Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in memory of Gerald Ford, the 38th President of the United States. President Ford shouldered his burden with a unique sense of humility and good humor, in an office not known for nourishing those traits. President Ford's unusual combination of courage, strength, and conviction led America out of a deep crisis, healing our wounds and strengthening our Constitution in the process.

Gerald Ford was a self-made Michigander who worked part-time jobs as a young man to help support his family, and later to put himself through Yale Law School. A man of many talents, he could have been a professional football player, or lived well as an attorney. But instead, he chose a life of service, first as a decorated naval officer, then a 24-year Member of Congress, leader of his party in the House of Representatives, and Presiding Officer of this Chamber as Vice President.

Domestic turmoil and foreign policy challenges marked the mid-1970s, and President Ford addressed them both. History has favorably judged his actions to move the country beyond the Watergate scandal, although he paid a heavy price at the time. He also acknowledged the severe economic difficulties faced by millions of Americans and worked head-on to alleviate them.

Despite the host of domestic challenges America faced, President Ford remained a committed internationalist. He advanced the cause of peace in the Middle East, helping to end hostilities between Israel and Egypt and laying the groundwork for a peace between those two countries that endures to this day. His backing of the Helsinki Accords, while controversial, gave important support to dissidents living under Soviet rule who sought respect for their human rights.

Throughout his life, Gerald Ford handled the responsibilities and challenges that circumstance thrust on him without losing his Midwestern openness and sensibility. To many who disagreed with him, he still came across as a comforting figure who had the Nation's best interests at heart. Central to this ability to connect with people was his self-deprecating sense of humor, summed up by the quip, ``I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln.''

And while he may not have been a Lincoln, he certainly was not a common President. America is a better place because of him, and we all owe President Ford and his wife, Betty, a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is significant both in the problems it seeks to address and the man it seeks to honor.

Since the day he arrived in Congress more than two decades ago, Lane Evans was a tireless advocate for the men and women with whom he served. When Vietnam vets started falling ill from Agent Orange, he led the effort to get them compensation. Lane was one of the first in Congress to speak out about the health problems facing Persian Gulf War veterans. He worked to help veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and he also helped make sure thousands of homeless veterans in our country have a place to sleep. Lane Evans fought these battles for more than 20 years, and even in the face of his own debilitating disease, he kept fighting. Today, veterans across America have Lane Evans to thank for reminding this country of its duty to take care of those who have risked their lives to defend ours.

I am very proud today to introduce the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007. This bill honors a legislator who left behind an enduring legacy of service to our veterans. The legislation also is an important step towards caring for our men and women who are currently fighting for us.

I am being joined today by Senator Olympia Snowe, the lead cosponsor of this bill. Senator Snowe has long been an advocate for veterans in her state, and I have been honored to work with her in the past on veterans issues. We have fought to reduce the backlog of disability claims at the Veterans Benefits Administration and to improve the military's ability to identify and treat Traumatic Brain Injury. Our introduction of the Lane Evans Bill is a continuation of these efforts.

Today, more than 1.5 million American troops have been deployed overseas as part of the Global War on Terror. These brave men and women who protected us are beginning to return home. Six hundred thousand people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are now veterans, and more than 185,000 have already received treatment at the VA. That number is increasing every day. Many of these fighting men and women are coming home with major injuries. As a country, we are only beginning to understand the true costs of the Global War on Terror.

The Government Accountability Office reported that VA has faced $3 billion in budget shortfalls since 2005 because it underestimated the costs of caring for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The VA wasn't getting the information it needed from the Pentagon and was relying on outdated data and incorrect forecasting models. We cannot let these kind of bureaucratic blunders get in the way of the care and support we owe our servicemembers.

To avoid these costly shortfalls in the future, we have to do a better job keeping track of veterans. That's why the first thing the Lane Evans Act does is to establish a system to track Global War on Terror veterans. The VA established a similar data system following the Persian Gulf War. That effort has been invaluable in budget planning as well as in monitoring emerging health trends and diseases linked to the Gulf War. The Gulf War Veterans Information System also has been important to medical research and improved care for veterans. The sooner we begin keeping accurate track of our fighting men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, the better and more efficiently we will be able to care for them.

The Lane Evans Act also tackles Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Mental health patients account for about one-third of the new veterans seeking care at the VA. The VA's National Center for PTSD reports that ``the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most sustained combat operations since the Vietnam War, and initial signs imply that these ongoing wars are likely to produce a new generation of veterans with chronic mental health problems.''

This bill addresses PTSD in two ways. First, it extends the window during which new veterans can automatically get care for mental health from two years to five years. Right now, any servicemember discharged from the military has up to two years to walk into a VA facility and get care, no questions asked. After that, vets have to prove that they are disabled because of a service-connected injury, or they have to prove their income is below threshold levels. Unfortunately, it can take years for symptoms of PTSD to manifest. The time it takes to prove service-connection for mental health illness is valuable time lost during which veterans are not receiving critically needed treatment. The Lane Evans Act allows veterans to walk into a VA facility any time five years after discharge and get assessed for mental health care. This both extends the window and shortens the wait for vets to get care.

Second, the legislation makes face-to-face physical and mental health screening mandatory 30 to 90 days after a soldier is deployed in a war zone. This will ensure that our fighting force is ready for battle, and that we can identify and treat those at risk for PTSD. By making the exams mandatory, we can help eliminate the stigma associated with mental health screening and treatment.

Another problem veterans face is that the VA and DoD do not effectively share medical and military records. Older veterans often have to wait years for their benefits as the Department of Defense recovers aging and lost paper records. Under the Lane Evans Act, the Department of Defense would provide each separating service member at the time of discharge with a secure full electronic copy of all military and medical records to help them apply for healthcare and benefits. DoD possesses the technology to do this now. The information could be useful to VA to quickly and accurately document receipt of vaccinations or deployment to a war zone. The electronic data will also be helpful in future generations when family members of veterans seek information about military service, awards, and wartime deployment that go well beyond the existing single-sheet DD-214 discharge certificate, which is all veterans currently receive.

Finally, the legislation improves the transition assistance that National Guardsmen and military reservists receive when they return from deployment. A 2005 GAO report found that because demobilization for guardsmen and reservists is accelerated, reserve units get abbreviated and perfunctory transition assistance including limited employment training. VA should provide equal briefings and transition services for all service members regarding VA healthcare, disability compensation, and other benefits, regardless of their duty status.

Lane Evans dedicated his life to serving this country and serving veterans. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing today, honors both the man and his mission, and will continue his legacy to the next generation of American veterans.

Mr. President, in 2005, Congress enacted the Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, as part of the Energy Policy Act. The RFS is a commitment by the United States government that, henceforth, ethanol must comprise a substantial part of the national vehicle fuel supply, with a goal of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in our gasoline by 2012.

Ethanol production has responded vigorously to this national policy. In fact, in only two years, ethanol production has boomed to where it now far exceeds the RFS target for this year. It is

widely anticipated that ethanol production will surpass the target for the year 2012 by the end of this year, five years early.

Clearly, it is time to increase the RFS targets. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill introduced today by my colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar, that will increase those targets to 30 billion gallons by the year 2020 and 60 billion gallons by the year 2030. I hope my colleagues will support the provisions of that bill.

But for an expanded RFS to be successful, we must lay further groundwork. We cannot meet the targets and deadlines of an expanded RFS without a robust package of policies that set the stage for the next decade.

So far, we've met our biofuels goals by producing ethanol made from sugars that come from corn. This approach, by itself, has been profoundly successful in many rural communities but will eventually reach its maximum capacity. While that day is still several years away, we must begin preparations now. We must build upon our current path. We must continue our pursuit in cracking the code for corn cellulosics. We must pour the foundation for the next generation of biofuels made from the broadest range of agriculture feedstocks. Our vocabulary must expand to cellulosics and biobut- anols, manure and miscanthus.

The American Fuels Act, which I introduce today, breathes life into an expanded RFS. The American Fuels Act is the heart, the centerpiece, the key to ensuring that an expanded RFS is successful. That's why I am pleased to be joined today by my esteemed colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin, in the introduction of this bill.

The premise of the American Fuels Act is to create a ``Biofuels Triangle'' that focuses on (1). production, (2). distribution, and (3) consumption.

To expand production, we create an ``Alternative Diesel Standard'' for diesels that complements the RFS for gasoline. The Alternative Diesel Standard requires 2 billion gallons of alternative diesels into the 40 billion gallon domestic diesel supply by the year 2016, encouraging greater use of biofuel feedstocks like vegetable oils, animal fats, coal-to-liquids, manure, and municipal waste. We call for the establishment of a cellulosic biomass fuels credit of an additional 76.5 cents per gallon so that first-generation cellulosic plants can be built to meet the 250 million gallon production goals by 2012.

To expand distribution, the American Fuels Act provides a tax credit for ethanol producers to invest in on-site blending equipment, bypassing oil refineries so that E-85 can be transported directly to the pump at your local gas station. Our bill also provides freedom for fuel franchisers by making it illegal for oil companies to stop their branded franchises from selling biofuels should these local businessmen wish to respond to their customer's request for biofuels. This bill also gives franchisers the power to sue oil companies for imposing any restrictions.

And to expand consumption, the American Fuels Act encourages the manufacture of more vehicles that can function on higher ethanol blends like E-85 so that more passenger cars to be flexible fuel vehicles. We provide a $100 tax credit to automakers for each ethanol-capable vehicle produced beyond the CAFE credit or any other government requirement. We require that 100 percent of the Federal fleet must be ethanol-capable or hybrids in the next 7 years. And we require that any public transit agency that uses Federal dollars to upgrade bus fleets must purchase an alternative fuel bus, or pledge to use alternative fuels in those buses.

To oversee these efforts, we create a Director of Energy Security in the Office of the President to ensure that our massive investment in domestically produced fuels get the national security leadership and coordination it requires.

Our dependence on oil is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security by keeping us tied to the world's most dangerous and unstable regimes. It's the fossil fuels we insist on burning-- particularly oil--that are the single greatest cause of climate change and the damaging weather patterns that have been its result. Never has the failure to take on a single challenge so detrimentally affected nearly every aspect of our well-being as Nation. And never have the possible solutions had the potential to do so much good for so many generations to come.

That's why I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the American Fuels Act. I ask for their support, and for the swift enactment of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the American Fuels Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is significant both in the problems it seeks to address and the man it seeks to honor.

Since the day he arrived in Congress more than two decades ago, Lane Evans was a tireless advocate for the men and women with whom he served. When Vietnam vets started falling ill from Agent Orange, he led the effort to get them compensation. Lane was one of the first in Congress to speak out about the health problems facing Persian Gulf War veterans. He worked to help veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and he also helped make sure thousands of homeless veterans in our country have a place to sleep. Lane Evans fought these battles for more than 20 years, and even in the face of his own debilitating disease, he kept fighting. Today, veterans across America have Lane Evans to thank for reminding this country of its duty to take care of those who have risked their lives to defend ours.

I am very proud today to introduce the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007. This bill honors a legislator who left behind an enduring legacy of service to our veterans. The legislation also is an important step towards caring for our men and women who are currently fighting for us.

I am being joined today by Senator Olympia Snowe, the lead cosponsor of this bill. Senator Snowe has long been an advocate for veterans in her state, and I have been honored to work with her in the past on veterans issues. We have fought to reduce the backlog of disability claims at the Veterans Benefits Administration and to improve the military's ability to identify and treat Traumatic Brain Injury. Our introduction of the Lane Evans Bill is a continuation of these efforts.

Today, more than 1.5 million American troops have been deployed overseas as part of the Global War on Terror. These brave men and women who protected us are beginning to return home. Six hundred thousand people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are now veterans, and more than 185,000 have already received treatment at the VA. That number is increasing every day. Many of these fighting men and women are coming home with major injuries. As a country, we are only beginning to understand the true costs of the Global War on Terror.

The Government Accountability Office reported that VA has faced $3 billion in budget shortfalls since 2005 because it underestimated the costs of caring for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The VA wasn't getting the information it needed from the Pentagon and was relying on outdated data and incorrect forecasting models. We cannot let these kind of bureaucratic blunders get in the way of the care and support we owe our servicemembers.

To avoid these costly shortfalls in the future, we have to do a better job keeping track of veterans. That's why the first thing the Lane Evans Act does is to establish a system to track Global War on Terror veterans. The VA established a similar data system following the Persian Gulf War. That effort has been invaluable in budget planning as well as in monitoring emerging health trends and diseases linked to the Gulf War. The Gulf War Veterans Information System also has been important to medical research and improved care for veterans. The sooner we begin keeping accurate track of our fighting men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, the better and more efficiently we will be able to care for them.

The Lane Evans Act also tackles Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Mental health patients account for about one-third of the new veterans seeking care at the VA. The VA's National Center for PTSD reports that ``the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most sustained combat operations since the Vietnam War, and initial signs imply that these ongoing wars are likely to produce a new generation of veterans with chronic mental health problems.''

This bill addresses PTSD in two ways. First, it extends the window during which new veterans can automatically get care for mental health from two years to five years. Right now, any servicemember discharged from the military has up to two years to walk into a VA facility and get care, no questions asked. After that, vets have to prove that they are disabled because of a service-connected injury, or they have to prove their income is below threshold levels. Unfortunately, it can take years for symptoms of PTSD to manifest. The time it takes to prove service-connection for mental health illness is valuable time lost during which veterans are not receiving critically needed treatment. The Lane Evans Act allows veterans to walk into a VA facility any time five years after discharge and get assessed for mental health care. This both extends the window and shortens the wait for vets to get care.

Second, the legislation makes face-to-face physical and mental health screening mandatory 30 to 90 days after a soldier is deployed in a war zone. This will ensure that our fighting force is ready for battle, and that we can identify and treat those at risk for PTSD. By making the exams mandatory, we can help eliminate the stigma associated with mental health screening and treatment.

Another problem veterans face is that the VA and DoD do not effectively share medical and military records. Older veterans often have to wait years for their benefits as the Department of Defense recovers aging and lost paper records. Under the Lane Evans Act, the Department of Defense would provide each separating service member at the time of discharge with a secure full electronic copy of all military and medical records to help them apply for healthcare and benefits. DoD possesses the technology to do this now. The information could be useful to VA to quickly and accurately document receipt of vaccinations or deployment to a war zone. The electronic data will also be helpful in future generations when family members of veterans seek information about military service, awards, and wartime deployment that go well beyond the existing single-sheet DD-214 discharge certificate, which is all veterans currently receive.

Finally, the legislation improves the transition assistance that National Guardsmen and military reservists receive when they return from deployment. A 2005 GAO report found that because demobilization for guardsmen and reservists is accelerated, reserve units get abbreviated and perfunctory transition assistance including limited employment training. VA should provide equal briefings and transition services for all service members regarding VA healthcare, disability compensation, and other benefits, regardless of their duty status.

Lane Evans dedicated his life to serving this country and serving veterans. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing today, honors both the man and his mission, and will continue his legacy to the next generation of American veterans.

Mr. President, in 2005, Congress enacted the Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, as part of the Energy Policy Act. The RFS is a commitment by the United States government that, henceforth, ethanol must comprise a substantial part of the national vehicle fuel supply, with a goal of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in our gasoline by 2012.

Ethanol production has responded vigorously to this national policy. In fact, in only two years, ethanol production has boomed to where it now far exceeds the RFS target for this year. It is

widely anticipated that ethanol production will surpass the target for the year 2012 by the end of this year, five years early.

Clearly, it is time to increase the RFS targets. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill introduced today by my colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar, that will increase those targets to 30 billion gallons by the year 2020 and 60 billion gallons by the year 2030. I hope my colleagues will support the provisions of that bill.

But for an expanded RFS to be successful, we must lay further groundwork. We cannot meet the targets and deadlines of an expanded RFS without a robust package of policies that set the stage for the next decade.

So far, we've met our biofuels goals by producing ethanol made from sugars that come from corn. This approach, by itself, has been profoundly successful in many rural communities but will eventually reach its maximum capacity. While that day is still several years away, we must begin preparations now. We must build upon our current path. We must continue our pursuit in cracking the code for corn cellulosics. We must pour the foundation for the next generation of biofuels made from the broadest range of agriculture feedstocks. Our vocabulary must expand to cellulosics and biobut- anols, manure and miscanthus.

The American Fuels Act, which I introduce today, breathes life into an expanded RFS. The American Fuels Act is the heart, the centerpiece, the key to ensuring that an expanded RFS is successful. That's why I am pleased to be joined today by my esteemed colleagues, Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin, in the introduction of this bill.

The premise of the American Fuels Act is to create a ``Biofuels Triangle'' that focuses on (1). production, (2). distribution, and (3) consumption.

To expand production, we create an ``Alternative Diesel Standard'' for diesels that complements the RFS for gasoline. The Alternative Diesel Standard requires 2 billion gallons of alternative diesels into the 40 billion gallon domestic diesel supply by the year 2016, encouraging greater use of biofuel feedstocks like vegetable oils, animal fats, coal-to-liquids, manure, and municipal waste. We call for the establishment of a cellulosic biomass fuels credit of an additional 76.5 cents per gallon so that first-generation cellulosic plants can be built to meet the 250 million gallon production goals by 2012.

To expand distribution, the American Fuels Act provides a tax credit for ethanol producers to invest in on-site blending equipment, bypassing oil refineries so that E-85 can be transported directly to the pump at your local gas station. Our bill also provides freedom for fuel franchisers by making it illegal for oil companies to stop their branded franchises from selling biofuels should these local businessmen wish to respond to their customer's request for biofuels. This bill also gives franchisers the power to sue oil companies for imposing any restrictions.

And to expand consumption, the American Fuels Act encourages the manufacture of more vehicles that can function on higher ethanol blends like E-85 so that more passenger cars to be flexible fuel vehicles. We provide a $100 tax credit to automakers for each ethanol-capable vehicle produced beyond the CAFE credit or any other government requirement. We require that 100 percent of the Federal fleet must be ethanol-capable or hybrids in the next 7 years. And we require that any public transit agency that uses Federal dollars to upgrade bus fleets must purchase an alternative fuel bus, or pledge to use alternative fuels in those buses.

To oversee these efforts, we create a Director of Energy Security in the Office of the President to ensure that our massive investment in domestically produced fuels get the national security leadership and coordination it requires.

Our dependence on oil is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security by keeping us tied to the world's most dangerous and unstable regimes. It's the fossil fuels we insist on burning-- particularly oil--that are the single greatest cause of climate change and the damaging weather patterns that have been its result. Never has the failure to take on a single challenge so detrimentally affected nearly every aspect of our well-being as Nation. And never have the possible solutions had the potential to do so much good for so many generations to come.

That's why I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the American Fuels Act. I ask for their support, and for the swift enactment of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the American Fuels Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this year we witnessed a historic election, where the American people said loud and clear that the Nation is going in the wrong direction and things must change. One important part of that change is cleaning up our electoral process.

Dirty tricks are not a new thing in American politics. I am from Chicago, and my hometown has seen its share of political tricks. But some of tricks we have seen in recent elections astounded even those of us who thought we had seen everything.

For example, in 2002, the executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee saw flyers advertising telephone numbers for Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts that offered voters rides to the polls. The executive director then hatched the idea of jamming those phone lines on election day to prevent voters from getting rides to the polls.

He consulted the New England Regional Political Director for the Republican National Committee, who led him to an associate who could handle phone jamming efforts, an outfit called GOP Marketplace. GOP Marketplace contacted an Idaho-based tele-services company that agreed to have employees place hang-up calls to the Manchester Democratic Party and the Manchester Professional Firefighters Association--the two groups offering rides--on election day, November 5, 2002.

As a result of these efforts, the New Hampshire Democratic Party's get-out-the-vote volunteers and employees answered the phones only to find callers who said nothing and immediately hung up. Legitimate voters who called the Manchester Democratic Party or the Manchester Professional Firefighters Association seeking a ride to the polls received busy signals.

The Department of Justice prosecuted many of those responsible for this dirty campaign, and some of the guilty have already served their sentences. These men were tried under existing phone harassment and civil rights laws. However, it is likely that the perpetrators of the next phone jamming effort will not be so ham-handed. General harassment laws may be insufficient to get at the next conspiracy. And even in the most recent election, we continue to hear about instances in which phone lines are misused.

That is why I am introducing the Election Jamming Prevention Act today. This bill will ensure that those who seek to disable election- related telephone communications will be criminally liable. This does not impede political speech--but this does stop nefarious efforts to shut down phone lines to cripple election-related efforts. From get- out-the-vote efforts, to voter education campaigns, qualified voters deserve to have access to information that will assist them in the exercise of their right to vote. Someone's ability to hire a company to place hang-up calls should not determine whether voters get the information they need to go to the polls on election day.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue, so I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to a decent and principled member of this body, Mark Dayton. Over the past 6 years, Senator Dayton has proven his dedication to the highest ideals of this body through his devotion to economic justice, education, and health care concerns.

In October 2002, Mark Dayton voted against the Iraq war resolution, despite the fact that President Bush was presenting fairly convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and most of the Nation was supportive of the decision to go to war. Mark Dayton held to his convictions, and history will judge him favorably because of it.

As a Senator, Mark has donated his entire Senate salary to help his constituents pay for prescription drugs. His salary goes to the Minnesota Senior Federation for ``Rx Express'' bus trips to help senior citizens buy cheaper prescription drugs in Canada. In the Senate, he has fought to make such trips less necessary by proposing the Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries Act to permit the Government to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. He has also introduced the Taste of Our Own Medicine Act to require Members of Congress to share the same prescription drug benefits as Medicare recipients.

Mark Dayton's 6 years in the Senate are a continuation of his lifelong commitment to public service. He previously worked as a teacher on the Lower East Side of New York, as a counselor for runaways, and as the chief financial officer for a social service agency in Boston. He worked for Senator Walter Mondale and campaigned with him during his Vice Presidential bid with President Jimmy Carter. Mark also served twice as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development.

Mark Dayton has used the economic experience he gained as commissioner, and as Minnesota State auditor to help American workers during his time in the Senate. He has supported extended unemployment assistance and an increase in the minimum wage while opposing outsourcing of American jobs.

Senator Dayton has been a strong supporter of increased funding for education. He introduced the Nontraditional Student Success Act and the Restore the Dream Act to help students pay for higher education. He has repeatedly insisted that Congress live up to its promise to America's public schools and children by offering amendments to fully fund the federal government's commitment to special education. Mark has also fought for additional career and technical training.

During his time in this body, Mark Dayton has nobly stood up for the American people. In a speech on the Senate floor, he noted: ``A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is a government that tells the truth to its citizens. If it doesn't, it is not a government of them, not by them, and certainly not for them. It is imperative.''

Although Mark Dayton's voice will no longer be heard on the Senate floor, I know that he will continue to do great work for Minnesotans and for all Americans. I am proud to have served with him and wish him all the best.

Lincoln Chafee

Mr. President, I rise today to bid a fond farewell to my dear colleague and role model, Senator Paul Sarbanes, Maryland's longest serving Senator.

Senator Sarbanes represents the greatest traditions of this body and of our country. He is the type of Senator we all imagined in high school civics class--intelligent, diligent, effective, and thoroughly decent. During the course of 30 years in the U.S. Senate and another 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Maryland House of Delegates, Senator Sarbanes defined what it means to be a trusted public servant in America.

Paul Sarbanes grew up on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, the son of Greek immigrants who instilled the values of opportunity and fairness in their child. Motivated and hard working, Paul attended Princeton University, studied in Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and earned a law degree from Harvard.

Paul first came to the Nation's attention during the Watergate hearings, where as a freshman member of the House Judiciary Committee he introduced the first article of impeachment, which related to obstruction of justice by President Nixon. Paul's own ethics and integrity are beyond reproach, and he has brought dignity and credibility to every task.

In the Senate, Paul's legacy reflects his ideals of opportunity and fairness. He has continually fought for legislation to aid veterans, seniors, workers, and indeed, all Americans. He is a tireless champion for his constituents, his country, and the highest ethical standards. As a Princeton alumnus, he has lived Woodrow Wilson's ideal of ``Princeton in the Nation's Service.'' Each and every day, Paul demonstrates that politics can be an honorable profession. It should be an honorable profession, and I can think of no better model for that ideal than Paul Sarbanes.

In Senator Sarbanes' tenure as both chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Banking, he led the fight on behalf of working-class Americans to ensure affordable housing. He was instrumental in developing and enacting the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, legislation that helps States, local governments, and nonprofit organizations work together to build, buy, and rehabilitate housing that hard-working people can afford. Paul has also worked to protect Americans from unscrupulous lending practices and discrimination. His hearings and legislation on predatory lending brought this problem to the attention of the Nation, and his work to reduce the cost of private mortgage insurance helped make home ownership a reality for millions of Americans.

After Enron collapsed under the weight of widespread abuse and accounting fraud, thousands of workers woke up to see their jobs and life savings gone, investors lost billions, and the public cried out against corporate malfeasance. The credibility of American business and our financial system was on the line. It was Senator Sarbanes who brought his intelligence and concern to bear to restore investor confidence and implement safeguards against Wall Street abuses. He held comprehensive hearings, nurtured a bipartisan coalition, crafted thoughtful legislation and shepherded it through Congress with Representative Mike Oxley in the House.

The Sarbanes-Oxley law was the most comprehensive overhaul of corporate oversight laws since the Great Depression. It created a standard of transparency and accountability to assure investors and protect workers. It is a towering achievement that will strengthen the American economy for many years to come.

It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with Senator Sarbanes on the Foreign Relations Committee. I have marveled at his keen intellect and commitment to his responsibilities. During committee hearings and committee markups, Senator Sarbanes is always well- prepared, asks direct, insightful, and important questions, and makes sure that no stone goes unturned.

He has played a key role in virtually all of the significant foreign policy debates that have occurred during his 30 years of service on the committee. As a freshman, he was involved in the successful ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties. He worked to enact tough antiapartheid laws in the 1980s. And he has developed a long and impressive record on international economics, foreign assistance, and human rights issues.

The American people have been well served by Paul's leadership, and this

institution would be well served if each of us was a little more like him. On behalf of all of us, and for my constituents, I want to thank him for his service and his example.

Let's wish Senator Sarbanes and his wife Christine well in this next phase of their lives. But let's also hope that we will continue to hear Paul's voice on important policy issues. He may be retiring from this body, but I suspect his commitment to strengthening this country and improving the lives of all Americans will continue. For that, as much as for all that Paul has accomplished through his distinguished career in the Senate, we should be grateful. I know that I am.

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

Mr. President, my vote today for Robert Gates is a vote for significant change in our Iraq policy.

Last month, the American people uniformly rejected the policy-by- slogan approach to Iraq, rejected the false choice between ``cut-and- run'' and ``stay the course'' rejected ideological, insular, and wrongheaded leadership at the Pentagon. Dr. Gates' challenge will be to help President Bush chart a new course that takes a realistic view of the deteriorating situation in Iraq and makes the hard decisions to salvage an acceptable outcome to this long and misguided war.

There are several signs that give me hope that Robert Gates is up to this challenge. First and most important is the environment in which Gates is taking the Pentagon's helm. Following the election, it is clear the American people expect significant change in Iraq. President Bush nominated Gates with a mandate to find ``fresh perspective and new ideas'' for Iraq. And today's Iraq Study Group's report helped create a framework to move forward, in a bipartisan fashion, with a shift in U.S. policy. As I laid out in a speech 3 weeks ago, I believe this shift must include a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, a new diplomatic effort that includes engagement with Iran and Syria and other key nations, and a stance that conditions further assistance to progress in Iraq. All of these were also proposed by the Iraq Study Group.

Second, in his own congressional testimony and comments, Dr. Gates has expressed openness to new ideas, saying that all options should be on the table for Iraq. He expressed refreshing candor in admitting past mistakes in Iraq. And Gates promised to work in a constructive, respectful way with military commanders, the Iraq Study Group, and Congress to find a new way forward.

Third is Gates' extensive experience. He served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and he was the only career officer in the CIA's history to rise from entry- level employee to Director.

Everyone knows that Gates' job will not be easy. There are no good options left in Iraq. There is no set of policy changes that can guarantee a good outcome. There is a great resistance to

change in this administration, from the President down. Among Presidential appointees, there still is significant danger in speaking truth to power.

The President, Senate, and the American people are putting a great deal on Dr. Gates' shoulders. I am voting for him with the hope that he can make us proud.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge an extraordinary constituent of mine, Dr. Jennifer Richeson. An associate professor at Northwestern University, Jennifer has recently been named a MacArthur Fellow.

Each year, the MacArthur Fellows Program typically accepts our Nation's most ingenuous and diligent minds. The Program is highly selective; typically only 20 to 30 applicants are accepted. Moreover, although the fellowship grants a $500,000 stipend, it is not meant to be a reward. Rather, it is an investment in the creative potential of our Nation. To activate this potential, the stipend is free of stipulations; scholars spend their grant on whatever projects they choose.

In 1994, Dr. Richeson received a bachelor's degree in psychology from Brown University. Then, in 2000, Jennifer received a doctorate in social psychology from Harvard University. Now, at Northwestern, she has used innovative research techniques to study the effects of racial stereotyping and discrimination on cognition and behavior. With the stipend she receives from her fellowship, Dr. Richeson will surely make further contributions to our society's understanding of psychological and racial issues.

I congratulate Dr. Richeson on her accomplishments. She is a model of academic excellence and commitment, and I am proud to be her Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, S. 3709. As I have said before, I believe strengthening the relationship between our two nations is an important strategic goal and this legislation helps us take a dramatic step in this direction.

However, like many of my colleagues, I have concerns with potential nonproliferation consequences of this agreement. Much to my disappointment, the administration has done very little to address these concerns, instead, sending draft legislation to the Congress that was essentially a blank check.

The managers of the bill, Senators Lugar and Biden, have done a tremendous job taking the administration's proposal and shaping it into meaningful, bipartisan legislation. The bill now before the Senate helps move us closer to India while addressing some key nonproliferation issues.

However, I remain concerned about the issue of nuclear testing. A decision by the Indian Government to conduct such a test could trigger an arms race in South Asia that would be extremely dangerous and destabilizing.

The good news is that the joint statement between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh of July 18, 2005 declared that India's unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing will continue. I take Prime Minister Singh at his word, but also believe in following President Reagan's mantra of ``trust but verify.''

To this end, I am wondering if the chairman will take a few moments to clarify a couple matters concerning this legislation. Is it the managers' belief that section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act, AEA, will apply prospectively to India--aside from the sections of the AEA that are explicitly amended by S. 3709?

On a related note, is it the chairman's interpretation of the legislation that, in the event of a future nuclear test by the Government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales, and nuclear technology cooperation would terminate; other elements of the United States-India nuclear agreement would likely terminate; and the United States would have the right to demand the return of nuclear supplies?

I offered an amendment that the managers have already accepted pertaining to the supply of nuclear power reactor fuel in safeguarded, civilian nuclear facilities. To further clarify this issue, is it the managers' understanding that provision of a fuel to the Government of India should be sized in a way to maintain a deterrent to Indian nuclear testing, while also providing protections against short-term fluctuations in the supply of nuclear fuel? In other words, is it your understanding that providing a fuel reserve to India is not intended to facilitate a resumption in nuclear testing?

Does the chairman believe that, as this agreement moves forward to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, NSG, the United States should work to ensure that other nations provide nuclear power reactor fuel in a similar fashion?

Finally, would the managers agree that section 105 of S. 3709 requires that the President determine, prior to exercising the waivers in section 104, that ``an agreement between India and the IAEA requiring the application of safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with IAEA standards, principles, and practices to civil nuclear facilities, programs, and materials . . . has entered into force,'' and that the

most logical approach, as U.S. officials have stated for the record, would be to use the IAEA INFCIRC/66, Rev. 2 agreement as the model for India's safeguards agreement?

I thank the managers.

Because Senator Durbin has hit the major points, I will simply say that the atrocities in Darfur are a moral and humanitarian emergency, and the people of the United States should be searching for effective tools to help end this violence and bloodshed. While not the only answer, I believe that divestment by individual States can be a part of the solution--it certainly was so during the fight to end apartheid in South Africa.

I strongly support the provision in the House-passed bill on this issue. My sense is that there was bipartisan, bicameral support for this provision. But because of the objections of a few key members of Congress, this provision was dropped in the interest of passing the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which I believe has some important provisions, before the Congress recesses at the end of this month.

I am wondering if the senior Senator from Illinois, who is also the Assistant Democratic Leader, shares this view and if he could comment on this issue.

I thank the senior Senator from Illinois. As Senator Durbin

outlined, the State of Illinois has a long and proud history on the issue of divestment. I know that we will both continue to engage to push our government and the international community to do all it can to halt the violence in Darfur and, as part of our efforts, search to enact divestment language into law. I hope to draw upon the support, just mentioned by Senator Durbin, in pushing this measure forward over the coming months.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint, in introducing the Education Opportunity Act.

We often hear that many students who graduate from high school are not ready for the academic rigors of college. This is especially problematic for students from low-income families. For these students to succeed in the transition to college, they must have opportunity, and a continuity of classroom experiences that prepare them for success. Academic rigor in a high school curriculum is essential in establishing the momentum necessary for a student to progress toward a bachelor's degree.

The unfortunate fact is that not all students have access to a challenging high school curriculum. Low-income students are often disadvantaged by a lack of rigorous courses in their high school, especially in subjects such as the advanced mathematics courses that are so important for college success. Universities and community colleges have increasingly provided such courses to high school students. But the cost of such classes can be a barrier to low-income students, who are the very students most likely to be enrolled in high schools that provide the most limited access to challenging college preparatory curricula.

This legislation will provide a program for grant support to allow thousands of students with limited exposure to college-level programs in their high schools to earn college credit at their local university or community college. I urge my colleagues to join us in extending opportunities for college success to deserving low-income high school students.

Mr. President, for forty years the civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer rallied the Nation with her statement ``I am sick and tired, of being sick and tired.'' She would be disheartened to know the extent to which her words are still resonating with millions of Americans today. Whether we are talking about African Americans, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, the fact is that minorities continue to suffer a greater burden of disease and die prematurely. African Americans are one-third more likely than all other Americans to die from cancer, and have the highest rate of new HIV infection. One in 3 Latinos has no insurance coverage. Fifty percent of Americans suffering from chronic hepatitis B are Asian. And among many American Indian tribes, the rate of diabetes has hit epidemic proportions, with rates near 50 percent in certain tribes. The state of minority health in this Nation is deplorable, and by many measures, is getting worse.

Researchers have contributed a substantial body of work that has increased our understanding of the factors contributing to poor health. Higher rates of uninsurance are one such factor. Racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos, are significantly more likely to be uninsured. This lack of access to care leads to delayed or foregone care, and according to the Institute of Medicine, is the 6th leading cause of death in this Nation for adults aged 25-64. But equally disturbing, an overwhelming number of studies have shown that regardless of insurance status, minorities are more likely to receive low quality health care, and as a consequence, suffer worse health outcomes.

The Institute of Medicine's 2002 historic report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare, documented persistent and pervasive disparities in health care for minority groups, even after adjusting for differences in insurance status and socioeconomic factors. The American Journal of Public Health has reported that more than 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African Americans had received the same level of health care as whites. In contrast, the same study estimates that technological improvements in medicine--including better drugs, devices and procedures--prevented only 176,633 deaths during the same period.

African Americans are not the only minorities getting worse care. Data has shown, for example, that compared to white Americans, Mexican Americans receive 38 percent fewer heart medications, and American Indians get recommended care for only 40 percent of quality measures. The bottom line is that although the level of health care quality is mediocre at best for all Americans, it is much worse for minority groups. And this is unacceptable.

For these reasons, I am joining my colleagues Senator Frist and Senator Kennedy in introducing the Minority Health Improvement and Health Disparity Elimination Act. This critical legislation has a number of important provisions to help address the dismal health status of minority and other underserved populations. First, this bill strengthens education and training in cultural competence and communication, which is the cornerstone of quality health care for all patients. It also reauthorizes the pipeline programs in Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, which seek to increase diversity in the health professions. We all know that the door to opportunity is only half open for minority students in the health professions. The percentage of minority health professionals is shockingly low--African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians account for one-third of the Nation's population but less than 10 percent of the Nation's doctors, less than 5 percent of dentists and only 12 percent of nurses. We can do better, and we must.

Lack of workforce diversity has serious implications for both access and quality of health care. Minority physicians are significantly more likely to treat low-income patients, and their patients are disproportionately minority. Studies have also shown that minority physicians provide higher quality of care to minority patients, who are more satisfied with their care and more likely to follow their doctor's recommendations.

Second, this bill expands and supports a number of initiatives to increase access to quality care. Specifically, the legislation authorizes demonstration projects to help address health disparities in the U.S.-Mexico border region, increase health coverage and continuity of coverage, identify and implement effective disease management strategies, train community health workers, and increase enrollment of minorities in clinical trials. The REACH program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Disparity Collaboratives at the Bureau of Primary Health Care are authorized in statute. And I am pleased that the Community Health Initiative has also been authorized. This new environmental public health program is modeled after the Health Action Zones in the Healthy Communities Act, S. 2047, that I introduced a year ago, and guides and strengthens community efforts to improve health in comprehensive and sustained fashion.

A third area of focus is expansion and acceleration of data collection and research across the agencies, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, with special emphasis on translational research. The tremendous advances in medical science and health technology, which have benefited millions of Americans, have remained out of reach for too many minorities, and translational research will help to remedy this problem. The National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which has a leadership role in establishing the disparities research strategic plan at the National Institutes of Health, is reauthorized, and a new advisory committee has been established at the Food and Drug Administration, to focus on pharmacogenomics and its safe and appropriate application in minority populations.

Last but not least, I want to highlight that the bill reauthorizes the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination. This Office has been critical in providing the leadership, expertise and guidance for health improvement activities within the agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, and has helped to ensure coordination, collaboration and integration of such efforts as well.

In conclusion, I want to note that this is the first bipartisan effort on minority health and health disparities since 2000, when the Congress passed the last minority health bill. That bill accelerated the research that documented the full scope and magnitude of disparities in health and health care in this Nation, and more importantly, helped us understand why these disparities occur. But it is time for the next step. We've got to translate the knowledge we have gained into practical and effective interventions that will improve minority health and eliminate disparities, and this bill will help us do just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring and passing this critical legislation. Regardless of how you measure it--whether by needless suffering, lost productivity, financial costs, or lives lost-- disparities in health and health care are a tremendous problem and moral imperative for our Nation, and one that is within our power to address right now. On behalf of the millions of Americans who continue to be sick and tired of being sick and tired, I ask you to join me in voting yes to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint, in introducing the Education Opportunity Act.

We often hear that many students who graduate from high school are not ready for the academic rigors of college. This is especially problematic for students from low-income families. For these students to succeed in the transition to college, they must have opportunity, and a continuity of classroom experiences that prepare them for success. Academic rigor in a high school curriculum is essential in establishing the momentum necessary for a student to progress toward a bachelor's degree.

The unfortunate fact is that not all students have access to a challenging high school curriculum. Low-income students are often disadvantaged by a lack of rigorous courses in their high school, especially in subjects such as the advanced mathematics courses that are so important for college success. Universities and community colleges have increasingly provided such courses to high school students. But the cost of such classes can be a barrier to low-income students, who are the very students most likely to be enrolled in high schools that provide the most limited access to challenging college preparatory curricula.

This legislation will provide a program for grant support to allow thousands of students with limited exposure to college-level programs in their high schools to earn college credit at their local university or community college. I urge my colleagues to join us in extending opportunities for college success to deserving low-income high school students.

Mr. President, for forty years the civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer rallied the Nation with her statement ``I am sick and tired, of being sick and tired.'' She would be disheartened to know the extent to which her words are still resonating with millions of Americans today. Whether we are talking about African Americans, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, the fact is that minorities continue to suffer a greater burden of disease and die prematurely. African Americans are one-third more likely than all other Americans to die from cancer, and have the highest rate of new HIV infection. One in 3 Latinos has no insurance coverage. Fifty percent of Americans suffering from chronic hepatitis B are Asian. And among many American Indian tribes, the rate of diabetes has hit epidemic proportions, with rates near 50 percent in certain tribes. The state of minority health in this Nation is deplorable, and by many measures, is getting worse.

Researchers have contributed a substantial body of work that has increased our understanding of the factors contributing to poor health. Higher rates of uninsurance are one such factor. Racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos, are significantly more likely to be uninsured. This lack of access to care leads to delayed or foregone care, and according to the Institute of Medicine, is the 6th leading cause of death in this Nation for adults aged 25-64. But equally disturbing, an overwhelming number of studies have shown that regardless of insurance status, minorities are more likely to receive low quality health care, and as a consequence, suffer worse health outcomes.

The Institute of Medicine's 2002 historic report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare, documented persistent and pervasive disparities in health care for minority groups, even after adjusting for differences in insurance status and socioeconomic factors. The American Journal of Public Health has reported that more than 886,000 deaths could have been prevented from 1991 to 2000 if African Americans had received the same level of health care as whites. In contrast, the same study estimates that technological improvements in medicine--including better drugs, devices and procedures--prevented only 176,633 deaths during the same period.

African Americans are not the only minorities getting worse care. Data has shown, for example, that compared to white Americans, Mexican Americans receive 38 percent fewer heart medications, and American Indians get recommended care for only 40 percent of quality measures. The bottom line is that although the level of health care quality is mediocre at best for all Americans, it is much worse for minority groups. And this is unacceptable.

For these reasons, I am joining my colleagues Senator Frist and Senator Kennedy in introducing the Minority Health Improvement and Health Disparity Elimination Act. This critical legislation has a number of important provisions to help address the dismal health status of minority and other underserved populations. First, this bill strengthens education and training in cultural competence and communication, which is the cornerstone of quality health care for all patients. It also reauthorizes the pipeline programs in Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, which seek to increase diversity in the health professions. We all know that the door to opportunity is only half open for minority students in the health professions. The percentage of minority health professionals is shockingly low--African Americans, Hispanics and American Indians account for one-third of the Nation's population but less than 10 percent of the Nation's doctors, less than 5 percent of dentists and only 12 percent of nurses. We can do better, and we must.

Lack of workforce diversity has serious implications for both access and quality of health care. Minority physicians are significantly more likely to treat low-income patients, and their patients are disproportionately minority. Studies have also shown that minority physicians provide higher quality of care to minority patients, who are more satisfied with their care and more likely to follow their doctor's recommendations.

Second, this bill expands and supports a number of initiatives to increase access to quality care. Specifically, the legislation authorizes demonstration projects to help address health disparities in the U.S.-Mexico border region, increase health coverage and continuity of coverage, identify and implement effective disease management strategies, train community health workers, and increase enrollment of minorities in clinical trials. The REACH program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Disparity Collaboratives at the Bureau of Primary Health Care are authorized in statute. And I am pleased that the Community Health Initiative has also been authorized. This new environmental public health program is modeled after the Health Action Zones in the Healthy Communities Act, S. 2047, that I introduced a year ago, and guides and strengthens community efforts to improve health in comprehensive and sustained fashion.

A third area of focus is expansion and acceleration of data collection and research across the agencies, including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, with special emphasis on translational research. The tremendous advances in medical science and health technology, which have benefited millions of Americans, have remained out of reach for too many minorities, and translational research will help to remedy this problem. The National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which has a leadership role in establishing the disparities research strategic plan at the National Institutes of Health, is reauthorized, and a new advisory committee has been established at the Food and Drug Administration, to focus on pharmacogenomics and its safe and appropriate application in minority populations.

Last but not least, I want to highlight that the bill reauthorizes the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination. This Office has been critical in providing the leadership, expertise and guidance for health improvement activities within the agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, and has helped to ensure coordination, collaboration and integration of such efforts as well.

In conclusion, I want to note that this is the first bipartisan effort on minority health and health disparities since 2000, when the Congress passed the last minority health bill. That bill accelerated the research that documented the full scope and magnitude of disparities in health and health care in this Nation, and more importantly, helped us understand why these disparities occur. But it is time for the next step. We've got to translate the knowledge we have gained into practical and effective interventions that will improve minority health and eliminate disparities, and this bill will help us do just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring and passing this critical legislation. Regardless of how you measure it--whether by needless suffering, lost productivity, financial costs, or lives lost-- disparities in health and health care are a tremendous problem and moral imperative for our Nation, and one that is within our power to address right now. On behalf of the millions of Americans who continue to be sick and tired of being sick and tired, I ask you to join me in voting yes to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague from West Virginia.

I am proud to be sponsoring this amendment with the senior Senator from West Virginia. He is absolutely right that Congress has abrogated its oversight responsibilities, and one way to reverse that troubling trend is to adopt a sunset provision in this bill. We did it in the PATRIOT Act, and that allowed us to make important revisions to the bill that reflected our experience about what worked and what didn't work during the previous 5 years. We should do that again with this important piece of legislation.

It is important to note that this is not a conventional war we are fighting, as has been noted oftentimes by our President and on the other side of the aisle. We don't know when this war against terrorism might end. There is no emperor to sign a surrender document. As a consequence, unless we build into our own processes some mechanism to oversee what we are doing, then we are going to have an open-ended situation, not just for this particular President but for every President for the foreseeable future. And we will not have any formal mechanism to require us to take a look and to make sure it is being done right.

This amendment would make a significant improvement to the existing legislation, and it is one of those amendments that would, in normal circumstances, I believe, garner strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, we are not in normal circumstances.

Let me take a few minutes to speak more broadly about the bill before us.

I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here. I realize that soon--perhaps today, perhaps tomorrow--we will adjourn for the fall. The campaigning will begin in earnest. There are going to be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces criticizing people who don't vote for this legislation as caring more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that this vote was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to the fire.

Yet, while I know all of this, I am still disappointed because what we are doing here today, a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused, should be bigger than politics. This is serious and this is somber, as the President noted today.

I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Virginia. It saddens me to stand and not be foursquare with him. I don't know a more patriotic individual or anybody I admire more. When the Armed Services bill that was originally conceived came out, I thought to myself: This is a proud moment in the Senate. I thought: Here is a bipartisan piece of work that has been structured and well thought through that we can all join together and support to make sure we are taking care of business.

The fact is, although the debate we have been having on this floor has obviously shown we have some ideological differences, the truth is we could have settled most of these issues on habeas corpus, on this sunset provision, on a whole host of issues. The Armed Services Committee showed us how to do it.

All of us, Democrats and Republicans, want to do whatever it takes to track down terrorists and bring them to justice as swiftly as possible. All of us want to give our President every tool necessary to do this, and all of us were willing to do that in this bill. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to the American people.

In the 5 years the President's system of military tribunals has existed, the fact is not one terrorist has been tried, not one has been convicted, and in the end, the Supreme Court of the United States found the whole thing unconstitutional because we were rushing through a process and not overseeing it with sufficient care. Which is why we are here today.

We could have fixed all this several years ago in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question. We could do that still.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

I will conclude, then. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia.

Instead of allowing this President--or any President--to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus--the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance--one single chance--to ask the Government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.

But politics won today. Politics won. The administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists.

And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists--people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives.

And yet, we have a report authored by sixteen of our own Government's intelligence agencies, a previous draft of which described, and I quote, ``. . . actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay . . .''

And yet, we have al-Qaida and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own Government's intelligence says is serving as al-Qaida's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement 5 years after the fact.

The problem with this bill is not that it is too tough on terrorists. The problem with this bill is that it is sloppy. And the reason it is sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right.

I have heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not Federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that.

The problem is that the structure of the military proceedings has been poorly thought through. Indeed, the regulations that are supposed to be governing administrative hearings for these detainees, which should have been issued months ago, still haven't been issued. Instead, we have rushed through a bill that stands a good chance of being challenged once again in the Supreme Court.

This is not how a serious administration would approach the problem of terrorism. I know the President came here today and was insisting that this is supposed to be our primary concern. He is absolutely right it should be our primary concern--which is why we should be approaching this with a somberness and seriousness that this administration has not displayed with this legislation.

Now let me make clear--for those who plot terror against the United

State, I hope God has mercy on their soul, because I certainly do not.

For those who our Government suspects of terror, I support whatever tools are necessary to try them and uncover their plot.

We also know that some have been detained who have no connection to terror whatsoever. We have already had reports from the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo shouldn't have been there--as one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal, ``Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks.'' And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. They may remain locked away forever.

The sad part about all of this is that this betrayal of American values is unnecessary.

We could have drafted a bipartisan, well-structured bill that provided adequate due process through the military courts, had an effective review process that would've prevented frivolous lawsuits being filed and kept lawyers from clogging our courts, but upheld the basic ideals that have made this country great.

Instead, what we have is a flawed document that in fact betrays the best instincts of some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle-- those who worked in a bipartisan fashion in the Armed Services Committee to craft a bill that we could have been proud of. And they essentially got steamrolled by this administration and by the imperatives of November 7.

That is not how we should be doing business in the U.S. Senate, and that is not how we should be prosecuting this war on terrorism. When we are sloppy and cut corners, we are undermining those very virtues of America that will lead us to success in winning this war. At bare minimum, I hope we can at least pass this provision so that cooler heads can prevail after the silly season of politics is over.

I conclude by saying this: Senator Byrd has spent more time in this Chamber than many of us combined. He has seen the ebb and flow of politics in this Nation. He understands that sometimes we get caught up in the heat of the moment. The design of the Senate has been to cool those passions and to step back and take a somber look and a careful look at what we are doing.

Passions never flare up more than during times where we feel threatened. I strongly urge, despite my great admiration for one of the sponsors of the underlying bill, that we accept this extraordinarily modest amendment that would allow us to go back in 5 years' time and make sure what we are doing serves American ideals, American values, and ultimately will make us more successful in prosecuting the war on terror about which all of us are concerned.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2006. I am pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me in this effort.

Lead is a poison we have known about for a long time. Studies have long linked lead exposure to learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma, and even death. Lead is particularly damaging to children because their developing brains are more susceptible to harm.

A study released last week found that children with even very low levels of lead exposure have four times the risk of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than normal and that childhood lead exposure leads to 290,000 cases of ADHD.

The major source of lead exposure among U.S. children is lead-based paint. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recognized this hazard and banned leaded paints. But today, 30 years later, about 24 million older homes, and millions of other buildings, have deteriorating lead paint and elevated levels of lead-contaminated dust.

We know how children are typically exposed. We know what the health effects from exposure are. And we know how to fix the source of the exposure. The one thing we don't know how to do is reverse the brain damage once it has occurred. So, otherwise healthy children wind up facing a lifetime of disadvantage because we have failed to eradicate this insidious problem.

Every day, millions of American parents drop their children off at child care facilities on their way to work. Nearly 12 million children under age 5 spend 40 hours a week in child care. And every day, many of those children in older buildings may be exposed to lead poisoning.

While many child care facilities have taken steps to ensure sources of potential lead exposure are eliminated, too many operate in older buildings that need repair or remodeling to ensure these sources are contained. These facilities may be in wealthy communities, but more often than not, they are in poor communities where parents have few choices for child care. I'm sure many of these facilities would fix the problem if they only had the resources.

The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act protects our children in two ways.

First, the bill establishes a five-year, $42.6 million grant program to help communities reduce lead exposure in facilities such as day care centers, Head Start centers, and kindergarten classrooms where young children spend a great deal of time. Communities

could use the funds for testing, abatement, and communicating the risks of lead to children and parents.

Second, the bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish regulations to eliminate sources of lead exposure in child care facilities, starting with new facilities in 18 months and all facilities in five years.

It's a straightforward fix to a straightforward problem. I hope my colleagues join me in helping to create lead-safe environments in all child care facilities.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from the great State of Illinois, to introduce the Patriot Employers Act of 2006.

This measure is designed to help businesses and American workers seeking to compete in the global economy. By reducing corporate taxes for those firms that invest in America and American employees, the Patriot Employers Act rewards companies that, among other things, pay decent benefits, provide health coverage and support our troops by paying a full differential salary for deployed National Guard employees.

Too often we hear troubling news reports of American companies outsourcing jobs and exploiting corporate tax loopholes--by setting up incorporated offices, for example, in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Such companies fail to see that they are connected to the markets in which they operate, and by dodging their financial responsibilities, they are harming the very economy that they, too, will need to rely on in the future.

Recognizing these challenges, this bill says that we are going to align our corporate tax policy with the corporate practices we want to encourage.

The Patriot Employers Act cuts taxes for American companies that: maintain headquarters in the U.S.; pay at least 60 percent of employees' healthcare premiums; maintain or increase their U.S. workforce relative to their workforce located abroad; pay an hourly rate several dollars above the outdated minimum wage; provide either a defined benefit retirement plan or a defined contribution plan with an employer match; and provide full differential salary and benefits for National Guard employees called into active duty.

It is important that our American firms remain competitive and innovate, in part by investing in the long-term health of those workers and communities in which they operate and impact. Increasing corporate shareholder value and acting in the interests of the public good are not mutually exclusive goals, and this legislation recognizes that point. All of us have a stake in improving returns to all corporate stakeholders, including investors, managers, employees, consumers, and our communities.

To this end, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I hope that it will renew attempts by lawmakers--both legislative and otherwise--to engage productively with the business community to address their long-term market concerns while promoting the well-being of American workers. Government does not create jobs; entrepreneurs and businesses do. The future of the American economy requires that American businesses continue to grow and improve their productivity and competitiveness. It requires that American companies have the very best workforce and infrastructure to compete and win in every market they enter.

Ensuring American competitiveness will demand new thinking from leaders in business, labor, education, and government: it will demand new responses and roles, new coalitions and collaborations, among these stakeholders. Long-term American competitiveness will demand bipartisan commitment to strengthening all parts of our economy and improving opportunities for all Americans.

The Patriot Employers Act is an important step in this process. Let's align business incentives with the investments we need in the future of the American workforce. Let's begin the conversation about how to ensure American competitiveness for the 21st century and beyond.

I urge quick support for this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is significant both in the problems it seeks to address and the man it seeks to honor.

Since the day he arrived in Congress more than two decades ago, Lane Evans has been a tireless advocate for the men and women with whom he served. When Vietnam vets started falling ill from Agent Orange, he led the effort to get them compensation. Lane was one of the first in Congress to speak out about the health problems facing Persian Gulf war veterans. He's worked to help veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and he's also helped make sure thousands of homeless veterans in our country have a place to sleep.

Lane Evans has fought these battles for more than 20 years, and even in the face of his own debilitating disease, he kept fighting. Today, veterans across America have Lane Evans to thank for reminding this country of its duty to take care of those who have risked their lives to defend ours.

I am very proud today to introduce the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006. This bill honors a legislator who leaves behind an enduring legacy of service to our veterans. The legislation also is an important step towards caring for our men and women who are currently fighting for us.

Today, nearly 1.5 million American troops have been deployed overseas as part of the global war on terror. These brave men and women who protected us are beginning to return home. Six hundred thousand people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are now veterans, and at least 184,400 have already received treatment at the VA. That number is increasing every day. Many of these fighting men and women are coming home with major injuries. As a country, we are only beginning to understand the true costs of the global war on terror.

For instance, last week, the Government Accountability Office reported that VA has faced $3 billion in budget shortfalls since 2005 because it underestimated the costs of caring for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The VA wasn't getting the information it needed from the Pentagon and was relying on outdated data and incorrect forecasting models. We cannot let these kind of bureaucratic blunders get in the way of the care and support we owe our servicemembers.

To avoid these costly shortfalls in the future, we have to do a better job keeping track of veterans. That's why the first thing the Lane Evans Act does is to establish a system to track global war on terror veterans. The VA established a similar data system following the Persian Gulf War. That effort has

been invaluable in budget planning as well as in monitoring emerging health trends and diseases linked to the gulf war. The Gulf War Veterans Information System also has been important to medical research and improved care for veterans. The sooner we begin keeping accurate track of our fighting men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, the better and more efficiently we will be able to care for them.

The Lane Evans Act also tackles Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Mental health patients account for about a third of the new veterans seeking care at the VA. The VA's National Center for PTSD reports that ``the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most sustained combat operations since the Vietnam War, and initial signs imply that these ongoing wars are likely to produce a new generation of veterans with chronic mental health problems.''

This bill addresses PTSD in 2 ways. First, it extends the window during which new veterans can automatically get care for mental health from 2 years to 5 years. Right now, any servicemember discharged from the military has up to 2 years to walk into the VA and get care, no questions asked. After that, vets have to prove that they are disabled because of a service-connected injury, or they have to prove their income is below threshold levels. Unfortunately, it can take years for symptoms of PTSD to manifest themselves. The time it takes to prove service-connection for mental health illness is valuable time lost during which veterans are not receiving critically needed treatment. The Lane Evans Act allows veterans to walk into a VA any time 5 years after discharge and get assessed for mental health care. This both extends the window and shortens the wait for vets to get care.

Second, the legislation makes face-to-face physical and mental health screening mandatory 30 to 90 days after a soldier is deployed in a war zone. This will ensure that our fighting force is ready for battle, and that we can identify and treat those at risk for PTSD. By making the exams mandatory, we can help eliminate the stigma associated with mental health screening and treatment.

Another problem veterans face is that the VA and DoD do not effectively share medical and military records. Older veterans often have to wait years for their benefits as the Department of Defense recovers aging and lost paper records. Under the Lane Evans Act, the Department of Defense would provide each separating service member at the time of discharge with a secure full electronic copy of all military and medical records to help them apply for healthcare and benefits. DoD possesses the technology to do this now. The information could be useful to VA to quickly and accurately document receipt of vaccinations or deployment to a war zone. The electronic data will also be helpful in future generations when family members of veterans seek information about military service, awards, and wartime deployment that goes well beyond the existing single-sheet DD-214 discharge certificate, which is all veterans currently receive.

Finally, the legislation improves the transition assistance that guardsmen and reservists receive when they return from deployment. A 2005 GAG report found that because demobilization for guardsmen and reservists is accelerated, reserve units get abbreviated and perfunctory transition assistance including limited employment training. VA should provide equal briefings and transition services for all service members regarding VA healthcare, disability compensation, and other benefits, regardless of their duty status.

Lane Evans dedicated his life to serving this country and dedicated his time in Congress to serving veterans. The legislation I am introducing today, honors both the man and his mission, and will continue his legacy to the next generation of American veterans.