legislation proposes a number of important and necessary reforms. It would provide for faster reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and their employers under current law. It would require greater disclosure of lobbyists' contributions and payments to lawmakers and entities associated with them, as well as fundraising and other events they host. the bill also would require greater disclosure from both lobbyists, and Members and employees of Congress, of travel that is arranged or financed by a lobbyist or his client.

To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and the private sector, the bill would strengthen the lobbying restrictions on former senior members of the Executive Branch, former Members of Congress, and former senior congressional staff. It would require that Members publicly disclose negotiations they are having with prospective private employers to ensure there is no conflict of interests. The bill also would modify the provision in current law that exempts former Federal employees who go to work for Indian tribes as outside lobbyists and agents from the revolving door laws.

The bill would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers and their staff. To ensure that such a ban is not circumvented, the bill also would require Members of Congress and their staff to pay the fair market value for travel on private planes and the fair market value of sports and entertainment tickets. Members and staff would also have to post the details of their privately-sponsored work trips on-line for public inspection.

The bill would establish an independent, non-partisan Office of Public Integrity. Armed with a number of investigative tools, the Office of Public Integrity would investigate alleged misconduct by Members and their staff and make appropriate recommendations to the Senate Ethics Committee for final disposition.

Finally, the bill would help us combat wasteful, porkbarrel spending. It would amend Congressional rules to allow lawmakers to challenge unauthorized appropriations, earmarks, and policy riders in appropriations bills.

Mr. President, when I introduced similar legislation over a year ago, I regretted that such reform was even necessary. And, I voted against the bill that was ultimately passed in the Senate because it lacked a number of elements essential to true reform.

Unfortunately, the need for such reform has only become more acute. The American people's faith and confidence in this venerable institution has steadily eroded. The day after the mid-term elections, CNN reported that, according to national exit polls, voters were concerned about corruption and ethics in Government more than any other issue. I can tell you the polls, if not spot on, are not far off.

During my travels around the country last year, it quickly became clear that there is a deep perception that we legislators do not act on the priorities of the American people, that special interests, and not the people's interests, guide our legislative hand. This loss in confidence is not limited to a single party or ideology; rather, it cuts across the spectrum. It is a perception bred by recent Congressional failures and scandals, which I need not chronicle here.

We can begin to restore faith in this institution by divesting ourselves of some of the perks and privileges that have somehow crept into public service. Take, for example, free meals and sports and entertainment tickets. The American people have rightfully come to see the abuse of such perks as a corrupting influence. In a string of guilty pleas last year, several lobbyists, former congressional aides, and a congressman admitted that such gifts were used as bribes. Quite frankly, there is no good reason why Members of Congress and their staff cannot forgo such gifts from lobbyists. No one would seriously contend that they are necessary for us to conduct the people's business. A total gift ban would go a long way towards restoring the public's confidence in us.

Another critical aspect requiring reform is the ability of a Member to travel on a corporate jet and only pay the rate of a first class plane ticket. This bill requires Senators and their employees who use corporate or charter aircraft to pay the fair market value for that travel. While I appreciate that such a change is not popular with some of my colleagues, the time has come to fundamentally change the way we do things in this town. Much of the public views our ability to travel on corporate jets, often accompanied by lobbyists, while only reimbursing the first-class rate, as a huge loophole in the current gift rules. And they are right--it is. I have no doubt that the average American would love to fly around the country on very comfortable corporate-owned aircraft and only be charged the cost of a first-class ticket. It is a pretty good deal we have got going here. We need to face the fact that the time has come to end this Congressional perk.

At a time when the public is questioning our integrity, the Senate needs to more aggressively enforce its own rules. We can do this not just by making more public the work that the Senate Ethics Committee currently undertakes, but by addressing the conflict that is inherent in any body that regulates itself. That is why I am again proposing the creation of a new Office of Public Integrity with the capacity to initiate and conduct investigations, uncolored by partisan concerns and unconstrained by collegial relationships.

Finally, Mr. President, if we are truly serious about reform, we need to address what some have coined the currency of corruption--earmarks. In 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks. In 2005, there were 15,877--an increase of nearly 400 percent! But there was a little good news for 2006 solely due to the good sense that occurred unexpectedly when the Labor HHS appropriations bill was approved with almost no earmarks, an amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks the prior year for just that bill. Yet despite this first reduction in 12 years, it does not change the fact that the largest number of earmarks have still occurred in the last three years--2004, 2005, and 2006.

Now, let us consider the level of funding associated with those earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in FY 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks decreased! Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years. This explosion in earmarks led one lobbyist to deride the appropriations committees as favor factories. The time for us to fix this broken process is long overdue.

Mr. President, this past election, the American people sent a clear message: clean up the way business is done in our capitol. As faithful public servants, we are obligated to respond. Let us respond meaningfully, to assure the American people that we are here promoting the interests of main street over that of K Street, and that we are more interested in public service than the perks and privileges offered us. Let us also remind ourselves that we came here in the sincere belief that public service is a noble calling, a reward unto itself.

I therefore urge my colleagues in joining me on this bill. I think our Nation and this venerable institution will be all the better for it.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Warner. Let me read a portion of a letter from the Department of Justice first, and I will include it for the Record at the conclusion of its reading. This letter is addressed to Chairman Pat Leahy of the Judiciary Committee. It begins by saying--it is dated June 6 of this year.

This letter presents the views of the Department of Justice

on S. 185, the ``Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007,'' as

introduced in the U.S. Senate. If enacted, S. 185 would

remove the habeas corpus restrictions included in the

``Military Commissions Act of 2006.''

After a full and open debate, a bipartisan majority of Congress passed the MCA just last fall. The MCA's restrictions on habeas corpus codified important and constitutional limits on captured enemies' access to our courts. The DC Circuit upheld MCA's habeas restrictions in--the name of the case is Boumediene v. Bush--I will omit the citation--decided in 2007.

The provision of S. 185 that seeks to remove these

important limits ignores their history and their role in

protecting our Nation's security. As the Supreme Court

recognized in Johnson v. Eisentrager, a 1950 case, the

extension of habeas corpus to alien combatants captured

abroad ``would hamper the war effort and bring aid and

comfort to the enemy,'' and the Constitution requires no such

thing. The United States already provides alien enemy

combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with an

unprecedented degree of process, which includes judicial

review of decisions regarding their detention before the

Federal appeals court in Washington, DC. Repealing the MCA's

limitations on habeas would simply burden our courts with

duplicative and unnecessary litigation. For this reason, and

because repeal of the MCA's habeas provisions would delay and

disrupt the vital work of bringing enemy combatants to

justice, the President's senior advisors would recommend that

he veto S. 185 if the bill is presented to him for signature.

There is more of the letter, but I will submit it for the Record at this point.

I note that the amendment offered by Senator Leahy is virtually the same, if not the same, as the bill introduced. I am presuming that the President's senior advisers would, as a result, also recommend a veto of the bill if it included this provision.

Now, the Defense authorization bill is extraordinarily important to our troops. To add a totally extraneous provision amending a different bill to the Defense authorization bill, especially one which carries the suggestion of a Presidential veto, would be the height of irresponsibility on the part of the Senate. The substantive arguments of the Department of Justice with respect to habeas are correct, and the Senate should not, therefore, seek to amend another statute in the Defense authorization bill, thus inviting a veto of the bill.

Related to the habeas corpus provision is the amendment that is now pending offered by Senator Graham of

South Carolina. That amendment would strike a provision of the Defense authorization bill--section 1023--that also relates to the subject of treatment of detainees. Unfortunately, the way the committee bill was written, the bill that is before us right now, if we retain that language and we don't strike it, as the Graham amendment would do, we would essentially be returning to a law enforcement approach to terrorists that, frankly, failed us before 9/11 and obviously does not work in the post-9/11 context. We can't deal with all of the enemy combatants as criminal defendants. These people who are picked up on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be dealt with in the same way as criminal defendants in our court system. Senator Graham's amendment would strike these harmful provisions of the bill.

I wish to begin by reminding my colleagues of the evil nature of these terrorists and then go through the three particular parts of this provision that require removal.

First, a requirement that al-Qaida terrorists held in Iraq and Afghanistan be given lawyers--I mean, just imagine that; second, the authorization to demand discovery and compel testimony from servicemembers; and third, the requirement that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees be provided access to classified evidence. To state these three provisions of the bill is to recognize immediately why it is so harmful that they be included in this bill and why they need to be stricken, but focus for just a moment on the people we are talking about held at Guantanamo Bay and picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At least 30 of the detainees released already from Guantanamo Bay have since returned to waging war against the United States and our allies. Of course, the provisions of section 21 are all designed to effectuate the release of some of these prisoners--some of these detainees. So 30 have already been released because we no longer deemed them to be a threat to the United States or our forces, but after their release, 12 of the released detainees have been killed in battle by U.S. forces or--well, by U.S. forces; others have been captured. In other words, we released them, they went right back to the battlefield, 12 of them have been killed in battle, others have been recaptured, 2 released detainees became regional commanders for Taliban forces, and 1 attacked U.S. and allies' soldiers in Afghanistan, killing 3 Afghan soldiers.

One released detainee killed an Afghan judge. One released detainee led a terrorist attack on a hotel in Pakistan and a kidnapping raid that resulted in the death of a Chinese civilian, and this former detainee recently told Pakistani journalists that he planned to ``fight America and its allies until the very end.''

Even under the procedures today, which give due process to these detainees and allow them to be released if we can no longer demonstrate they are a threat to U.S. forces--even under these provisions, at least 30 of the detainees have gone right back to the battlefield and are attacking us and our forces.

The provisions of section 1023 would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the United States to detain committed terrorists such as this, people who have been captured while waging war against us. No nation in the history of armed conflict has imposed the kinds of limits this bill would impose on its ability to detain enemy war prisoners. War prisoners released in the middle of an ongoing conflict, such as members of al-Qaida, will return to waging war. That is the whole point of prisoners of war. In the war you capture people and hold them so they cannot return to the battlefield to kill your troops. We have already seen this happen 30 times with the detainees released from Guantanamo, as I said.

If section 1023 were to be enacted, we could expect more civilians and Afghans and Iraqis will be killed, and it may be inevitable that even our own soldiers will be killed by such released terrorists. This is a price our Nation should not be forced to bear.

I mentioned three specific general problems with section 1023. The first has to do with a requirement of the bill that al-Qaida terrorists who are held in Iraq and Afghanistan must be provided with lawyers. I cannot imagine that the details of this were known to the members of the committee when they put it into the bill. This could never be executed. It would require the release of the detainees; either they get lawyers or they have to be released. And here is why. The Defense bill requires that counsel be provided and trials be conducted for all unlawful enemy combatants held by the United States, including, for example, al-Qaida members captured and detained in Iraq and Afghanistan, if they are held for 2 years. We hold approximately 800 prisoners in Afghanistan and tens of thousands in Iraq. None are lawful combatants; all would arguably be entitled to a lawyer and a trial under this bill. This procedure would at least require a military judge, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney, as well as other legal professionals.

This scheme is totally unrealistic. The entire Army JAG Corps only consists of about 1,500 officers, and each is busy with their current duties. Moreover, under the bill, each detainee would be permitted to retain private or volunteer counsel. Our agreements with the Iraqi Government bar the United States from transferring Iraqi detainees out of Iraq. As a result, the bill would require the United States to train, transport, house, and protect potentially thousands, or tens of thousands, of private lawyers in the middle of a war zone during ongoing hostilities. That is impossible.

Think about this in the context of other conflicts, not just in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the context of World War II, anybody hearing this would think it is nuts. But the bill before us literally requires us to provide attorneys to these captured detainees in Iraq--tens of thousands of them. This proposal would likely force the United States to release thousands of these enemy combatants in Iraq, as I said, because there is no way you could provide all of the lawyers to them. Obviously, that would further jeopardize our military. By requiring a trial for each detainee, this provision would also require U.S. soldiers to offer statements to criminal investigators, needing later to prove their case after they captured someone. In other words, unlike today, when you are on the battlefield and you capture somebody and you hold them because they are a threat, but you are not putting them on trial, now you are going to put them on trial and you have to have the kind of evidence that would stand up in court. You have watched the TV shows with the clever defense lawyers. You know about, ``I object, Your Honor; that is not relevant,'' or ``that is hearsay.'' On the battlefield, who walks around with lawyers making sure Miranda rights are read and evidence is collected and statements are taken that will hold up in court when they are later tried? And they would need to carry evidence kits and cameras, means of identifying the person later on. Two years after you capture someone, the defense lawyer could say: Is that the person you captured? And if he says, ``Well, those guys all kind of looked alike to me when they were shooting at me, so I cannot be sure,'' well, the case will get thrown out of court. Or was there a chain of custody of the evidence? You would have to do that with the evidence taken on the battlefield or it would be thrown out in court. They would need to spend hours after each trial writing after-action reports, which would need to be reviewed by commanders. Valuable time, in other words, would be taken from combat operations and soldiers' rest whenever they capture somebody on the battlefield.

A horrible precedent would be set for the future. Aside from the war in Iraq, this provision would make fighting a major war in the future simply impossible. In World War II, we detained over 2 million enemy prisoners of war. It would have been impossible for the United States to have conducted a trial and provided counsel to 2 million captured enemy combatants. The bottom line, with respect to this provision, section 1023, the requirement of counsel for these detainees held in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that it would be impossible to implement. It is patently absurd and, as a result, it should be stricken.

The second point is authorizing al-Qaida detainees to demand discovery and compel testimony from American soldiers. I alluded to that a second ago. The underlying bill would actually authorize unlawful enemy combatants, including al-Qaida detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, to demand discovery

and compel testimony from witnesses, just as we do in our criminal courts in the United States. These witnesses would all be the U.S. soldiers who captured the prisoner. Under the bill, an American soldier could literally be recalled from his unit at the whim of an al-Qaida terrorist in order to be cross-examined by him, or his lawyer, or a judge.

Newspaper columnist Stuart Taylor describes the questions such a right would raise:

Should a Marine sergeant be pulled out of combat in

Afghanistan to testify at a detention hearing about when,

where, how, and why he had captured the detainee? What if the

northern alliance or some other ally made the capture? Should

the military be ordered to deliver high-level al-Qaida

prisoners to be cross-examined by other detainees and their

lawyers?

It goes on and on. The questions abound. As the Supreme Court itself observed in Johnson v. Eisenstrager, which is the law on this subject:

It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering

of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is

ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his

own civil court and divert his efforts and attention from the

military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

This is the U.S. Supreme Court talking not long after World War II, when a question similar to this arose, and a Justice of the Supreme Court says it ``would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him into account in his own civil court and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.''

It would be difficult to conceive of a process that would be more insulting to our soldiers.

In addition, many al-Qaida members captured in Afghanistan were captured by special operators whose identities are kept secret for obvious reasons. This would force them to reveal themselves to al-Qaida members and expose themselves, or simply forgo the prosecution of the individual, which is obviously more likely to happen. You simply could not do all of this, so you would have to forgo the prosecution and release the prisoner.

Clearly, Americans should not be subject to subpoena by al-Qaida. Think about that. That brings me to the last point--the requirement that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees be provided with access to classified evidence. You would have to give the enemy your classified evidence, the sources and methods of your intelligence operations, in order to prosecute them, which is what would be required by the bill.

Here is the exact language. The bill requires that detainees be provided with ``a sufficiently specific substitute of classified evidence'' and that detainees' private lawyers be given access to all relevant classified evidence.

When this bill was brought up in the Senate, some Members questioned whether this bill requires us to share classified information with al- Qaida detainees and their lawyers. I will direct this to specific pages and lines of the bill to show what it does.

On page 305, lines 16 through 21, the bill expressly provides that ``the detainee'' must be provided--I am quoting now--access to a ``sufficiently specific'' summary of ``the classified evidence that is submitted against the detainee.'' This language appears to mirror the Classified Information Procedures Act rules that apply to the use of classified information in Federal courts. Like CIPA, these procedures give a detainee a right to the substance of classified evidence. The Government might be able to redact some names or other information, but only if it still gives the detainee the substance of the evidence. And if the United States is not willing to compromise the evidence in this way, it cannot use the evidence.

Similarly, at page 305, line 5, the bill expressly requires that under its provisions, ``counsel for the detainee is provided access to the relevant classified evidence.'' I don't know how you can be any more specific than that. His lawyer gets to see relevant classified evidence.

Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies are already very hesitant to divulge classified evidence to the CSRT hearings we already conduct. These are part of the internal and nonadversarial military process today. Intelligence agencies will inevitably refuse to provide sensitive evidence to detainees and their lawyers. They will not risk compromising such information for the sake of detaining one individual terrorist.

In addition, the United States already has tenuous relations with some of the foreign governments, particularly in the Middle East, that have been our best sources of information about groups such as al- Qaida. If we give detainees a legal right to access such information, these foreign governments would simply, I presume, shut off all further supply of information to the United States. Why would they do otherwise? They don't want to expose their own sources, compromise their evidence, or expose even the fact that they have cooperated with the United States. By exposing our cooperation with these governments, the bill perversely applies a sort of ``stop snitching'' policy toward our Middle Eastern allies, which is likely to be as ruthlessly effective as when applied to criminal street gangs to potential witnesses to a crime in the United States.

Some of our best information is gained from foreign intelligence services who, like us, are trying to find out everything they can about these terrorists. Once they know we have to turn the information they gave us over to the terrorists, they are going to stop cooperating with us.

The argument I presented--that sharing classified evidence with al- Qaida detainees and their lawyers would badly damage America's efforts in the war with al-Qaida--was recently reinforced by several declarations that were recently introduced in the ongoing Bismullah litigation. These declarations were filed by the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, and by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, our three top intelligence agencies. Together, these statements confirm that sharing classified information with detainees and their lawyers would not only inevitably lead to leaks of sensitive information, but that it would violate American intelligence agencies' agreements with foreign governments and with confidential human sources--violations that would inevitably undermine these organizations and individuals' willingness to cooperate with the United States in the future.

The final point is that we already know, from hard experience, that providing classified and other sensitive information to al-Qaida members is a bad idea. During the 1995 Federal prosecution in New York of the ``blind sheikh,'' Omar Rahman, prosecutors turned over the names of 200 unindicted coconspirators to the defense. They were required to do so under the civilian criminal justice system of discovery rules, which require that large amounts of evidence be turned over to the defense. The judge warned the defense that the information could only be used to prepare for trial and not for other purposes. Nevertheless, within 10 days of being turned over to the defense, the information found its way to Sudan and into the hands of Osama bin Laden. As the district judge who presided over the case said, ``That list was in downtown Khartoum within 10 days, and bin Laden was aware within 10 days that the Government was on his trail.''

That is what happens when you provide classified information in this context.

In another case tried in the civilian criminal justice system, testimony about the use of cell phones tipped off terrorists as to how the Government was monitoring their networks. According to the judge, ``There was a piece of innocuous testimony about the delivery of a battery for a cell phone.'' This testimony alerted terrorists to the Government surveillance and, as a result, their communication network shut down within days and intelligence was lost to the Government forever--intelligence that might have prevented who knows what.

This particular section of the bill, 1023, repeats the mistakes of the past. Treating the war with al-Qaida similar to a criminal justice investigation would force the United States to choose between compromising information that could be used to prevent further terrorist attacks on one hand and on the other letting captured terrorists go free. As I said before, this is not a choice our Nation should be required to make.

Let me read a couple of the quotations I alluded to earlier from the

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, GEN Michael Hayden, relative to the damage that would be caused by requiring this classified information to be turned over to the defendant or his lawyers:

. . . [M]uch of the information that is potentially

discoverable was provided to the CIA by foreign intelligence

services or discloses the specific assistance provided by the

CIA's global partners in the global war on terror. If the CIA

is compelled to comply with the Court's decision, the CIA

will be obligated to inform its foreign liaison partners that

a court order requires that the CIA provide this information

to the Court and detainee counsel. There is a high

probability that certainly liaison services will decrease

their cooperation with the CIA because of the extent that

their information has become enmeshed in U.S. legal

proceedings. . . .

He goes on:

[S]ome information discoverable under the Court's decision

originated with, or pertains to, clandestine human

intelligence sources. These individuals provide information

or assistance to the CIA only upon the condition of absolute

and lasting secrecy. Revealing this information--even to the

Court or to cleared counsel--would expressly violate these

agreements, and would irreparably harm the CIA's ability to

utilize current sources and to recruit sources in the future.

. . .

Let me read one other comment from General Hayden, the Director of the CIA:

. . . With over 300 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it

appears that compliance with the Court's decision will

require disclosure to several hundred--perhaps more than one

thousand--private attorneys who are not employees of the U.S.

Government and who are not trained in handling classified

information. With so many untrained individuals allowed

access to such sensitive information, I believe that

unauthorized disclosures, even if inadvertent, are not only

probable, but inevitable. The regulations controlling access

to classified information recognize that limiting the number

of people with access is a necessary step in safeguarding

sensitive information. The Court's decision would eviscerate

the U.S. Government's carefully conceived plan to keep its

most highly sensitive information compartmentalized and would

increase the likelihood of public disclosure.

I quote a comment from Robert Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in his affidavit to the court in the case I mentioned:

Disseminating human source information could reasonably

lead to the disclosure of their identities because often the

information provided by human sources is singular in nature.

In other words, he is the only person who knows about it, so when the information is divulged, then the other side knows exactly where it came from.

Back to Director Mueller:

The disclosure of singular information could endanger the

life of the source or his/her family or friends, or cause the

source to suffer physical or economic harm or ostracism

within the community. These consequences, and the inability

of the FBI to protect the identities of its human sources,

would make it exceptionally more difficult for the FBI and

other U.S. intelligence agencies to recruit human sources in

the future.

These are the kinds of irreparable harm that would result if the language of section 1023 remains in the bill. Not my words, but Director Mueller of the FBI, General Hayden, the Director of the CIA, and now I quote from the Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell. Admiral McConnell had this to say:

. . . [T]he Intelligence Community has many sources of

information that must be protected. For example, much of the

information at issue was provided by foreign intelligence

services or would reveal the specific assistance provided by

foreign partners in the global war on terror. Certain liaison

services will likely decrease their cooperation with the U.S.

Government if their information is caught up in U.S. court

proceedings.

One final comment.

. . . Human sources also provide the Intelligence

Community with critical information, but only upon the

condition of absolute secrecy. Revealing this information

would violate the sources of confidentiality we provide these

sources and would likely result in their minimizing or

ceasing altogether their cooperation. Such a disclosure would

harm the Intelligence Community's ability to retain current

sources and recruit new ones, and if we cannot recruit and

retain sources, the Intelligence Community simply cannot

conduct its business.

That is the point of Senator Graham's amendment to strike these provisions from the bill. They would irreparably harm our intelligence collection capability, which is the first defense against these terrorists. That is why the Graham amendment striking section 1023 should be adopted.

We have already bent over backward to provide the detainees at Guantanamo the ability to contest their detention and to have their detention reviewed and eventually even have it reviewed in the U.S. Supreme Court, and before that the Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is a very fair system, more fair than has ever been provided by any other nation in any other circumstance and more than our Constitution requires. So we are treating the people we capture in a very fair way.

What we cannot do is to take those same kinds of protections and apply them anywhere we capture someone in the foreign theater. And as I said before, never in the history of warfare have they been subjected to the criminal justice system of our country. To take that system and try to transport it to the fields of Afghanistan and Iraq would obviously not only be breaking precedent but is a horrible idea for all the reasons I indicated.

I ask my colleagues to give careful attention to the dangerous return to the pre-9/11 notion that these terrorists are, after all, only common criminals and we have to treat them that way. They have made no secret that they are actually at war with us, and we ignore this point at our peril.

I remind my colleagues that the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill says the President will be advised to veto the bill if section 1023 remains in the bill and refer again to a similar statement from the Department of Justice with respect to the habeas corpus provisions that would be added to the bill in the amendment of Senator Leahy.

I hope my colleagues will take all of this information into account when they consider voting on these amendments in this very important Defense authorization bill which we need to pass and the President will want to sign so we can do what is necessary to support our troops whom we have sent into harm's way.

I urge my colleagues to support the Graham amendment to strike section 1023 and not to support the additional habeas corpus rights to terrorists who attack our troops.

Madam President, I, too, wanted to echo the comments of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. I am sure Senator Warner will be recognized many times between now and the time he finally takes his last vote in this Chamber, and as he pointed out, he has a long way to go before that time comes over the course of the next several months. But so many of us respect what he has done over the years as ranking member and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and his work will, in fact, be greatly recognized.

Madam President, I wish to make one quick point in response to what the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, recalling his very famous father, somebody who served in this body and served our Nation well in other capacities, including at Nuremberg, and his friend, Justice Jackson, the same Justice Jackson whom I quoted.

The Senator wasn't on the floor, but I quoted Justice Jackson in the Eisentrager case to point out that nothing could fetter our commanders more than to require habeas corpus rights for the German prisoners of war or the prisoners who were at issue in the Johnson v. Eisentrager case. Justice Jackson himself recognized that the procedures that were awarded to the 50-some war criminals at Nuremberg were not the same kinds of procedures that were being sought in the Eisentrager case. And the habeas corpus rights that would be granted under the Leahy amendment are far different from the rights that were granted to the Nuremberg war crimes defendants.

I think one question that would be interesting to ask of the proponents of the legislation is, if we simply took the rights that were granted to the war criminals tried at Nuremberg and gave those rights to the detainees at issue here, would that be a satisfactory result? I suspect the answer would be no because they are nowhere near the rights that would be included in the amendment that is pending.

So to cite Justice Jackson is to refer back to what he said in Eisentrager and recognize that nothing, according to him--and I agree-- would more fetter our commanders and our troops than granting habeas rights to prisoners or enemy detainees.

Madam President, I might make one further point. I am trying to recall how many defendants there were at Nuremberg. My recollection of the number tried for war crimes is that there were approximately 50. I may be off by a few on that number, but I think my point would still remain, which is that it is one thing to try 50 war criminals out of over 2 million POWs, and it is quite another to grant all 2 million the rights of war criminals. We have tried some of the detainees as the equivalent of war criminals in our courts--Padilla is one of them--but that is not to say we should hold the same criminal trials for all of the tens of thousands of detainees being held in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I will yield, yes.

Madam President, that is a great question, and the answer is that there have never been, in the history of the world, habeas rights granted to enemy detainees or prisoners of war in order to challenge the fact of their detention by either the United States or by the other country from which the great writ came--England. They have never been granted. So the answer is there is no precedent whatsoever. That is why, when colleagues say we want to restore habeas rights, that is an incorrect characterization. Enemy combatants and POWs have never had habeas rights to challenge their detention as a matter of being provided by our Constitution. Never has our Constitution been interpreted as requiring those rights.

I yield the floor.